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.

Her ideas were ok, but her arguments were against a strawman. She mentioned having been a JW, and I got the impression that as often happens to people who come to the left from a very rigid conservative environment, she assumes anyone who doesn't agree with any particular 'leftist' idea holds a rigidly conservative/religious position. And stemming from that, the only issue is stigma / not accepting difference. She didn't seem to understand that the triggernometry guys could be completely ok with gender diversity AND still think sex is a biological concept that sometimes matters. The one example that she gave of a novel idea of her own was that orphans used to be looked down on and would never be considered a son or daughter of an adoptive family. Whereas now they would, therefore the stigma is gone and life is much better. But I think she missed that we have moved on from when adoption was often kept a secret, with adoptive parents operating 'stealth' at least as far as the child was concerned, or sometimes more widely eg if the child's mother was underage and the grandmother pretended to be the mother. Whereas now we tend to have open adoption, there is a recognition that we can move past stigma and include a child fully in their adoptive family AND be honest and open about their birth family. Ie we've gone from adopted children are bad so could never be part of the family, to we'll pretend adopted children aren't adopted so they can be accepted like other children, to we'll accept adopted children just as they are.

I'm 15 minutes in and I can't bear it any more. Had to switch off at the "I studied indigenous societies". Did you now? Which of the thousands of indigenous societies did you study or are they all the same to you? This in itself is racist, let alone trying to make out these people didn't understand male and female before the horrible whites came along to corrupt them.

Kathleen Stock is right, the more these people talk the more they reveal themselves. I would pay good money to watch DFW debate this with KS.

Really like your analysis @LonginesPrime.

It was interesting that, as a seasoned podcaster and comedian, she complained that doing interviews was different from writing the book as she didn’t have time to think about her arguments in the moment

I know it’s hardly worth pointing out, but can you imagine if Maya, or Helen Joyce, JKR or anyone rocked up anywhere as unprepared and all over the place as DFW in this interview.

You make an interesting point that KK and FF really had to walk certain a line here for their own reputations as interviewers as well. Still, choosing to discuss every idea in her book rather than have a more generalised hour-long chat (that probably wouldn’t have been as funny, to be fair) is an unusual take.

That Johann Hari put her up to it as well means the lols just keep coming.

I find this quite funny. I ought to be sympathetic, because I am one of those people who is much better at debating a point in writing than I am when speaking. I can get flustered and confused when talking.

Having said that, in a situation such as a podcast interview, where I am familiar with the subject to the extent that I'd written a book about it, I would do pretty well. Maybe not as well as I'd do in writing, but I would certainly hold my own. Why? Well, first, because I'd have thought through all the arguments several times before arriving at my position, and secondly because I'd have made sure to prepare for the interview.

What strikes me about DFW is that she was put in the same situation as all the witnesses in cases such as the Allison Bailey or Roz Adams or Rachel Meade tribunals, where they seemed absolutely stunned to be asked perfectly ordinary questions about their beliefs. Because they'd spent years in an echo chamber, refusing to debate with anyone who disagreed with them, they had no answer at all when challenged to explain what they thought. They couldn't cope at all with someone saying, for example, "That contradicts your last answer" or "Can you explain the logic behind this apparently illogical belief?"

And so DFW just wasn't prepared for it. When asked to explain herself, she couldn't, because, let's face it, gender ideology is completely incoherent and nonsensical, and no one arrives at it through a process of reason, they arrive at it simply because it is fashionable, and going along with the crowd is easier than challenging it.

"It was interesting that, as a seasoned podcaster and comedian, she complained that doing interviews was different from writing the book as she didn’t have time to think about her arguments in the moment, especially given that she requested to be interviewed by them. "

Surely she had months or even years thinking about her arguments while writing the book?

I got through about 30 mins of it and it was ridiculous. I thought the set up with her against them confrontational and I don’t even like the Trigonometry guys as I see them as authoritarian and inflexible but Jesus it was bad and she is still banging on about being a JW.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt as I think they are just very different thinkers but she just has no warmth or personality at all.

