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?”

I’d suggest it’s more of an argument than a basic assertion from someone on an internet forum with no verifiable knowledge or experience, but a very clear GC bias.

I don't care to share my knowledge and experience with random people on mumsnet, thanks. But of course you will recognise your own clear bias.

Anyway, this is all very gentle and respectful.

Forgive me if I missed it, but gay people didn't actually ask to be added to other people's marriages did they?

This being a very clear difference to the cross sex demands of genderism, where trans people do not want to be treated as equal and supported for who they are, but want the right to define other people's experience of their own sex, and to redefine other people's single sex rights, protections and language to accomodate their ideological belief in an ineffable "gender identity" that cannot be perceived by others yet still supercedes sex-based needs in all social and legal contexts.

The GRA was 2004. Not 2006.

Please don't conflate sexual orientation with gender identity.

1. Sex = biology
2. Sexual orientation = who you're attracted to: same-sex, opposite-sex or both. Yes, it's a feeling. One that everyone has, unless something has impacted their sexual function e.g. side effect of medication. Most people discover theirs some time during puberty.
3. Gender identity = the belief that everyone has a inner "male", "female" or other "essence" of some kind that differs from their sex

When sex and gender identity get conflated it causes a muddle because we end up with people pushing their gender identity on to those who don't have that belief e.g. a (transwo)man identifying in to women's sports.

When sexual orientation and gender identity get conflated it also causes a muddle because everyone's "sexual orientation" effectively does a reverse flip. For example, a man who is attracted to women is heterosexual.... but if that same man now identifies as a woman (obviously it won't have any impact on who he's attracted to) he's apparently now a lesbian. So the (transwo)man has now identified in to lesbianism, irrespective of whether anyone holds the belief that (s)he is a woman or not.

In both cases, anyone saying no to the enforcement of the (transwo)man's belief as fact is likely to be branded transphobic.

By contrast, when someone is gay it affects nobody else at all. Obviously homophobic people might claim to be impacted but if they're honest with themselves, they'll recognise that the only impact is their own disgust at the idea that people are gay. That's very different from women losing out in sports events (because it's a reality of biology that men are stronger, faster etc by a considerable margin) or lesbians being told they should accept ladydick.

Re sport, this isn't the same as Michael Phelps' arm length advantage or similar. There will always be variations within biology that give some people advantage within their sex category. But as an overall category class, males are stronger/faster than females. A better comparison would be the difference between the Olympics and Paralympics (and the category classes within the Paralympics): each category has been created because of a notable overall difference between that category and another. The category of sex is the most fundamental of all across all sports events, otherwise we'd just have open events.... and males would hold the vast majority of records, irrespective of whether they identify as women or not.

Thanks. I’ll remember than next time you’re haranguing me 😂

It's just more predictable gender ideology whataboutery isn't it.

What about gay rights? What about DSDs? What about adoption? What about race?

All of these other very different things somehow mean that men can be women in one way or another.

It's still a no from me.

So knowing how babies are made is a pseudo-religious philosophical belief now, is it? Right....
😂

Doesn't dadjoke believe that being gay means you're a male or female person attracted to male or female people? Either sex?

I've never understood what he means by it as he's failed to ever try and convey what he actually means.

Still no hint from anyone as to why society should be upended, why women should lose their hard-won rights, why people's rights to freedom of belief and freedom of association should be curtailed, why children should be put on irreversible medical pathways...on the basis of the subjective, unobservable and unverifiable beliefs of a tiny minority.

Not even any explanation of what gender actually is. or sex. Which I would have thought is pretty fundamental.
I live in hope.

I found it fascinating that Elle said she has brought up her daughter to believe she can do anything. Why can't the same excellent advice be given to children who believe they have the wrong body? The kids who think they don't have the right body to fall in love with their best friend of the same sex. Or play football.
Surely "you can do anything" is what we should also be telling those children, not "yes, you're right - your body is wrong".

Thanks. I’ll remember than next time you’re haranguing me

I'm not asking you to share personal or outing info Elle, just to link your sources in the research you've said that you've done. Something I am more than happy to do, so I'm not sure why it's such a big ask, and why you don't want to share them.

In the absence of that, I'm afraid I don't find most of your arguments particularly convincing, and I'm sure you feel the same way given your obvious bias, but at least I can back mine up.

I don't care to share my knowledge and experience with random people on mumsnet, thanks.

Just for any lurkers who didn't know -
A lot of people have persuaded people that they are not gay. They've been told that "really" they're the opposite sex, so "really" they're straight.

When they question what gay, straight, man or woman means - they are ignored and patronised with dishonest answers.

I'll ignore all your "basic assertions on an anonymous internet forum" then from someone with "no verifiable knowledge or experience", but a very clear genderist bias.

I don't care to share my knowledge and experience with random people on mumsnet, thanks.

That's not... that's not what asking for sources is.
Oh dear...

Fine, I'll disregard whatever you say from hereon in then since you are unable and/or unwilling to share the sources for your knowledge.

That was a quote from a GC poster, @GailBlancheViola. HTH.

"Gay people also "expect expect society to be remodelled" on the basis of their identity, by equalising the age of consent, introducing marriage equality and not treating their identity as a perversion."

This has been covered on thread, after thread, after thread.

People who are homosexual or bisexual were after 'equal' opportunities and equal treatment. No special additional treatments compared to heterosexual.

Homosexual and bisexual people's rights demands are not comparable to people with a gender identity's rights demands.

"This annoyed a lot of people with protected philosophical beliefs, but that's how you balance rights."

No. Treating homosexual and bisexual people as having equal rights as heterosexual people annoyed some people who supported illegitimate discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people.

How you "balance rights" is when you fully consider everyone's rights and see where negative impacts occur and a government may have to make hard decisions to support the rejection of an additional rights demand when it negatively impacts another group's rights. 'Balancing rights' doesn't mean giving one group additional rights either. That is not 'balancing rights'. That is providing a group with additional rights.

It is descending into fuckwittery with false comparators and misinformation at this stage.

Luckily no one is doing that

How you "balance rights" is when you fully consider everyone's rights and see where negative impacts occur and a government may have to make hard decisions to support the rejection of an additional rights demand when it negatively impacts another group's rights. 'Balancing rights' doesn't mean giving one group additional rights either. That is not 'balancing rights'. That is providing a group with additional rights.

The problem is that many genderists see people, even vulnerable people, who won't toe their ideological line and pretend that they accept people's "gender identities" as valid as beneath their contempt and undeserving of any consideration at all.

The idea of a conflict of rights or balancing rights does not compute, because they don't believe our needs should be part of it.

However, there is usually an element of cognitive dissonance because most of these people do draw a line in the sand somewhere, and will grudgingly admit that sex matters for some limited purposes.

I can say, for instance, as a rape survivor, that I do not consent to any men at all in a female only space where I am vulnerable. Men entering female only spaces is an attack on my rights and a violation of my boundaries and my psychological wellbeing.

So there is a conflict right there, which is not acknowledged by most genderists.

They will say things like "well not all female rape survivors agree with you". Which doesn't stop it being a conflict of rights.

Not to mention that the MCW doesn't have a right to counsel you. Or be thought of as a woman by you or anyone else.
That's the only sense in which it isn't a conflict of rights. The rights are ours, what they want is privileges.

Or they will say "men aren't allowed though, trans women are women!" Which is their ideological position (not even a coherent belief for many, as I highlighted earlier, because they make exceptions). But it certainly isn't mine. To me, people are male, or female, and their claimed identity doesn't come into it.

This is why I don't actually use the term "trans woman" myself, because it heads off some of the gaslighting around it.

Yes.