U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.

[Heartofice]

This conversation is pretty telling isn’t it. BFC’s point is that we should listen to both sides of the argument, which is seems a reasonable thing to say.

The response is essentially ‘no you shouldn’t, the other side of the argument is wrong and appalling’

Someone even brought up racists, and made that comparison. 
 

As for the point that we should be asking trans people what they think, well firstly it’s disingenuous to suggest all trans people think anything, like you can make that statement about any group. Not all trans people agree with everything the Trans activist position decrees is the truth. 
 

Also, we have been listening to the trans activist position for quite some time. Almost everything it demanded has been enacted, pretty much unchallenged for years. Nobody was even paying attention, everyone just accepted it all in good faith  and didn’t question any of it. It’s just now people are starting to notice the problematic elements and loopholes it creates, but after the event.

So this is why you have scandals like Tavistock, why all the major organisations in the UK taking advice from activist organisations like Stonewall. We have been listening, not challenging any of it, until recently. 
 

So then when there is any level of push back the only response is to say ‘that person is a transphobe’ because they don’t 100% agree with our position. Except if you look at someone like JKR, nobody can ever point to anything she’s said that’s transphobic , it’s all nods and winks ‘she associates with this person’ , ‘oh that is a dogwhistle for .. something!’. That in itself is a rhetorical trick, not actually listening to what someone says but reading so heavily between the lines that it fits your own preconceived conclusion. 

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sigh it is depressing to on their forums. In addition to the transphobia, just a lot of general sexism, homophobia, and ableism. 

Unpleasant was lowballing it really. I don't think its actually healthy for anyone to wade through the level of hate in certain internet cesspools. See also: blackpilled incels discussing women.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This conversation is pretty telling isn’t it.

Sigh I’ve tried so hard to help you and you still can't understand.

 

[kiko]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

You'd probably get a clearer picture of it by dipping into the pure TERF sections of Reddit or mumsnet, they don't tend to mince words so much there, but you risk being swayed by them or just putting yourself through something unpleasant.

 

Not that I disagree with your view on them nor do I think it's mandatory to go there and see when it is known what they have to say. But are we getting to the root cause of the extrem pushback to BFC's idea of listening to more than one side?

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, kiko said:

Not that I disagree with your view on them nor do I think it's mandatory to go there and see when it is known what they have to say. But are we getting to the root cause of the extrem pushback to BFC's idea of listening to more than one side?

 

The idea sounds reasonable—and in most circumstances it probably is—on some occasions it can be disadvantageous.  Not  every side on an issue or a faucet of a particular issue must be given equal or significant consideration. 

For example to determine whether or not medically transitions proves a net good for those who go mental well being you'd have to talk to the people who did so.

And not say the parents of the people who did so.

 

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

For example to determine whether or not medically transitions proves a net good for those who go mental well being you'd have to talk to the people who did so.

Your example doesn’t work.

Whether transitioning ‘works for someone’s mental health’ is surely a very individualised situation.

You would also talk to people for whom it wasn’t a positive experience, those who detransitioned, but it’s not going to give you a clear answer because, it depends on the individual.

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, kiko said:

Not that I disagree with your view on them nor do I think it's mandatory to go there and see when it is known what they have to say. But are we getting to the root cause of the extrem pushback to BFC's idea of listening to more than one side?

No, I don't think immersing yourself in any hate filled community is healthy for anyone - obviously not the target of the hate, but really just anyone. It can encourage several different harmful emotions, obviously varying depending on the community - self hate and misanthropy from blackpilled incels (or any other blackpill group for that matter) on top of misogyny, implicit bias against certain ethnic groups for racist groups etc, but also just picking up the general hate and anger of those groups is not a good for you.

The whole point of even putting that in there was to say that if you want to see what the popular views among the extreme end of the spectrum then you need to go to where they talk among themselves, its pretty frustrating to get this in response like I'm still somehow censoring the conversation. 

I am in no way saying everyone that is not a trans activist is in that group, but many of the people JKR has been agreeing with and choosing to associate are in that group. If I don't want to see what they're saying, I don't go hang around with them.

What I'd like is to not have to drag a Justice of the Peace along with me to two separate doctors appointments while I have to drop my pants for the two separate doctors to nod and say "yes, this certificate from your surgeon was not lying - you have had surgery" so that the Justice of the Peace can then turn around and say "yes, these two doctors aren't lying about inspecting this persons genitals". I'm well into my middle age now, there is no other bureaucratic process I've run into in my life that treated multiple trusted groups of people as untrustworthy just because of the type of person they're trying to help. It was fucking humiliating and dehumanizing, but any time someone suggests making things better regardless of what the actual change is - and it could just be treating a statement from a medical professional the same as they would in any other context - you'll get people howling about how this is going to cause rampant child abuse and rape, doctors will be transing children at record numbers!

