Now cancelled
Kathleen Stock and Peter Tatchell were going to discuss, but now they’re not.
Tatchell tweeted a statement that simply reiterates the fanatical dogmatism and hostility to women of the trans movement.
But what are “trans rights”? What does Tatchell take them to be? Putting it that way makes it sound as if skeptics of the dogma want to take human rights away from trans people, which is complete nonsense. The whole problem is that “trans rights” are such non-existent rights as erasing the word “women” from the language, as men forcing themselves into women’s spaces, as men taking jobs and prizes that were meant for women, as men competing against women in sport, including at the Olympics. Those aren’t rights – they’re violations of women’s rights.
He may think he doesn’t support misogyny, but unfortunately he’s dead wrong.
Updating to add: Kathleen of course zeroed in on the contradiction.
Well…he meant…there should be no debate there should just be Peter Tatchell challenging Her Views. It’s what they all mean.
Touchy Tatchell can’t stand the idea of a woman talking back to him. Wheesht!
I think John Stuart Mill may have had something to say about ideas about which cannot be debated (essentially, they’re indefensible).
Tatchell should instead have tried to change the title to “How to Knock Down a Transphobe.” The question “can there be common ground?” needs to be rhetorical.
Of course, it looks like the main objection is that Tatchell isn’t transgender: only a trans person knows the “right” arguments because only they can make it clear that being transgender is WHO THEY ARE AND YOURE ATTACKING MY RIGHT TO EXIST OMG OMG OMG SOMEONE STOP THIS MADNESS.
Sastra, that, plus LOOK AT ME I’M SPECIAL AND YOU’RE NOT. If Tatchell got up there, a trans person would be missing an opportunity to be seen and fawned over.
The problem most of these people don’t see is that by declaring trans “rights” non-negotiable, they are saying that women’s rights (notice the difference in punctuation; it was intended) are. Women need to be willing to negotiate away their rights without getting anything in return, except maybe the opportunity not to be called TERF or Karen.
The debate is a trans person berating everyone, forever.
I thought that was Hell, Holms.
@iknlast:
They are not saying women’s rights are negotiable. They are saying Trans-Women-Are-Women is non-negotiable.
When we hear the question “Should transwomen be allowed in women’s spaces” we translate it as “Should men be allowed in women’s spaces?” and answer accordingly. When TRAs hear the question “Should transwomen be allowed in women’s spaces?” they translate it as “Should all women be allowed in women’s spaces?” and answer accordingly. And when the question is rephrased one way or the other, both sides generally agree on the answer.
It always, always comes down to whether transwomen are men or women. TRAs on other blog used to get so frustrated with me when they saw me “ducking” their arguments about whether transwomen are safe in men’s bathrooms or how likely it was that just a few transgender female athletes would lead to “cis women” being locked out of women’s sports. What are you afraid of?
But I kept arguing that those issues can only be addressed AFTER we deal with sex-and-gender and categories. Focusing on that first step wasn’t my attempt to ignore the good rebuttals or avoid responsibility or try to make it look all airy-fairy philosophical when real people were being effected in real ways. It was the very POINT where it starts. All practical issues have different solutions depending on what premises we begin with. When the premise is disputed, there’s the debate. You can’t just shove it away and start later.
Yebbut iknklast didn’t say they are saying women’s rights are negotiable, she said that by declaring trans “rights” non-negotiable they are [by implication] saying that. Saying “Trans-Women-Are-Women is non-negotiable” necessarily makes women’s rights negotiable. You can’t have the one without the other and that’s the whole problem in a nutshell.
Rather, by saying trans rights are non-negotiable they are making women’s rights negotiable. Otherwise, I feel like I’m putting words in their mouth.
To be completely fair to the process, women’s rights have never been up for debate either. Their rights were simply given away or usurped. No negotiation necessary; there was only ever one side at the “bargaining” table.
Trans activists won more than half the battle when they got some people and institutions to accept the term “transwoman.” That’s why it’s TiM for me. It’s clear, accurate language that doesn’t try to hide anything. That’s why I never use the phrase “Trans Rights Activist.” What they are demanding are not “rights” at all, and calling them such gives them too much ground.
Genderism wouldn’t have gotten as far as it had were it not for this Trojan Horse language that furthers their talking points. That’s one of the reasons the Staniland Question is so important. It cuts through bullshit, obfuscatory terminology, and lets you see exactly what TAs are demanding, and what women are losing.
I get the feeling he backed out when he realized that Kathleen Stock wouldn’t be gagged and would be able to reply to his pronouncements of “no debate.” I also notice that debating for the trans side needs to be limited to trans individuals, but the same courtesy is not afforded to women. He’s sufficient to stand for his trans inclusive feminist friends, as is Robin Ince.
I had just read Suzanne Moore’s newsletter item about this and she says that men such as Tatchell, Robin Ince, and Billy Bragg, can’t hear women’s voices for being too squeaky, too many tones, for them to be able to incorporate.
She writes: “My writing voice however is not inaudible. Or I would not have made a career of it.
“So I can conclude only one thing. It can be ignored by men who know much moret than me about women’s lives, women’s experience, women’s rights.
“Ironically, one of my first jobs was as a trainee Audio Technician and I had to learn when people were feigning deafness – they would for insurance scams – so I can spot it a mile off.
“The poor critters, so hard of hearing. THey simply cannot make out the things we write. It’s not their fault. They are the good guys. Aren’t they?”