So many nuances
(I’m not sure if this is the next ReaderApp thread in the sequence or a third for the day.)
AR – we are talking about material that children might use to decide whether to go on to a medical pathway.
PR – I disagree, our members are providing helpful materials to young people struggling with their identity.
AR – a young person wouldn’t look at these words and attempt to figure out their identity.
PR – It’s a very complex area, lots of organisations working in this area helping young people.
AR – lets go back to the definitions. Gender identity is about whether you instinctively relate to the gender stereotypes of your sexPR – I feel like you’re forcing me into dictionary definitions.
So Paul Roberts wants “trans” and “gender identity” to be undefined? That’s what he’s going with? But everyone has to be “inclusive” of it despite not knowing what it is?
AR – I asked you earlier if you agreed with these definitions and you said yes.
PR – there are so many nuances here and its a complex area. These are Stonewall’s definitions.
There are so many nuances and it’s a complex area but everyone must act as if it’s clearly defined and absolutely mandatory.
How’s that working out?
They talk about the Gingerbread person, with PR being as steadily evasive as ever.
AR – its not a stretch to relate the number of gay children being referred to GIDS to this notion that they are born in the wrong body.
PR – I disagree.
AR – what is happening is when a young person identifies as trans they are immediately affirmed as trans.
PR – I disagree. Affirmation is giving the room to explore.
Uh, no, affirmation is affirmation. It’s the opposite of room to explore. It’s a box.
AR – Do you agree that it is reasonable for LGBA to be concerned about the schools campaign?
PR – I disagree. Young people are being given access to information, the materials are about exploring their identity.
What does “exploring their identity” mean? Why is it something schools are promoting? Why is “identity” being treated as coterminous with gender and gender alone? In what sense is the Gingerbread Person “information”?
AR – as a result of this information, a 4000% increase in girls, who are 70% non-heterosexual, being referred to GIDS. This LGBA campaign is entirely legitimate.
PR – I disagree. They are preventing trans people from exploring their identity.
How does PR know the trans people he mentions are in fact trans people? How does he know that’s a real category? How does he know it’s not a fad, aka a social contagion?
AR – referring to single sex services. Women at risk
PR – yes, single sex services.
AR – we agree that the Eq Act provides for single sex services.
PR – a mention of single sex services including trans women.
AR – but let’s look at why: strength and men’s tendency towards violence against women. PR – I’m not an expert, I don’t know if men are stronger or the statistics on male violence.
He doesn’t know if men are stronger.
There aren’t enough eyerolls in the universe.
AR – you don’t accept that men are stronger and more prone to violence.
PR – I don’t have those statistics. I’m not an expert.
AR – we exclude all male bodies because we have no way to distiniguish. between the overwhelming number of men who are not violent and those who are.
PR – I can’t answer this without thinking about vulnerable transwomen.
He can’t answer a question about male violence against women without thinking about men in dresses. Misogyny on stilts.
This is why they won’t debate.
This phrase is notable for how often he repeats it, it is definitely his reflexive dodge. Translated: “I can’t think of a way to deflect or reinterpret this, so I will deny having any ability to answer this one.”