I went to see one of the live GF shows as I was a fan of the podcast, but she was the least likeable of the guests who were all incredibly funny and had something important to say.

Thank you

edit - my mind is boggled looking at these posts. Hope my bus driver isn't dressed as a clown tomorrow.

I was surprised by KK’s response to non-binary. When Deborah brought it up he just seemed dismissive and said he’d never said people couldn’t identify that way and let it go. Surely that would have been a good point to point out the differences between biological sex and social categories? It wasn’t great as too much time was spent on gender non conformity which no one really has an issue with.

Thanks.

I do quite like the intellectual challenge, even if there is ultimately no intellectual answer to the question of "what does nonsense mean?" But yeah, it is a waste of time and engaging is madness!

I think KK and FF could have done a better job destroying her nonsense, but this would hve meant a 6 hour episode, or, more likely, her walking out

Ha yes, good point, @JamieCannister !!!

She seemed utterly unable to handle disagreement. I notice kids doing that, saying they feel unsafe or shocked or scared when the conversation gets a bit rocky. But not only is DFW an adult and supposed to be seasoned in having these conversations, she's written a book about it!!!

She did not come off well when she said things like 'i thought you were supposed to be more intellectual than that' . That's an incredibly lazy way of communicating. You only use those tactics when you're literally stuck for anything else.

I've watched the end and some of the beginning

I really take my hat off to people who could listen to it all. I think I'm done.

does anyone know what they said that "scared" her? Thanks.

I believe it was her performative horror at KK asking why she thought Australia was invaded ?

Kk pointed out indigenous populations are only 0.00000001% of the planets population.

She said, why are there so few? Because we killed them.

He said, why were we able to?

That's when she started to become v defensive, saying, what are you implying etc.

He said we were able to kill them because we were more technically advanced.

She said are you saying we are superior?

(I cannot see the connection myself but she was adamant anyone watching would think kk was implying we were superior by saying we were technically more advanced. )

She wasn't winning that argument so then said it had scared her he could say that, etc.

Thank you both

Kk pointed out indigenous populations are only 0.00000001% of the planets population

Am I being stupid here? What do we mean by indigenous populations? Are Han Chinese not indigenous? There's 1.4 billion of them. I think this is just another example of the American experience being (wrongly) mapped onto the rest of the world.

Listening to this now, I'll never be able to take her seriously again she is so touchy and unable to make a coherent argument and she's the one that just wrote a book! I'm also fairly sure that indigenous peoples have complained about the tra use of the concept two spirit and say it doesn't apply within that context.

She and he were talking about the Australian indigenous people

IIRC, KK did ask about indiginous Chinese and Muslim communities and just got an “erm, erm, well they’re not in the book I can’t research everything you know” kind of flustered response which was incredibly telling (and again, unintentionally funny)

"Kk pointed out indigenous populations are only 0.00000001% of the planets population."

How is indigenous being defined here?

I don't think they were aiming to destroy her nonsense though. As they said, they view it as a chance for her to present her ideas and them to interrogate them, and them to present their ideas and her to interrogate them, and the viewers can get a good sense of what each thinks. She got very defensive and accusatory "You're saying white people are superior!" at minor pushback. They want conversations not drama, so navigated it pretty gently with her while still making it clear they disagreed on various things, in order to keep it conversational.

I can’t get over her use of “Guilty” in her name so have never bothered to listen to her or read her.

One phrase that she really should consider dropping is "You are saying that...". Especially when it usually wasn't what he was saying. Switching to "Are you saying that...?" or "Doesn't that imply that..."? and actually listening to the answer would make the conversation less hostile.

That’s extremely well put, and gets to the essence of what is important in the debate. Also shows the clown argument for trans women acceptance as women for all purposes as being shallow and poorly considered-thank you!

Did they ask her whether the bus driving clowns worn appropriate shoes for driving buses?

The analogy fails on many levels. But it also introduces significant safety aspects.