“censor people I don’t agree with or I’ll leave”

They said that if they are prevented from saying what they want, they would have to decide whether to leave.

All I know is, if you’re trying to convince someone else their opinions are wrong, and yours are right, do you

a) tell them they’re stupid, insult them and try and shut down the debate (dare I say it, cancelling them).

or

b) reason with them using well thought and referenced opinions.

c) Accept that it is just that, an opinion and as long as there’s some reason behind it then there’s also a validity to it. No matter how convinced you are of the opposite. But accept there is no convincing that can be done, so move on.

But there is also a way of expressing that opinion that remains respectful and appropriate, and a way that isn’t. While i disagree with a lot that has been posted on here and v/v it has, and largely remains a good debate.

I got temporarily triggered by some very specific language that to a parent of a trans teen was either very insensitive or frankly, and let’s call it what it is, was deliberately chosen. Chosen because it is regularly used by certain parts of the anti-trans lobby and therefore immediately put them in that group. A group I find very hard to respect even if I have to bite my tongue and allow them an opinion. I won’t repeat it, but those that saw it I think will know. A real dog whistle phrase, and then to hide behind ‘All I said was….’ is even weaker.

[edit for clarity, having re-read and recapped. The language being picked up and quoted by others, eg: ‘ transwomen don’t exist / are not women / are men’ is NOT the objectionable language, even if that is still objectionable. What was written and then deleted, either by the poster or STW – I think the latter – was much worse, even if plausibly deniable. Dog whistle, as I say]

I hope I haven’t tried to shut people down for holding a different opinion. In fact I’ve tried at all turns to respect that their opinion is more popular than mine (I still don’t concede that makes it right though….particularly on a matter that isn’t ‘proveable’)

There’s a certain level of agreement that needs to happen before any debate can take place.

In this case, that level is, ‘Transwomen are women and transmen are men.’

If someone denies the lived experience of people and even their existence, how are we supposed to discuss the technicalities of how society is supposed to work within this paradigm?  The problem is that we (as a society) are still fighting over this phrase, and it is a fight because we are talking about the right of a minority simply to exist.

Saying, ‘You can call yourself what you like, I don’t care, just don’t expect me to buy into your illusion’ is not being tolerant.  We all require a certain amount of buy in from society to be able to simply live our lives.  As the majority on here are white, middle aged, straight, cis-gender males we have little direct experience of having to fight for society to accept our existence or trying to get society to change to a new more accepting paradigm (some of us do, obviously, but by and large our existence and ability to do more or less whatever we want goes pretty much unchallenged).  We have simply always been accepted and have no frame of reference for fighting just to exist.

So yeah, if you are saying, ‘Transwomen aren’t women and transmen aren’t men.’ or even staying silent when others say it, what are you doing here discussing the technicalities of how trans people should be included in society?

Shouldn’t you be on another forum discussing how best to snuff out the trans-threat?

In this case, that level is, ‘Transwomen are women and transmen are men.’

But it’s not that simple is it?  Because if ‘Transwomen are women’ then how can we have a debate about whether it is fair to ban women from female competition. By the very fact that we are talking about it implies that there is a difference between Transwomen & cis women. The  nature of that difference &  the reality that there is a difference is what is leading to the ban.

@rainper That’s horiffic. I also saw your earlier post about the lesbian speed dating event – that was blatant homophobia (there’s no other word for it).

I ask this as this whilst the thread ‘was’ about sports you, and others, have made it into a wider discussion, using ever increasing emotive language, culminating in you latest post where you use the phrase ‘snuff out’.

Actually, I was out until someone decided to make some pretty disgusting comments that don’t really need repeating and then decided to follow it up with something equally shitty even if it may have seemed reasonable without the context of the initial post.

But yeah, I don’t know about the situation in Brighton and Hove but it sounds similar to a lot of other situations where there has been an attempt to exclude trans people and people who don’t accept that exclusion have not taken it lying down and have been very vigorous in their denial of the exclusion of trans people.

It sounds like, if we start discussing this, it’s is going to be a ‘Should trans people be allowed to exist’ type debate.  I’m done having that debate, to be honest.  Yes, they should be allowed to exist and society has to buy into that existence.

You’re either going to find your own way to deciding that trans people should be allowed to exist or you won’t.  Either way I’m not going to be the one to get you there.

And because I know how this is going to go, lots of people are going to think you mean a women’s shelter rather than a Rape support service.  You are probably not going to correct this misconception so I’m doing it now.

@brucewee I think rainper was perfecly clear in her wording, and it’s also very clear that the group whose independent existence you will not tolerate is female humans.

And because I know how this is going to go, lots of people are going to think you mean a women’s shelter rather than a Rape support service. You are probably not going to correct this misconception so I’m doing it now.

I don’t see how I could have been any clearer. The woman is trying to set up a ‘support group’, where woman who have been raped can meet up in a supportive and safe environment to talk about their trauma. So far, her attempts a book rooms (at a variety of venues) have been rejected because the group is for females only.

There’s a certain level of agreement that needs to happen before any debate can take place.

Failed at the first hurdle.

So far, her attempts a book rooms (at a variety of venues) have been rejected because the group is for females only.

