Guilty Feminist on Triggernometry

[CornedBeef451]

I’m trying to listen to Deborah Frances White on Triggernometry but having to do it in very small increments for the sake of my blood pressure.

Konstantin is remaining incredibly calm, Deborah is losing her mind via passive aggression, and after only 15 mins I was shouting “but which ones have the babies Deborah?” at my phone.

Its worth a listen even if just for entertainment value. It’s quite long so I think it’ll take me a week to get through unless I start day drinking.

Yes, I was wondering about this too...

I’ve just been listening to her on Davina MCall’s podcast - she’s a complete nutter.

I didn’t get to where she talks about trans stuff but had to check out of it and abandon the podcast - it was making me hyperventilate, just listening to her. She’s SO intense - and all over the shop. Made my head swim.

It’s no surprise she’s mad:
She thinks she spent her first ten days alone in a cot
She was adopted into a family that joined a cult and she was in it until she was 25

She’s very articulate and clearly intelligent…
But she’s a nutter.

EDIT @Merrymouse

Things change over time. Previously unusual things that slowly happen more and more eventually become normal.

Currently, if a bus driver dressed as a clown, you would notice it as it is unusual (my mind immediately went to that experiment where no-one noticed someone dressed as a gorilla walking by).

If bus drivers dressed as clown 30% of the time, you would begin to not notice it and then not notice it at all as it becomes normal (and therefore not of note).

The bus-driver-in-clown-costume is a wrong-headed attempt to claim that objections to change exist solely at the level of aesthetics. So, for those who have not watched the interview, the notion is that, if you got on a bus, and the bus driver was in a clown costume, you would find it weird, and perhaps uncanny; eventually, however, you would get used to all bus drivers dressing as clowns, and would no longer notice the fact.

The problem is that this only works as an idea if change is only ever an aesthetic matter. Take, for instance, the two potential changes below:

• An Act of Parliament changes the name of the House of Commons to the Senate, and replaces all Members of Parliament with Senators. No other change to the electoral system occurs.
• An Act of Parliament abolishes democracy and allows a random dictator to rule by decress.

Now, the first is stupid, but also an aesthetic choice. One would eventually get used to it, and people yet to be born, and who would grow up with this, would find it entirely natural. Conversely, having a dictatorship would always have opponents, and people attempting to restore democracy. This is the difference between an aesthetic change and a substantial one.

The problem with DFW's arguments is that they are essentially treating every social issue as an aesthetic one (bus drivers dressing as clowns, men in long hair, orphans, whatever) regardless of whether or not they have meaningful substance.

(The question of seeing everything in aesthetic terms is a really interesting one, and explains a lot being what is wrong with modern supposedly progressive politics.)

Yes, i think she was trying to say that at the moment, trans people are seen as different because our minds are wired to expect a woman to be a female person.

Once we get used to women being male and female, the male women wont seem unusual or different.

The clown driving a bus stops being a clown and becomes a bus driver dressed as a clown.

Oh, like when beards came back into fashion. Yes, that's totally the same thing 🙄😆

OK - have found the transcript on apple podcasts.

The clowns driving buses idea relates to gender non-conformity.

She talks about this at length, and then the host says

"We seem to be confusing gender non-conformity... with claiming that you are the opposite sex. These are completely separate things".

Then she talks about indigenous populations, still not explaining how that relates to sex, but this triggers a talk about genoicde, and then they start talking about race.

They then get back to gender and start talking about puberty blockers. Host brings up Tavistock. She acknowledges some malpractice, but doesn't really have anything to say, because the Cass report can't be ignored, but isn't useful to her argument.

They start talking about Wokeism... and I can no longer be bothered to read the rest.

Yes, it was quite satisfying to see her bring in identity politics and to try to frame the conversation as two powerful white men criticising an oppressed little woman (despite her being white too - why would you bring race into it if you think all the people involved are white?), only for it to transpire that by her own standards of privilege, she’s actually a middle classed white women scolding two immigrants, each with traumatic family histories from oppressive regimes. It was such a terrible look for her.

And then, instead of having the self-awareness and sensitivity to acknowledge their backgrounds and back off of her argument, she still tries to twist it to make out “oh, that must be where your bias comes from then, interesting”, as if she’s Sigmund fucking Freud. What happened to “be kind”, Deborah?

It was such a perfect of example of how people promoting gender woo (and others with similarly batshit ideas) are happy to utilise identity politics when it suits them, but only in as far as it supports their own argument, otherwise they don’t give two shits about others’ oppression (a la transwomen throwing transmen and lesbians under the bus re toilets).

Interesting point about seeing everything in terms of aesthetics.

TRA used to use same sex marriage in a similar way - at one point it was unthinkable that women could marry, now it doesnt shock anyone.

But they couldnt contine to use that, because it doesnt fit any single sex based scenarios. Same sex marriage isnt about safeguarding risks. The rights afforded to married couples doesnt change any other protect characteristic.

I think she was trying to come up with something else about normalising trans and acceptance, but didnt quite get it right. And i dont think she ever will, because TRA want people to change the PC of sex by declaring their PC of GR.

Theres no other scenario where this happens.

I think I can help DFW on the bus driver thing.

The important difference between me and a bus driver, is not our clothes, but the fact that I am neither trained nor licensed to drive a bus.

