It seems to me that the problem springs from the conflation of two separate debates, which would perhaps be better discussed in isolation from each other.
-
-
-
Firstly, how can we work towards and ensure that all trans people are afforded human rights and treated decently. That is an important conversation, and one where it is right that no objections should be raised. It affects nobody but trans people.
-
The second debate is more contentious and is the point where silencing of certain voices seems unreasonable to me. This is the debate regarding whether some men should be afforded women’s rights, and if yes, then how far should that extend.
-
This is a far more nuanced debate and it is essential that all people affected should be part of the discussion.
-
The opening statement contained the suggestion that people who want to “debate the rights of trans people to exist”.
-
This seems like emotive language, designed with the express purpose of quelling the voices of those who assert that despite advances in medicine, it is not literally possible to change sex.
-
If people are pushed towards starting the debate under the unproven and unprovable premise that “transwomenare women” then it is impossible for all of those who will be affected to debate without prejudice.
-
The use of that phrase to frame the whole debate also suggests that the speaker is in no way impartial and unlike you, is not likely to take an objective and balanced approach.
- 20 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you had been there u wd understand the impact of this hostile opening on all the attendees. It had a chilling effect on the room & set up any who had difficult questions to be an enemy. It was unnecessary & ruined what could have been a day for understanding & bridge-building
-
I wasn’t there
-
This was a forum set up by
@WSPFEvents to discuss trans equality with policy makers. This is exactly where the full picture needs to be set out. It was wrong for@LizBarkerLords to silence one side of the discussion. How can policy makers get it right when they only hear one sidepic.twitter.com/XgXEmuERNf
-
This is very serious issue. Policy makers at that conference have been given a picture that the experts giving the advice do not want the public to know they said. This is very wrong. Decisions have been made in cosy locked rooms for too long.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can't discuss "equality, inclusion, rights, and services" until there is some basic understanding of the different needs & goals of various stakeholders. They demand we just accept there is no real conflict or difference, & therefore no need to consider anyone else's rights.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you, I appreciate your balanced approach. The trouble here is women have been given no voice on decisions that affect them. Groups like Gendered Intelligence have actively campaigned against protections designed for us in the EA.
-
GI may see this as trans equality but some of their aims reduce our rights. No forum or funding has been offered for women to make the case for their rights to such a range of influential people. Women have had to fund themselves and invite themselves to the conversation.
-
The conference opening remarks close out any voices that might want to make the case for considering and looking after other vulnerable groups while also supporting trans rights. I can see why they really upset Nic and others.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Every single forum, here, today, yesterday, tomorrow, is not the right forum for that debate.
#notadebate is the motto of the trans movementThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
With respect, Brian, many people with alternative views to the trans narrative have experienced that the ONLY way they can avoid being accused of ‘hatred’ ‘bigotry’ ‘transphobia’ is to stay silent. Abusers use exactly the same tactic - also known as DARVO.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a ratchet. If people buy into the idea they cannot debate the root fundamentals this time around, they'll assume they'll get a chance next time around. But they won't.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Show me anyone saying trans people don't "exist." Obvs they do. However, the question of whether they're meaningfully women/men, & whether chosen ID trumps protections against sex-based oppression (which cannot be identified out of), is foundational for all other issues.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.