Yes, because what they are trying to do is set up a ‘separate but equal’ group.  History tells us that separate but equal is one but not the otherr.  In a climate where trans people are fighting for their right simply to exist I can see why the attempt to set up such a group would generate a lot of anger.

Transwomen are raped and assaulted at a higher rate than ciswomen.  The existence of such a group would just add to the trauma.  Not only did you get raped, you’re not even good enough to get support from the ‘real’ women.  It’s compounding an already traumatic experience.

Would you expect a ‘white only’ group for women who have been raped by men of colour to be able to book rooms?  It’s something that nobody would have questioned in the past but society has bought into the idea that whites are not the important group compared to others.

That’s what I mean by buying into the idea as a society.  People are not allowed to exist only when it’s convenient.  Inclusion is the default and exclusions have to be carefully considered and thought through for all parties.  Not just the one that matters.

Was the effect on transwomen considered when this group was first set up, or do their feelings and experiences simply not matter when compared to ciswomen?

Genuine question @rainper what is the objection from the venues, that the group isn’t inclusive? At what point is the objection raised? If I wanted to book a room for a mid to large number of people, I wouldn’t tell them the subject, as what business is it of the venue what is discussed?

Or I might tell them something different, how would they know? Is it a (understandable) requirement to have no men on site at the time?

Casting woman as having the same position of power wrt to male people as white supremacists have to black people is cloud cuckoo land.

Hormone levels are irrelevant

In society in general maybe not, but in sport they most most definitely are, as are chromosones. Simplistic statements to the contrary ignore the complexities of the society in which we live and in particular sport. If you try to force people into a simple yes/no response you’ll get just that and probably won’t like the answer.

When dogma takes over from compromise you force people into camps. Having both the notions of biological sex and gender, and accepting that both have their uses and limitations gives more freedom to those concerned than saying “If you are truly in favour of inclusion then self-id should be sufficient.” Because it isn’t sufficient in some situations but is in others. In competetive sport I consider it insufficient because there’s no longer a level playing field in women’s sport but on the MTB club Saturday ride I’ll happily identify people as they self identify because everyone wins.

A round in circles we go to the next simplistic argument.

I’m going to say that whilst the attitude by some folks on here to trans woman hasn’t been great, the attitude shown to woman by certain posters is pretty disgusting as well

Sport is sport. We should agree to disagree. But when it comes to people being raped, I think it’s fair to say I fall strongly on the side of the woman’s right to pick and choose exactly who they want to share the experience with

i don’t think it’s a subject anyone should be trying to score virtue signaling points around tbh..

I think I’ll look at some statistics on the levels of acceptance of transpeople among women and young people to cheer myself up.

Here is one to cheer you up… my daughter’s partner is a trans-woman… so that’s more than “acceptance”… it’s love, support, understanding and commitment. Things are much better for younger trans people now… especially if they can live and work with people their own age… there is very little backlash as long as older people aren’t involved. Sport, well “competitive” sport, is a whole different experience though… maybe because the organisations involved are run by older people, I dunno… but in that area everything is going backwards. People feel, and in many instances are, totally excluded. And far from safe.

FWIW absolutely support that ^.

So do I. As long as there is also support for trans victims (they’re at risk just like anyone else of violent and sexual assaults), then the existence of support groups they can’t join for those that require that to feel safe shouldn’t be prevented. I don’t know the background of what’s going on in Brighton, I’m talking more generally.

Here is one to cheer you up…

That does cheer me up, actually.  I’m glad to hear it.

FWIW absolutely support that ^.

To be honest, I was not in the best frame of mind to get into a debate about Rape support groups.  I was still really angry about the comment on the previous page and that probably came across in my replies.

I apologise to all, particularly rainper.

I still believe that excluding any group is a big decision and has to be taken in such a way that it considers the impact on all groups but I appreciate that it is an incredibly serious, complex, and emotional subject and I was insensitive in the way I was trying to get my point across.

I know this sounds like a, ‘sorry if you were offended’ apology but it’s really not meant to.  I understand what I said and the way I said it was offensive and my only defense was I’d just had to look at an extremely offensive post (that was deleted by the mods) and an equally offensive follow up but with plausible deniability (that wasn’t deleted) and I was angry.  Not an excuse, I know, but there it is.

@Edukator I thought scotroutes’ point was an excellent one, and directly related to Hannah’s point about “policing women”. If you’re against it, you can’t then advocate doing exactly that but in a different way.

@rainper, then might I suggest that honesty is not always the best policy.

The premise of the debate for the overwhelming majority here is that trans women exist, the debate is about how their existence should be dealt with in sport.

All the debate I’ve found interesting is of that nature, and most posters have stuck to that, yes. It’s a very tricky question that needs debate. I’ve said my piece, blanket bans should be avoided if possible, especially at grass roots level. It’s not easy for sports organising bodies, but I think many are getting it wrong. These bodies often get things wrong though. Long live disorganised “sport”.

@kelvin I happen to live in Brighton. There are trans-inclusive women’s groups, and there are even a number of trans-only groups. A woman tried to organise one, single female-only group group, but that can’t be tolerated.