She seems to think that when you see a clown driving a bus you are bigoted to assume something bad is going on. You are bigoted for assuming that the person in clown clothes might not be a bus driver, or a bus driver dressed as a clown might not have the best judgement compared to a normal bus driver in normal bus driver clothes. But this bigotry disappears over time - humans get used to things, and after a few years we'll all accept that when we get on a bus the driver might have a red nose and size 48 shoes in a matching colour. Presumbably she thinks some people are just irredeemable bigots who will never accept they bus driver in a clown outfit.

So the bus is society, and the clown outfit is women's clothing on a man. Applying the same logic you would be bigoted to see the man in women's clothes and assume that he was no longer a man, or that men in dresses are showing bad judgement. And that the vast majority of people will get used to men in dresses in time, and only the real hardcore extremist bigots will judge.

It seems to me the analogy could only work if it is about gender non-conformity or transvestites, and that she has failed to even come up with a analogy that relates to trans people at all, let alone proves that they've changed sex or that their gender identity should give opposite sex rights.

If what I have written is nonsense I blame Deborah for giving me nothing coherent to work with.

This is so key. She never made clear whether it was a bus driver who dressed as a clown, or a clown who started driving a bus.

If it was the former then I think one might say "so, a clown outfit doesn't make a bus driver a clown, he's still a bus driver, is that what you're saying? Do you also agree that he'd be a better bus driver if he took the silly clothes and massive shoes off?"

If it were the latter then the question is "are you sure you're happy having clowns drive buses?

Her argument seems to be either "a change of clothes doesn't change who you are, but respect everyone even if they wear silly or gender non-conforming outfits", or it is "a clown becomes a bus driver when he sits in the drivers seat, and you're a bigot if you want trained bus drivers and not clowns who identify as bus drivers"?

[kicks self for trying to make it make sense]

I think her analogy works in male prisons. It doesn't matter how your cell mate presents - the prisons authorities ensure that every inmate is male.

Just as the bus company would ensure every driver has a driving licence, regardless of their outfit.

But it can only work in womens prisons if the authorities ensure only women are sent there. At the moment, the prison authorities are letting real clowns in as well as women and women who identify as clowns.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59672739.amp

How many male bus drivers are 5ft?

Your explanation makes sense, unlike any of Deborah’s arguments!

You explain this really well. Thank you.

That's a strong analogy.

Commenting to save for future reference!

I’m watching this now. I keep losing concentration (look, I’m here on Mumsnet, I’m doing my online Tesco shopping!)
i find her manner really irritating, in fact she talks to them as though they are school children. I did have tickets for free when I think she was doing something at Kings X but now I’m kind of relieved as life is too short.
in fact I’m going to speed it to the end and watch for the drama.

Tbh, I don't think she has thought about all this at all!

I agree with Solrock that her arguments seemed merely about looks (trousers/hair/clowns) and whether we find those looks odd at first, but given time, we would not notice them.
Which, I guess, we agree - if all men started to wear dresses, in a few generations dresses would not be 'gendered'. But that is the end of that argument.

The other option, that we would get used to 'male women' does not really work, because biology is bigoted.

She seems quite naive to me and yes it's about superficial looks.
If bus drivers dressed as clowns 30% of the time you may not notice so much after a while, but you would still notice.
I can see John Lewis, M&S doing exactly this - using male or androgynous models for women's clothing 30% of the time in an attempt to normalise 'the look'. However I can't see it ever not looking ridiculous or ugly and of course she's forgetting that some of the clowns will not be just dressed as clowns but will be disguised as clowns and have nefarious intent.

I can’t figure out how to link it but it seems Julie Bindel is aware of the book. Very funny photos of clowns driving buses.

I found this on Nitter. https://nitter.poast.org/bindelj/status/1918300625441296540#m

This is an impressive attempt to make sense of it - well done - but the inescapable conclusion is that this woman is a moron. (I'm with Kath Stock on this: I can't be bothered trying to find excuses for why people come out with monumentally stupid arguments.)

The way it seems to work is that people like DFW start from the premise that trans = good and then have to find an argument to justify it. They can only do this by deploying completely ludicrous arguments and analogies (clown fish can change sex, therefore humans can change sex; clowns can be bus drivers, therefore men can be women). You could wear yourself out trying to reason with them - it's best not to attempt it.

The way it seems to work is that people like DFW start from the premise that trans = good and then have to find an argument to justify it. They can only do this by deploying completely ludicrous arguments and analogies (clown fish can change sex, therefore humans can change sex; clowns can be bus drivers, therefore men can be women). You could wear yourself out trying to reason with them - it's best not to attempt it.

It's probably only a matter of time before someone starts to argue that clown fish can be bus drivers and clowns can change sex, and this therefore proves a meaningful and profound idea or something...

It does certainly feel like this book was specifically aimed at gender critical people and others who don’t agree with her.

There will be lots of gender ideology ideologues who are deterred by the cover mimicking the Suffragette flag, as they see that as a TERF emblem, and obviously the point of going on Triggernometry was to reach this wrongthinking audience too.

I guess the flag thing is to trick GC people into picking up the book and giving it a go, because she’s so confident that if she could just get a few minutes with a GC person to explain why they’re wrong, they’ll understand that TWAW after all.