Unfollowing and echo chambers

[KitchenDancefloor]

I spend more time than is healthy on social media, more scrolling than posting. I have found the past week infuriating. The ‘won’t somebody think of the poor men’ reactions to the Supreme Court ruling has made me reflexively unfollow accounts of some individuals and organisations.

However, I haven’t unfollowed everyone. I think it is fair to see people grapple with conflicting emotions or be confused. But any account that treats the clarity in the law as a hate crime can get in the bin.

I would be interested to hear how people balance being open minded to other people’s views with keeping their own sanity online. I’m aware that my family, close friends and trusted colleagues agree with me on gender critical views so it would be easy not to hear or understand other viewpoints (even if it just to hear what mental gymnastics are currently in vogue).

I’m aware of the wider harms that polarisation and lack of listening and discussion can have on society but this brain-fogged perimenopausal woman would also quite like a bit of scrolling for entertainment without wanting to launch her phone across the room.

I actively listen to trans people, including one that am I close to and don't stop speaking / unfollow people I disagree with.

Edited to add that I also read threads on here and listen to people like Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock to make sure I understand their views.

I have empathy for people who's views fall on either side of the fence.

I also see the harms that polarisation causes. I particularly hate the way any women who disagrees with the prevailing narrative on here is dismissed as a "hand-maiden". Similarly, people on the other side dismiss any questioning of TWAW as bigotry. There's no way to come to any kind of solution if alternative viewpoints are instantly dismissed.

That is because the two view points you have listed can't co-exist.

Either sex is changeable or it isn't.

And it isn't, not in law or human biology.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. They clearly do co-exist because people who hold both viewpoints exist.

Do you mean that people who hold these viewpoints find it hard to exist together? That's what I would consider to be one of the harms of polarisation.

Absolutely never hide anyone and make an effort to read TRA comments and articles. I also outside MN never comment or follow anyone on either side to avoid being blocked and missing different perspectives that way.

Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function". He was however, a raging alcoholic.🤔

I mean there is no midpoint for discussion to start from.

Constructive discussion doesn't need to start from a mid point. It needs a willingness to listen and a desire to understand, even if you don't agree.

What is there to understand?

You have two view points, one is you can change sex, the other isn't. One is based on really really wanting something.... For various reasons.
One is factual both in law and biology the other isn't.

I took OP to mean “follow” people in the sense of subscribing to their accounts/discussions on social media as opposed to subscribing to the same belief system as they do.

I think it's perfectly possible for people to believe that people can have a gender identity. There are other people who don't believe in gender at all and that it's just a social construct originally used as another tool to oppress those born female. There are certain behaviours which are more often attributed to one sex over the other - violent crimes are mostly committed by males and sexual violent crime is almost entirely committed by males. But those are to do with sex.

However, the material reality of sex being immutable is a fact and no belief can change the fact that you can't change sex.

When activists misinterpreted the law for their own gains and at the detriment of those born female then it became very difficult especially when governments, institutions and everyone who should have been standing up for those born female didn't.

We live in a pluralist society so we can absolutely accommodate those who believe that they have a gender identity and they can absolutely present how they like and have surgeries but what they cannot do is actually change sex and so they cannot be accommodated in a way that pretends they are the opposite sex because that harms women.

It's not so much a 'two sides' thing as one side trying to pretend fantasy is reality and force everyone else to believe their fantasy and to criminalise anyone who doesn't. The talk from the MP Nadia that all transphobic people should be pushed out of the Labour party. There was much talk that anyone who believed sex is binary and important shouldn't be able to have a job. It's a totalitarian viewpoint and far from tolerant. I'm not sure TERFs have ever spoken that people can't be trans - of course they can and we have never spoken of pushing them out of jobs or similar. We understand that the term comprises of very different types of people from AGP males to troubled teenage girls and we would think that talking therapy could be good for the troubled teens.

I think she means that one person can't genuinely believe that sex is both changeable and unchangeable.

That's not quite what you said, though, but a lot of positions have one or the other beliefs underpinning it.

Also I remember right at the start and it was impossible on any platform to even suggest that discussion was needed before changing single sex provisions to discuss the possible risks associated for those born female. I said that I thought debate would be a good thing to have. I was reported for 'hate' speech and banned from a facebook group simply for saying that it's good to have a discussion. That was what peaked me more massively than anything else. It seemed just beyond belief that simply stating biological fact was 'hate speech'.

The world is round and we can accept that some people believe the world is flat but it would be a bit mad to let flat earth theory to inform things like space travel. In a similar way it's a bit mad to let gender identity theory to inform how we treat single sex provisions. They can believe what they want but there is no empirical evidence to suggest those males who think they are female are in any way different to any other male. There is no 'female brain' etc.

The other thing was how the push for self ID was being pushed in so many countries all at the same time. That also seemed odd and unlikely. There were just a few red flags and so I started to research. Helen Joyce's book came out not long after and finally here we are but how did we even get to the starting point where no debate was pushed so strongly and the laws were being passed often by stealth.

Yes, but sex is not changeable...that is a fact and not a matter of private belief. The world operates on the basis of known and understoood material reality.
Though religious exemptions and protections do exist - they do not over-ride secular law in a secular society

My issue comes with the ‘I believe this (fantasy) and everyone else must believe it too and support me in it and if you don’t there will be consequences…’ attitude.. which leads to oppression. History is littered with many examples around different fantasies/stories.

Whilst I truly believe that people can hold any belief they choose, I also have no desire to ‘understand’ the viewpoint that sex is a moveable feast. Just like I don’t want to try to understand ‘God or any other deity that’s a figment of someone’s imagination.
A man who thinks he’s a woman will never make me change my mind that he’s only a man and always will be.
I hold a certain degree of scorn for people who follow any ideology and spout ridiculous mantras. I can’t bring myself to internally chuckle when I hear someone say TWAW.

