12 ways to gently respectfully challenge pro-trans arguments

[Ladyof2024]

I thought this might come in useful to those just beginning to take on the opposition.
-------------

Twelve Ways to Voice Opposition to Daft Ideas Without Losing Friends or Alienating People, by Joanna Gray.

====================================
How to get better at objecting to unedifying ideas

Ask the person suggesting an obviously daft idea if he or she would mind if you shared your opinion about it, rather than foisting it on him or her uninvited.

Respect others’ intentions. Most people are good and are trying their best, so avoid a heavy-handed aggressive disapproval.

Ask questions: “That’s such an interesting idea Chancellor, what are you hoping to achieve by it?” Often, that is sufficient: if the idea is flawed it will unravel itself in no time.

Remember your Aristotle: to win debates you need ethos, logos and pathos. Ethos is your good character and your authority to speak on the subject – most crudely used by those who say “as a mother…”. Logos is the truth of the matter. Pathos is your ability to persuade your opponent. Emotion alone is insufficient to win the point, it must be backed up by truth, but an ability to connect with and respect the emotion of your opponent is vital.

Remember you are debating the idea not the person. Don’t make him or her feel threatened, belittled or ill-informed.

Just try it! You don’t need to present a fully formed Douglas Murray-style-gotcha speech, initially it might just be sufficient to say, “I’m not yet sure why, but this idea is making me feel uncomfortable, may I have a think about it and get back to you?” If social or career disaster doesn’t follow, then you may feel emboldened to make a more spirited and researched objection later.

Be prepared to flatter. “You will know more about this than me but have you thought about…”

Listen to your opponent. Don’t stand there rolling your eyes, tutting or guffawing,

Remain calm and never shout.

Be prepared to use their own language. “Chancellor, this act of removing artworks of men might be considered by some to sit adjacent to sexism…”

Be satisfied with having planted a seed of doubt in those who listen to you, rather than furiously fighting for decisive victory.

Remind yourself why making a stand is important: “If not me, who? If not now, when?”

Do we have to simper whilst we appease them and gently ask them to think? I'm not sure my tiny lady brain can simper at the same time, if it's not important I'll drop it.

I don't think op suggested simpering....

OP, I’m going to assume your intentions are good, but I present this article from someone in Norwich Quakers. They attempted to enable an exploratory discussion on this topic, with limited success and having been met in their gentle enquiries with suspicion, refusal and frankly, rudeness.

https://www.norwichquakers.org.uk/post/norwich-meeting-s-experience-of-conflict-around-transgender-issues-january-2019-january-2020

Consider also Kathleen Stock, one of the politest and gentle women in this campaign. She was hounded out of her job and experienced incredible amounts of hatred.

While your theoretical approach might be persuasive to those on the fence, no presentation of facts and no expending of empathy and energy will ever persuade a true believer. They dismiss any and all counter arguments as blasphemy and refuse to listen whenever the cognitive dissonance of their position starts to nudge into their consciousness.

Best of luck if your genuine intent is to try persuasion.

Just on the first point, if they have foisted their 'obviously daft' idea on me wtf do I have to ask whether they'd mind if I gave mine (daft or not). Expressing their idea to me is a tacit invitation to me to respond. That is how humans communicate.

Oh

Is this written by a human?

Twelve Ways to Voice Opposition to Daft Ideas Without Losing Friends or Alienating People – The Daily Sceptic

Here's the article for the OP's extract.

The OP is quoting from a written piece or book, so my question is aimed at the author, not the OP, but naturally, is largely rhetorical.

Respectfully challenging anything, fine but why does it need to be ‘gently’ challenged? I don’t think men would be encouraged to gently challenge anything they didn’t believe in, why are you suggesting this is necessary?

Why should I flatter anyone whose opinions I don’t agree with?

Gently flattering people we disagree with sounds pretty akin to simpering.

I guess if you only "gently" challenge, they might not punch you quite so hard.
All this appeasement is exhausting.

Yes, I see it is the OP who has introduced the concepts of respectful (some things are not worthy of respect) and gentleness (not a bad thing in itself but may be perceived as weakness).

My advice is be polite, start with the words 'I disagree', then explain why.

Avoid mind games, flattery, and manipulation.

Because you are seeking to persuade, not antagonise with naked opposition. The more you put on pressure, the more you will entrench the views of the other person, which would be pointless.

As the quote says Respect others’ intentions. Most people are good and are trying their best, so avoid a heavy-handed aggressive disapproval

I no longer believe this of TRA. I do not think they are good, well intentioned or trying their best, in the main.
No, you be kind.

This. With cowbells on.

Agree.

The key to any successful discussion is mutual listening. Without it there is no communication.

If you were chairing it you'd give each party equal time - say three minutes to set out their position. Allow a discussion through the chair. Give them two more minutes to sum up. Take notes, see is there any common ground.

You may get nowhere wrt agreement, as with the Norwich Quakers, but at least everyone has had a chance to give their views. That may be the most you can hope for. But people should not be expected to appease aggressors.

The same applies to informal 'in the wild' communication. If they say something to you, you can say something to them back. And no-one is entitled to force another person to lie.

Be prepared to flatter. “You will know more about this than me but have you thought about…”

😆😆 This just made me laugh out loud.

Eg
".... Have you thought about it from a woman's perspective"

We TRIED this.
We tried this already.
We just got bullied into silence.

Agree. After years of toxic abuse, lies, threats and intimidation I think it is inappropriate to suggest that women are kind, modest, keep their eyes lowered and appease the other side at this stage.

Sometimes women need to point out that we know more about many things than the chaps do. Starting with what being a woman feels like, something that no man can possibly know, whether he calls himself a transwoman or not. He is a men, his feelings are a man's feelings.

Alternatively, you could just say "are you completely fucking mental? Why and how have you come to believe such utter bollocks?" Works for me.

That is an approach certainly. But for those people whose interest in being trans does arise from mental illness (see, yet again, the anorexia parallel) 'completely fucking mental' might be slightly too near the bone.

I think in reality staunchly GC people and full on TRAs have demonised people with the opposing viewpoints to such an extent that there is no way for them to have a conversation where either of them is able to change the others mind about anything.

I can't see many people on either side of the debate being moved by the approach suggested in the op.

I think in reality staunchly GC people and full on TRAs have demonised people with the opposing viewpoints

No one has "demonized" transpeople or TRAs.

No one forced TRAs to hold up signs calling for "terfs to be decapitated" or actually end up in women's prison or women's shelters to rape women.

Somehow pointing out what TRAs do is "demonization" and we need to be "kinder" in putting across our message.

On the other hand, JKR should be raped etc etc.

Yes, be kind. Where did it get us?

"You know more about this than I"!!? I don't think this advice would be given to men. How about sending this advice to the people who threaten rape, suicide of children, who violently attack innocent women at marches and try to storm medical conferences?

This is just more of the 'toxic debate', 'it's a culture war', 'both sides as bad as each other' nonsense.

As others have said, show me the death and rape threats, refusal to debate, deplatforming those with opposing views and lack of any coherent argument from GC people.

Go on, I'll wait....(puts on kettle in a triumph of hope over experience).

I feel like this post demonstrates the point I was making in my post.

A TRA could not persuade you to change your mind on anything to do with the issue with gentle questioning just as you would not be able to persuade a TRA.