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.
Another suggestion is take a look at Youtube channel UATX, the "debate" between Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey and Kathleen Stock. Stock took patience to an extreme and allowed The Donald to obfuscate, to lecture her on racism in the States a century ago and make her agree that was terrible (to conflate that horrible injustice with women desiring single sex spaces), brought up all the usual fallacies, ie the suicide narrative, the pretend "murder data" (inflated by the deaths of crossdressing boy toys in Brazil where prostitution is legal) and, McCloskey claimed that women are not being sexually attacked in prisons by men who say they are women. He called it a myth. Ground rules might include the list of names of men who had to be remanded back to the men's estate, the murders of 2 lesbians and their teen son in Oakland, CA by Dana Rivers, now asking to have the life in prison sentence in a women's prison. Why does Freda associate with the Baker criminal at all? They usually devolve into cursing when confronted with actual valid data and facts. I'd love to see him turn purple when presented with the data I'm collecting on trans widows, now almost 50 of us. The rate of physical and sexual assault, not to mention sexual coercion of the wives, is quite shocking, and the last is broadly sanctioned by mental health professionals. I imagine the real answers to most of the questions would be, "Because I am a narcissist and DARVO is my hobby. Lime Soda Films channel for Vaishnavi Sundar's 2 trailers of her upcoming documentary on trans widows, profiling 18 of us. Let Freda watch a section of Behind the Looking Glass and solicit his comments. These dudes are violent, don't have it be in person!
Me too: I refer only to "trans-identified males" and "trans-identified females". And try to avoid using the terms "men" and "women" at all, now their meanings so compromised: generally use "male" or "female" instead. But transactivists are trying to appropriate those biological terms too.
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?
I wondered the same thing. Glinner was treated terribly in that recent interview w/ the woman subbing for Morgan and the interview has since been taken down from YT but I think may be archived somewhere. Apparently Talktv is threatening a copyright strike if it is re-played. They must realize the interview was disastrous for their channel--and it was--I saw it at the time.
It's been restreamed by a few people on YouTube with transformative commentary so it's fair use, thatanna is the one I saw do it. If it gets taken off streaming platforms, it's also locally archived on Kiwi Farms in Glinner's thread: he's had a thread since GamerGate but these days they generally like him; when they archived that interview they were mostly laughing at the interviewer and Tatchell and whoever that other dozy baizuo was.
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)
Another suggestion is take a look at Youtube channel UATX, the "debate" between Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey and Kathleen Stock. Stock took patience to an extreme and allowed The Donald to obfuscate, to lecture her on racism in the States a century ago and make her agree that was terrible (to conflate that horrible injustice with women desiring single sex spaces), brought up all the usual fallacies, ie the suicide narrative, the pretend "murder data" (inflated by the deaths of crossdressing boy toys in Brazil where prostitution is legal) and, McCloskey claimed that women are not being sexually attacked in prisons by men who say they are women. He called it a myth. Ground rules might include the list of names of men who had to be remanded back to the men's estate, the murders of 2 lesbians and their teen son in Oakland, CA by Dana Rivers, now asking to have the life in prison sentence in a women's prison. Why does Freda associate with the Baker criminal at all? They usually devolve into cursing when confronted with actual valid data and facts. I'd love to see him turn purple when presented with the data I'm collecting on trans widows, now almost 50 of us. The rate of physical and sexual assault, not to mention sexual coercion of the wives, is quite shocking, and the last is broadly sanctioned by mental health professionals. I imagine the real answers to most of the questions would be, "Because I am a narcissist and DARVO is my hobby. Lime Soda Films channel for Vaishnavi Sundar's 2 trailers of her upcoming documentary on trans widows, profiling 18 of us. Let Freda watch a section of Behind the Looking Glass and solicit his comments. These dudes are violent, don't have it be in person!
I can't use the word woman at all to describe them and usually say 'trans identified male' or 'men pretending to be women.'
Me too: I refer only to "trans-identified males" and "trans-identified females". And try to avoid using the terms "men" and "women" at all, now their meanings so compromised: generally use "male" or "female" instead. But transactivists are trying to appropriate those biological terms too.
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?
What on earth is going on at Talk Tv. People working on Uncensored have lost the plot big time
I wondered the same thing. Glinner was treated terribly in that recent interview w/ the woman subbing for Morgan and the interview has since been taken down from YT but I think may be archived somewhere. Apparently Talktv is threatening a copyright strike if it is re-played. They must realize the interview was disastrous for their channel--and it was--I saw it at the time.
It's been restreamed by a few people on YouTube with transformative commentary so it's fair use, thatanna is the one I saw do it. If it gets taken off streaming platforms, it's also locally archived on Kiwi Farms in Glinner's thread: he's had a thread since GamerGate but these days they generally like him; when they archived that interview they were mostly laughing at the interviewer and Tatchell and whoever that other dozy baizuo was.
Thanks Emily.
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”.