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?”

There is a sense of desperation when I now see posts that declare that TWAW. Because that statement has lost any power with the growing number of ‘except when …’ amendments that now follow that.

Exactly. It doesn't make any coherent sense.

Every month there are less and less occasions a male’s demand to be treated as a female person will be considered acceptable. The number of people who also accept that these male people are to be treated as female is dropping as they realise the massive disconnect with material reality those demands now have and they realise it was never anything but a philosophical belief.

This drop in support is well documented, despite all the waffle and gaslighting from genderists all over social media.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4593730-yougov-study-attitudes-to-transgender-rights-have-eroded

In your view, how should this work for males like Pips Bunce, who identify as men some days and as transwomen other days? Is it justifiable for him to use the female toilets if he comes in to work wearing a dress?

He won a "women in business" award on the basis of this behaviour. Do you think this makes sense, or is it a mockery of actual women?

Agreed, it's such a contradiction with much of the other TRA rhetoric. I do wonder if the TWAW enthusiasts on the thread might helpfully explain this for us.

To save googling for certain posters, here's the single sex exceptions in the EQA2010 -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

And the organisations vociferously trying to remove these -

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Dadjoke has acknowledged that there are single sex exceptions (we've shared them often enough) but has previously argued that the level required to meet these exceptions (proportionate etc etc) excludes practically every service from providing a single sex service. It's 'Stonewall law' in action again.

And it's bullshite.

It is indeed.

Just in case you haven't seen it, Dadjoke -

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/ERCC-Review-Report-FINAL1-.pdf

It wasn't the transwomen being excluded. It was the women, denied any single sex service, being lied to by staff and not being signposted to a service which could provide what they needed that were excluded.

Hm I did not expect some of these reactions!

I thought everyone would realise that Joanna Gray's suggestions won't work with TRAs. They are a lost cause.

But I have unintentionally been drawn into convos about this issue with female business clients (customers and retailers) who I don't want to fall out with and who have only dipped their toe into the water and are nowhere near being hard-nosed TRA. They are the "bekind" mob because they have not looked into the question at all.

For this type of person I think Ms Gray's suggestions could be useful.

So far all I have managed to do with my hardline, no nonsense, no "being kind" terfy stance is to alienate, antagonise and anger people, to get blocked, ejected from local groups and to damage my own business! I have harmed myself, and yet still not persuaded them to think again.

Sorry to hear this.

However, you don't know how many ordinary, non reactionary people who might never say anything to you or in public that you have encouraged.

I am always open to changing my mind, because for me, my position is one of evidence not of blind belief.

I was on the fence about this issue when I first encountered it around 2016.

It was the reasoned arguments and evidence that I saw on one side, vs the abuse and illogic that I saw on the other which consolidated my now GC position.

If I was presented with some logical reasonable argument from the Gender side of things, who knows, I might change my mind. I'm still waiting for this to happen though after 8 years of hanging around these boards and interacting with trans people and their supporters IRL.

I have only ever seen 'be kind' directed at one group, and it's not the genderists.

Edit for clarity.

“I am always open to changing my mind, because for me, my position is one of evidence not of blind belief.”

Yes. If I see any evidence that would change my position on this, I would welcome it. But there is not. And I am exhausted from
asking those who blindly support to show their thinking. Because, I now understand that these people have nothing but emotionally driven argument that they have been convinced by. There is nothing objective and material. And there is now even less holding together any of the emotionally driven arguments as well.

The support for believing male people can ever be considered female is getting weaker and weaker. Every month or so another segment of people with transgender identities is excluded in the description.

And if one transgender identitified person is excluded, why is any of them? Because there is no science supporting this. It is purely philosophical belief and if one person with the belief is excluded, why is anyone included? If a male person is excluded from the female category of sport, from
being considered female as a rapist, a rape counsellor, a medical examiner, etc, why are any of them included?

The day I see evidence that a mammal - any mammal, I'm not fussy - has changed sex, I will review my position.

you wouldn't settle for a fish?

Possibly a cetacean?

I think it's like the existence of God. Whenever the current explanation is disproved by science (or in the case of gender revealed as simple sexism), the believers simply find another story to believe. In my head it's like someone stepping backwards behind a new curtain whenever the current one is pulled aside.

Their desire for the thing they want to be true is why they believe it. The reasons they give to believe it are secondary, looked for in retrospect to justify their foregone conclusion.

On here too. The fact denying hardliners will never change their minds. The posters who whinge that women are right but aren't lowering their voices and being sweet enough are just a bizarre example of internalised misogyny. I saw an example of this on a recent thread which basically said 'you may have a point but you haven't couched it in a way that meets the nurturing, subservient gender stereotype of women so I'm putting my fingers in my ears'.

The people on here (and real life) who we are appealing to are the lurkers. The ones who know there's something fucking weird going on and want help to crystallise their own feelings by seeing posts which set out evidence, articles and facts. Sometimes a bit robustly.

But it shows up the meaningless, lacking in evidence, 'you're all soooooo mean' posts for what they are.

I see it like that as well. I do not know whether a deity or deities exist or whether a gender identity which differs from bio sex is genuine. I don't know if it's a product of psychological disturbance or the result of environmental and social forces. Until I see convincing evidence I remain undecided (albeit skeptical) on both and open to good arguments. I just haven't seen any good arguments. I retain a shred of hope that there are such arguments and I just haven't encountered them yet.

