A suggestion: Start with a definition of 'transwoman'. Shall we assume that it includes the very small number of men who have undergone medical transition? The men who have done a 'social' transition? What about transvestites (probably the most numerous group), for whom keeping their male bodies enables the performance of their fetishes and who, I suggest, can avoid the stigma of being labelled as cross-dressers (even nowadays not cool unless you hang out with the Grayson Perry crowd) by claiming to be transgender and therefore victims of oppression, the most marginalized people in the world, etc etc
Please note that a recent article in the Telegraph (UK) quoted a poll which showed that over one-third of UK residents don't know that 'transwomen' are biological males.
I don't know how you can have a sane conversation w/ someone as psychopathic, narcissistic, and dangerous as so many of these men are. There was a time when his kind of deviant behavior would call for arrest and incapcitation in a secure facility. Why hasn't he been arrested for that reprehensible behavior toward Henrietta? Have I missed something? The lunatics are running the asylum.
In my view any such debate should start with definitions of the subjects, concepts and even words that are up for discussion.
And as we are dealing with an ideologue 'in opposition', then sadly I doubt there could be an agreement on this.
That said, I do hope something can be arranged as we should always listen to dissenting or differing views, no matter how odd, bad or 'dangerous' others may think those views are - otherwise, as you imply, how does one learn anything?
You mean a "transwoman", a male transvestite? Calling a spade an effen shovel right out of the chute might be a good start, although I doubt "Freda" would think so.
But you might also reflect on philosopher Will Durant's take on a classic quote of Voltaire's:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
In that spirit, you might then try getting agreement on the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and a more or less standard one about gender from both some sensible feminists in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP], and the late great Justice Anton Scalia of the US Supreme Court:
SEP: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
In answer to your question, no. The ones who are paying attention enough to have a fixed opinion are just going to call us Nazis. It’s the ones without a strong opinion that are worth any effort for now.
I’m sorry, I know it may be hard to accept, but this isn’t a debate OR a discussion. It’s a fight.
The sooner we stop with the pretense that our opponents are able to be reasonable about this, the more successful we’ll be. Everything we do should be with the undecideds in mind. No matter who we are ostensibly interacting with in the moment, They are our actual audience.
I've been hoping for mediated discussion, recorded and available, for a long time. It needs good articulate people, which you obviously are. Not sure about the person you're planning on talking to. He sounds and has proven himself to be dreadful. I'd go with someone with proven common sense and professional standing. (One of the mysteries, to me, of this whole thing is where are the sensible doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, educational psychologists, teachers, etc. I know some are speaking out, but a lot aren't and some of them must be genuinely be of two minds about it all. I'd choose to talk to someone articulate who still supports Stonewall but has reservations.) A lot would depend on the skills of the mediator in trying to ensure that you are both being clear to the other. There's so much exaggeration i.e. when talking about males playing female sports, tra supporters think this is bigotry. So a basic question would be what words are needed. Male and female as terms are needed as descriptors for the two sexes. This needs a lot of talking about. Your idea involves a necessary task and I couldn't be more supportive of anything that tries to move things along positively but truthfully. Good luck.
Totally agree. The above definitions of 'debate' and 'dialogue' though are simplistic and polarised for no reason. A debate is a special type of dialogue with the aim of finding the truth or getting closer to the truth. If it is honest, fair, objective, and with clearly defined terms it is a worthwhile and productive debate regardless of the subject. A productive debate with trans-ideology advocates would be an extremely unlikely event though as 'honest, fair, objective, and with clearly defined terms' would have little meaning in their ideologically captured brains. One can live in hope though I suppose.
This is a false dichotomy. What you are actually describing is “no platforming” vs “dialogue”.
Debate lies between no-platforming and dialogue. It allows people to attempt to persuade each other that their ideas are the accurate description of reality.
The implicit message in your approach is that there is only personal truth. That is fine so long as we are not dealing with important, real events like “the Russians are massing on the border and about to attack” or “a virus has just escaped from a lab in Wuhan”.
