This is a debate?

That much of the debate about transgender issues is centred upon language and its use amuses right here. Because this is a use of language that we’ve not really seen before. Or at least, one which we hope not to see any more.

Just for the avoidance of doubt we’d, again, insist that we’re liberals around here. What consenting adults wish to do is up to them and subject only to the limitations of harm to third parties. Thus gender, claimed or dressed or assumed or insisted upon is nowt to do with us, only with those doing the claiming and assuming. Fine by us too.

That still doesn’t excuse this:

Imagine if journalists writing articles about things spoke to people with expert knowledge of those things.

That’s what Caitlin Logan does.

To find out what concerns Scottish women’s groups may have about gender reform, trans people and self-ID, she spoke to women’s groups: Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the Young Women’s Movement (YWCA Scotland), Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Forth Valley Rape Crisis, Edinburgh Women’s Aid, and Shakti Women’s Aid.

This is what a trans debate should look like: sober, sensible, well-informed.

That’s not a debate that’s a choir. Even Rizla doesn’t make a fag paper thin enough to put between the opinions of that list of groups. Sure, we’d love to have a debate about all sorts of issues but we do insist that it has to start when differing views are expressed because, you know, that’s what a debate is.

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

16 COMMENTS

  1. Differing views are inherently racist and a construct of toxic masculinity. Only the right-thinking views of woke participants in the trans debate are truly valid – especially if and when they express them whilst wearing a vagina hat. If we lower the voting age to 6 we can embed a truly progressive, vegan, anti-fascist outlook in this country.

  2. For starters, they could stop using “gender” to mean sex, and use a term more neutral than “trans people,” which implies that to question their game of pretend is to question their personhood. But these people have always profited by analyzing sex confusion using the Negro Slavery model.

    Compare Barack Obama, in an excerpt from his talk to basketball stats nerds that he curiously put under a gag order: “You and I can have an argument about climate change [but] I can’t have that same debate with somebody who just holds up a snowball in the middle of the Senate chamber in winter and says, ‘look there’s no climate change because it’s snowing!’ Which happened by the way. I didn’t just make that up.” No, the reason he can’t have such a debate is that he “debates” by cherry-picking and ridiculing. https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/26/barack-obama-mit-sloan-sports

  3. “she spoke to women’s groups: Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the Young Women’s Movement (YWCA Scotland), Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Forth Valley Rape Crisis, Edinburgh Women’s Aid, and Shakti Women’s Aid.”

    There’s probably only about 3 women and a cat involved in all these groups combined anyway.

    I dunno, but reckon, the main purpose of all these Judean People’s Feminists organisations is grant farming.

  4. If we’re insisting we’re all liberals around here who like a good debate, does that imply that someone who was friendly to trans would be equally welcome around here? That will be interesting to see!

    “For starters, they could stop using “gender” to mean sex, and use a term more neutral than “trans people,” which implies that to question their game of pretend is to question their personhood.”

    Gender isn’t being used to mean “sex”. TGs are the result of the genetic and hormonal switches controlling the pattern of brain growth in the womb not working properly, and causing parts of the brain to be wired like the other sex, relative to the rest of the body. (The differences show up on brain scans.) Sex is about what’s between your legs. Gender is about what’s between your ears.

    If using “trans people” implies that questioning their condition questions their personhood, does using the phrase “religious people” do the same? 🙂

  5. Even Rizla doesn’t make a fag paper thin enough to put between the opinions of that list of groups

    Where have I read something like that recently, though without the editorially authoritative voice of the first person plural ?:-)

    NIiV: If using “trans people” implies that questioning their condition questions their personhood, does using the phrase “religious people” do the same?

    I suspect that few people will be able to help you with this, NiV, and you will have to struggle to try and find your contextual identity with those you love, including or maybe exclusively yourself. I hope you will find the personal resource and inner strength to admit that for questions to be capable of receiving a reasonable answer they must perforce make a modicum of sense. Personhood is a concept every bit as meaningless as gender whose sense shifts seamlessly according to user and from whichever quarter the wind of fashion may blow and which is therefore devoid of meaning.

    “Mens saucius in corpore saucio” as the ancients would have had it and I fear you have neither, alas.

    Because this site is a new venture, your long-winded and tedious posts in response might initially be a welcome indication of traffic. Or there again not. I shan’t be troubling myself with your replies in any event.

    • “I suspect that few people will be able to help you with this, NiV, and you will have to struggle to try and find your contextual identity with those you love, including or maybe exclusively yourself.”

      So, the problem the other side has (only listening to views they agree with) applies over here, too? Is that your definition of an excellent debate?

      “I hope you will find the personal resource and inner strength to admit that for questions to be capable of receiving a reasonable answer they must perforce make a modicum of sense.”

      The question was about whether Spike’s exactly analogous assertion makes sense – if “trans people” implies it, then so does “religious people”, and any other “[adjective] people” usage. I was interested to see how Spike would get out of the dilemma. But I agree with you – the suggestion that “trans people” questions anyone’s “personhood” is ridiculous.

      ” I shan’t be troubling myself with your replies in any event.”

      And that’s your excellent definition of debate, is it? I’ll be happy to take no answer to mean you agree you don’t want a debate, you want a choir. 🙂

  6. Gender is the phlogiston of the 21st century.

    Although phlogiston might have been a misunderstanding of how the chemistry / physics work at least it was an attempt at describing aspects of the world that were real, observable and measurable (combustion and oxidation)