Only connect

The only way out is through. Now that 'no debate' is dead, are we actually going to start talking to each other?

Freda Wallace is at trans identifying man who is close friends with Sarah Jane Baker, another trans identifying man currently enjoying His Majesty’s Pleasure after inciting a crowd of 2,500 people to punch Terfs. Wallace sent pictures of himself via Twitter enjoying the delights of his local fetish club, wearing a leather harness and a far away look (one captioned ‘dads worship female penis’ as a man knelt in front of his groin) to a disabled woman who had been arguing for single sex intimate care. Wallace has written articles about how I am member of the ‘Terf Reich’ and more recently made public assertions I am enjoying an extra marital affair with Harry Miller of Fair Cop.

Why on earth would I want anything to do with this person? Because unaccountably Wallace appears to have the ear of a variety of journalists, who seem to think he is a credible source of information around issues of gender identity ideology.

So lets talk. I unblocked Wallace on social media on 20th August and made my offer of a recorded discussion. I am not entirely sure if Wallace has accepted or not, but I am ready when he is.

I appreciate that those who believe in gender identity aren’t ‘going away’. Nobody should be abused or harassed for wanting to adopt a gender identity which is ‘incongruent’ with their sex at birth, or not related to either sex at all. But nobody can expect their claimed identity is the beginning and end of their legal rights and responsibilities, or allows them the right to compel others to believe what they believe. Those who think that sex is real, important and matters are also not going away, no matter how much they are screamed at or threatened.

So what discussion would I like to have? I think it would be useful to have a moderator, but I make no demands about his or her identity. My only non-negotiable is that I will use language that I choose. I will be calm and courteous but I will not accept compelled speech. A discussion is not a ‘fight to the death’ - I am always happy to be wrong, because that is how you learn. But if you are not willing to explain and defend your position in public, then there is something wrong with your position.

There is a huge amount of ground to cover. I will try and set it out in two main headings - the general and the specific. These questions represent for me the main stumbling blocks to accepting gender identity as something that should be protected in law. If proponents of this ideology cannot or will not answer them, then I cannot support it and will continue to campaign against it.

In general

• Who is within the ‘Q’ and the ‘+’? Are there any groups - such as paedophiles, zoophiles or necrophiles - who are excluded? What is the test for who is included?

• How do you distinguish between a transwoman and a man claiming to be a transwoman such as Adam Graham. Is there a test?

• Do women have a right to single sex female spaces? If not, why not?

• Do you think there is acceptable evidence available to support medical transition for children under 16?

• What age do you think children should be allowed to medically transition?

• What’s your definition of ‘hate’?

• Should your subjective definition of ‘hate’ be sufficient to force other people to stop speaking?

Specific questions for Freda Wallace

• Why did you send pictures of your sexual activities to a disabled woman who had been talking about the importance of single sex intimate care?

• When you sent those pictures, did you consider the impact they might have on her or on any other woman who saw them?

• Do you understand how men focusing on their penises while claiming to be women, is going to alienate and distress a lot of women?

• If you understand that - do you care?

• If you neither understand nor care, where do you think we are going to end up?