“Trans rights” on R4 now, Universities Challenged

[Davros]

Ongoing series covering this today. Kathleen Stock featured now

What is the name of the series? Outside UK so have no access to BBC Sounds.

That's what they tell each other: that GC is a cult. They call GC a cult because they've been called a cult. It's the classic "No you!" response.

But ultimately we need to decide on policy and have some level of consensus, and on something one side is insisting is so zero-sum this is a virtually impossible. It is existential

It’s never going to happen on social media, though. If you want to talk policy, there needs to be more formal structure and responsibilities.

“the starting point for any discussion of gender must include TWAW as an accepted unarguable fact.”

That is the most important point of the discussion. No wonder they want us to concede it before the discussion begins. The frustrating part is that they then refuse to discuss anything on the grounds that we won’t start from the point where the argument is already lost.

With regard to the “right to exist” nonsense, what struck me as I was reading is that I can’t stop people existing and I can’t stop them categorizing themselves in ridiculous ways. I just don’t believe that “trans” means anything concrete. When it was defined by “gender reassignment” then it meant something specific. Now it’s meaning as been widened to the point it’s meaningless. So the problem is not that I “don’t want trans people to exist”, I just don’t believe “trans” exists as a meaningful category. It should therefore be entirely irrelevant to society when people call themselves that.

Jeez she reminds me of arguing with religious street nutters as a student. They could never accept i simply didn't believe in God. It was always framed like I knew God existed but was intentionally ignoring him or something.

Exactly, it's about as relevant to society as being a goth i.e it's not.

I won't bow to genderist ideology and I've reached the point where I don't think there's anything much to be discussed - rights are in fact pie and I don't much care if genderists don't like the ones that their sex already grants them because they're sure as shit not entitled to the rights of the opposite sex as well as their own.

While I'm not against compromising per se, there can be no squaring the circle in this case.

"Meet me in the middle says the unjust man". FTN

“the starting point for any discussion of gender must include TWAW as an accepted unarguable fact.”

Hence the necessary follow up question - "on what basis do you say that?" was not asked. As for her rubbish about denying that she existed - try telling that to any oppressed group - we could take women of Afghanistan - denied an education and medical care, forced to stay inside their houses, if allowed out have to be completely covered.

Whereas this rather silly woman babbled on the national broadcaster.

It’s called Universities Challenged

Bad, bad mummies. Stamps foot!

"Though he struggles to imagine cutting her off, Noah cannot tolerate the idea that she may have actual political power,"

It's a bugger that, living in a democracy where even your parents get to vote. Ewww!

No one explored the notion from the TRA person that refusing to accept TWAW meant their existence was being denied.

You could equally argue back that insisting TWAW means that women’s (the cunty kind’s) existence is being denied by redefining the word that describes them and only them.

🤣

I worked hard to read the article from a neutral - not GC - point of view, and it doesn’t convince. If anything it comes over as a bit unhinged.

Yes, it would be nice if occasionally an interviewer would draw out exactly what that means in practice. Conflating “knowing someone is presenting as female but is actually male” with “denying their existence” is such obvious hyperbole, but it gets trotted out ALL the time.