I follow a range of people, both those I agree with and those I vehemently disagree with.
I've been trying to remember when it was that I first peaked.
I think it was around 2016-2017, but before that, I did think TWAW. I hadn't thought about it in detail. I think I was just #beingkind.
But I changed my mind when I listened both to feminists and trans activists. I still think of it as an example of how badly wrong I can be about something just because I wasn't thinking it through.
And now I'm seeing TRAs on multiple platforms state 'Just unfollow/block me if you support the SC'.
We got into this mess because people refuse to listen to other viewpoints. I'm done being that person. I can't ask activists to listen to me if I won't listen to them.
Listening doesn't mean I agree. To make me believe TWAW, they're going to have to make one hell of an argument but maybe we'll have that argument and they'll come away with at least understanding mine a bit better.
We can't go back to #nodebate. I'm confident in my argument. I don't mind having it challenged. I think it stands up. I'd like us to try foster a culture where we debate more, not less.
This is the only way we're going to make progress.

Most genderists don't believe people can change biological sex.

They believe things like:

"Sex" is really just a consucted social concept based on fairly arbitrary physical features, so the reproductive class to which someone belongs doesn't have to be relevant unless we treat it that way

Same as above only "Gender" is the construct

Gender identity is a mental sense of whether you are male or female and it an get detached from your actual body

A woman is anyone who likes to be a vessel for others' desires (<-- not envy)

So in theory, it should be perfectly possible to have a conversation along the lines of "Clearly biological sex (or reproductive class) exists, and clearly it's not the same as whatever you are talking about because otherwise there would be no trans people, so let's talk about the two as separate things and try to untangle where sex is relevant and where gender matters more. We don't need to agree whether sex is a real concept or just a prejudice about meaningless body parts, because either way the concept has been used to marginalise and disempower people and that makes it meaningful to those people for as long as that disadvantage still exists"

The reason this is not possible in practice is that extremist TRAs have popularised the logically incoherent idea that while sex can be different to gender when they need it to be for trans people can claim opposite sex rights, it must also be impossible to express or describe the difference, so any language that could frame it eg female, biological etc is instantly attacked, delegitimised, ridiculed or labelled as transphobic or a dog whistle.

And that is why Genderism is not the reasonable, progressive movement it claims to be - not because I disagree with what they believe but because they do not even allow me the words with which to disagree.

Yes, ‘follow’ as in the social media meaning, not being a believer of their ideas!

And TRAs have no desire to understand your viewpoint. Which is why we are in this mess in the first place.

Of course and I would think most here have really researched gender theories, listened to the trans viewpoints etc. Personally I've read Judith Butler and listened carefully to all the viewpoints. Judith Butler writes nonsensical word salad with circular arguments.

Most people who praise her I think genuinely don't understand what she's said because she obfuscates her meaning so carefully and the praise is given because people go along with their tribe and they're aware of 'right-think' and 'wrong-think' and don't want to be ostracised for 'wrong-think'.

Academia has bizarrely been the area which shut down the debate almost more than any other. In the very area where open debate on different ideas should be welcomed, anyone giving the viewpoint that sex matters was de-platformed, cancelled, or lost their job.

Kathleen Stock is probably one of the most prominent but also just students found themselves being kicked off their courses for questioning gender identity theory and how it impacts those.born female or for questioning whether affirmation only treatment is the most suitable approach rather than questioning in a therapy session with a gender questioning teenager who was presenting with other issues which might be of influence in their gender dysphoria.

So when you say a willingness to understand, it's never been those who are 'gender critical' who aren't willing to understand another viewpoint. We do understand it and we have listened but we don't agree.

None of it holds up to logic and they're often thought terminating cliches. The CASS review highlights how shocking it is how these treatments were implemented with no long-term studies and no empirical evidence that they even work. In fact the research shows that in teenage girls who present with gender dysphoria, it resolves itself usually with no interventions at all if just left with no hormone treatment. But if hormone treatment is given, then that usually ends up being permanent. Given how female biology is so oestrogen hungry, the long term damage to a female on too much testosterone is not a good outcome.

However, simply saying sex is real meant that people lost their jobs or were pushed off their courses when the opposite has never happened for trans people or for those who believe in gender identity. It's impossible to debate also because the trans side are so unwilling to debate. They can't hold rational discussions because the theory doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. You can see that if you read any of the tribunals especially in the Allison Bailey case when Stonewall were on the witness stand.

I would be interested to hear how people balance being open minded to other people’s views with keeping their own sanity online.

It's hard.

I have some die-hard TRAs as real life friends. (I know don't ask me how)

One lady keeps popping up on my Facebook feed spouting nonsense. (Not a proper friend of course just an associate).

I got to the end of my tether with her, her posts became relentless- quoting memes about complimenting transwomen on their lipstick choice in the ladies loos and their existence making her so happy, all that sort of stuff. How everyone who thinks TW shouldn't be in women's spaces are a bigoted minority and making so many people sad....

I had to reply to her in the end ! I ended up saying actually most of the general population agree with Donald Trump and the UK government on this issue and gender ideology is a dying cause because it's incoherent nonsense.

I didn't unfollow her, I'm waiting for her to unfollow me if she wants. She might not.

I've heard plenty from the genderists. I know their arguments better than they do. They have nothing further to add to the debate. Besides, what I see is not reasoned arguments but just violent rage and crying. I've unfriended a couple of people in the last couple of days, but not people I spoke to IRL these days anyway. Sick of all the shite tbh.