I would not.

How about a song/rap about this type of fish?

Always up for a repeat of that, BonfireLady.

OMG, is that what CAMHS said? 🤯

I've been thinking about responding to this comment vs just leaving it. I've landed on responding and am going to keep my fingers crossed that it was the right decision.

Firstly, thank you for being someone who stood firm. Without people having done that, I wouldn't be anywhere near as informed as I am when it comes to supporting my daughter. I'm sorry it's come at a personal cost 😔

I have harmed myself, and yet still not persuaded them to think again.

(My italics above). When I first started finding out about what was happening - so that I could support my daughter - I approached everything with an open mind. I was interested in all viewpoints and for a long time I sought out discussions from all angles. I was genuinely listening, even though I had "something's not right here" vibes from the start. I had to build the aeroplane (take active steps to support my daughter) while flying it (learning about what it all meant and why she had asked us for puberty blockers). Given how clear it was right from the beginning that there were strong opinions on "both sides", it was obvious that had I gone in all guns blazing from the start, I would be cut off and sidelined as a risk to my daughter. Also, I genuinely do see value in listening to people, even if I disagree with them. I might have missed something important to explains their perspective in a helpful way. It's one of the reasons I stayed in a trans parents' group for so long, for example. It was helpful to hear first hand how much these parents clearly loved their children and had wrestled with what was the right thing to do. When I first joined and mentioned that I was concerned about my daughter's autism and how she seemed distressed about puberty, I didn't get my head bitten off or told I had to affirm or else.

But I have unintentionally been drawn into convos about this issue with female business clients (customers and retailers) who I don't want to fall out with and who have only dipped their toe into the water and are nowhere near being hard-nosed TRA. They are the "bekind" mob because they have not looked into the question at all.

I think most people fall in to the Be Kind category. To me, it's illustrated by the two pictures below. Both say the same thing but in different ways. The first is the hardline version and the second delivers the same core message without forcing people to declare themselves as umbrella holders, where they have to accept that they've either got an agenda (the left and right sides) or they have been an idiot. The second picture lets them quietly come to terms with their Useful Idiocy (the majority of Be Kind people), while allowing them time to square their own conscience off with themselves before deciding whether to outwardly admit their previous idiocy (some do e.g. Wes Streeting... partially) or just quietly shift gear (e.g. Lisa Nandy.... maybe). Conversations can take the same path as these diagrams with people who are in the middle - they can recognise they've been holding the umbrella without being shouted at to accept this.

I thought everyone would realise that Joanna Gray's suggestions won't work with TRAs. They are a lost cause.

Indeed. The TRAs are obviously mostly on the left and right side of the umbrella holders. Some are in the middle and won't budge, perhaps because of their egos e.g. celebrity allies.

But equally, it can still be useful to explore common ground with people who advocate for those with a transgender identity. Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Caitlin Jenner and Buck Angel are all examples of people with transgender identities who have spoken out about the harms happening to children. Blaire and Buck talk about gender dysphoria as a mental health issue. Recognising that this can bring value to the discussion has previously had me in hot water on MN but I still believe it can. I've been called naive, blamed for stuff someone else did/said (on a thread I hadn't even been on) and found myself in a position where I was on the defensive trying - and failing - to articulate myself. (FWIW I accept that I had accidentally misrepresented what KJK had actually said directly to me on X, as I had added my own interpretation). As an example of this articulation failure, no matter what I tried saying I was told I was policing other people's language when I say that approaching things in the way laid out in the OP is just as valuable as the hardline no: that we need all voices. I was told to stop demanding that women be nice. I hadn't been 🤦‍♀️

Just because I sometimes engage in ways like those in the OP, doesn't mean I don't understand the risks of listening to opinions from people with a vested interest in the subject. I still know there's a line. For example I don't believe it's a good idea to let people with a paraphilia of any kind work in a school (how you find out about this is another matter but some will tell you they have one), I think it's grim if someone tells you they used to wear their sister's knickers (why is it always the knickers? That's rhetorical) and I recognise why it would feel very distressing for an ex-wife of such a person to hear someone like me saying they'd still have a conversation with such a person. I also recognise how insulting it is to gay men if a transman pushes the idea that they (the gay men) should try "beaver".

Because I had my head bitten off for posting. I was merely passing on one set of Tactics that have been suggested could be used with people who are just trying to be kind.

I have met quite a few middle aged ladies who do not agree with my radical feminist stance on this, they think they are just being kind to these "poor vulnerable" men. Going at them with hammer and tongs is not going to work: gentle questioning is more likely to get them questioning why they think it's okay to be kind to men but cruel to other women.

As I said I am radical feminist and I am fighting this ridiculous gender ideology with every fibre of my terfy being throughout my entire waking days seven days a week without a break, and yet just for passing on something I read somewhere else I am being accused of pandering to these vile disgusting autogynaephiles whom I absolutely despise.

Sorry, Ladyof2024

You're obviously upset by the replies you received.
It's "robust debate" on here after all.

Sorry, anyway. I'm sure you meant well.

No thoughts on this, @DadJoke?