A suggestion: Start with a definition of 'transwoman'. Shall we assume that it includes the very small number of men who have undergone medical transition? The men who have done a 'social' transition? What about transvestites (probably the most numerous group), for whom keeping their male bodies enables the performance of their fetishes and who, I suggest, can avoid the stigma of being labelled as cross-dressers (even nowadays not cool unless you hang out with the Grayson Perry crowd) by claiming to be transgender and therefore victims of oppression, the most marginalized people in the world, etc etc
Please note that a recent article in the Telegraph (UK) quoted a poll which showed that over one-third of UK residents don't know that 'transwomen' are biological males.
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/#comment)
I don't know how you can have a sane conversation w/ someone as psychopathic, narcissistic, and dangerous as so many of these men are. There was a time when his kind of deviant behavior would call for arrest and incapcitation in a secure facility. Why hasn't he been arrested for that reprehensible behavior toward Henrietta? Have I missed something? The lunatics are running the asylum.
I like what you've written.
Very interesting!
In my view any such debate should start with definitions of the subjects, concepts and even words that are up for discussion.
And as we are dealing with an ideologue 'in opposition', then sadly I doubt there could be an agreement on this.
That said, I do hope something can be arranged as we should always listen to dissenting or differing views, no matter how odd, bad or 'dangerous' others may think those views are - otherwise, as you imply, how does one learn anything?
"Freda Wallace is at trans identifying man ...."
You mean a "transwoman", a male transvestite? Calling a spade an effen shovel right out of the chute might be a good start, although I doubt "Freda" would think so.
But you might also reflect on philosopher Will Durant's take on a classic quote of Voltaire's:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
In that spirit, you might then try getting agreement on the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and a more or less standard one about gender from both some sensible feminists in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP], and the late great Justice Anton Scalia of the US Supreme Court:
Sex:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Gender:
SEP: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#GenFemMasPer
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
If we can't agree on what words mean then the prognosis for a successful conclusion to that "debate" is rather gloomy at best.
What on earth is going on at Talk Tv. People working on Uncensored have lost the plot big time
In answer to your question, no. The ones who are paying attention enough to have a fixed opinion are just going to call us Nazis. It’s the ones without a strong opinion that are worth any effort for now.
I’m sorry, I know it may be hard to accept, but this isn’t a debate OR a discussion. It’s a fight.
The sooner we stop with the pretense that our opponents are able to be reasonable about this, the more successful we’ll be. Everything we do should be with the undecideds in mind. No matter who we are ostensibly interacting with in the moment, They are our actual audience.
I've been hoping for mediated discussion, recorded and available, for a long time. It needs good articulate people, which you obviously are. Not sure about the person you're planning on talking to. He sounds and has proven himself to be dreadful. I'd go with someone with proven common sense and professional standing. (One of the mysteries, to me, of this whole thing is where are the sensible doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, educational psychologists, teachers, etc. I know some are speaking out, but a lot aren't and some of them must be genuinely be of two minds about it all. I'd choose to talk to someone articulate who still supports Stonewall but has reservations.) A lot would depend on the skills of the mediator in trying to ensure that you are both being clear to the other. There's so much exaggeration i.e. when talking about males playing female sports, tra supporters think this is bigotry. So a basic question would be what words are needed. Male and female as terms are needed as descriptors for the two sexes. This needs a lot of talking about. Your idea involves a necessary task and I couldn't be more supportive of anything that tries to move things along positively but truthfully. Good luck.
Totally agree. The above definitions of 'debate' and 'dialogue' though are simplistic and polarised for no reason. A debate is a special type of dialogue with the aim of finding the truth or getting closer to the truth. If it is honest, fair, objective, and with clearly defined terms it is a worthwhile and productive debate regardless of the subject. A productive debate with trans-ideology advocates would be an extremely unlikely event though as 'honest, fair, objective, and with clearly defined terms' would have little meaning in their ideologically captured brains. One can live in hope though I suppose.
This is a false dichotomy. What you are actually describing is “no platforming” vs “dialogue”.
Debate lies between no-platforming and dialogue. It allows people to attempt to persuade each other that their ideas are the accurate description of reality.
The implicit message in your approach is that there is only personal truth. That is fine so long as we are not dealing with important, real events like “the Russians are massing on the border and about to attack” or “a virus has just escaped from a lab in Wuhan”.