And then you get to experience the joy of people insisting that we've had decades of doing nothing but listening to trans people and its been an unmitigated disaster. 

I don't think you should listen to the people who hate me about whether I should get medical care or basic rights because they will always say "no, I already have too many rights". There is no equivalent "other side" to a person that is fighting for equal rights, so you don't need to give weight to those that hate them. This other side framing is not only invalid, but it also positions doctors that accept the research on the issue as "biased" and on the "trans side" - they're not, and don't fall for that.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Your example doesn’t work.

Whether transitioning ‘works for someone’s mental health’ is surely a very individualised situation.

You would also talk to people for whom it wasn’t a positive experience, those who detransitioned, but it’s not going to give you a clear answer because, it depends on the individual.

Lol you have absolutely no interest in anything I say regarding transition or its impact on me, don't act like you're interested in all viewpoints.

[BigFatCoward]

27 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Through the whole back and forth on this page I'm actually uncertain which is your point, and before answering please bear in mind I'm sincere in this not setting you up for a gotcha. Is your suggestion that all the sources that should be consulted will include the racists (in that analogy), or that it should include all the good faith actors in the discussion but exclude the racists (again in that analogy)?

My response to that varies depending on your answer, if you mean the first then I quite simply disagree and there's probably not much more to it than that. If you mean the latter though, my argument is that the voices we're talking about not being worth including in the conversation are as extreme and bad faith as the racists in the analogy. Yes, medical professionals with relevant expertise but no connection to activism can be part of the conversation. But you wouldn't give any more weight to a dermatologist discussing the physical strength of a generic trans person than you should a pediatrician discussing epidemiology and the elderly in a pandemic (personal bug bear there, we have a media doctor in Aus that has been very opinionated and listened to over the last few years despite being well outside his specialty).

You should also be weighing the scale of the problem and considering if the level of hysteria in the conversation is justified, which is sadly rare when it comes to trans athletes even if they did have an advantage.

My initial response was to Week directing someone to a number of authors on a specific subject. And I haven't read them all but I'd bet good money they all say roughly the same thing. And that has never been a good way of getting an understanding of an issue. 

Obviously good faith actors are most important, but even the most horrific bigot has something to bring to a discussion, not because you listen to them or agree with them, but because it helps you understand why they are the way they are, it's the first step to being able to change someone's opinion.

Obviously when it comes to something like trans athletes the the people you listen to when making policy are experts in the field or affected actors, but if its about forming opinions, even the most vile rhetoric is helpful to understand the core problem.

What doesn't help is anyone who says 'I'm not sure that the inclusively is more important than the competitive fairness when it comes to trans athletes' immediately being rinsed as a transphobe, there are many legitimate arguments on both side of that question.

Nobody has ever had their mind changed by being ignored (and I assume that is the end goal for everyone). 

Unpalatable as it can be, if you want to understand transphobia, you need to sit down with some transphobes. If someone said to me 'go and address Violence against women and girls', i'm going to have to sit down with some people that absolutely make my skin crawl such as rapists, domestic abusers etc - accepting that its easier for me to sit and listen to them because im not the one who is directly affected by their actions.  

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The whole point of even putting that in there was to say that if you want to see what the popular views among the extreme end of the spectrum then you need to go to where they talk among themselves, its pretty frustrating to get this in response like I'm still somehow censoring the conversation. 

We aren’t even talking about extreme views though, that’s another rhetorical trick from you. You are labelling the most commonly held view on a number of topics as being ‘extreme’, which allows you to totally disregard it. You don’t see what you are doing?

Again, just defaming people by saying they hate trans people, instead of actually engaging with what they are saying. It’s an easy way out, which is the entire point. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Your example doesn’t work.

 

It does though lol.

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Whether transitioning ‘works for someone’s mental health’ is surely a very individualised situation.

You would also talk to people for whom it wasn’t a positive experience, those who detransitioned,

….So like I said talk to the people who transitioned.

Where in my example did I specify only talk to the people who have a positive experience?

14 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

depends on the individual.

Listen my dude, my fellow trans ally, I know people of your ilk hates studies, and meta-analyses, and prefer focusing hyper specific anecdotes vindicate your worldview.

But the evidence is clear—generally transitioning is to the benefit of most people who do it as reported by them 97% of the time.

There are some people  who regret getting hip surgery—doesn’t invalidate 95% of the time people feel they’re better off for it.

[DaveSumm]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

I don't know that's necessarily a fair read of what DavesSumm meant, or even if it is that it's the best response at the moment.

I already emoji thanked but I’ll thank you again. @Varysblackfyre321 I really don’t know what to say, if someone expressly says “I do NOT endorse or defend JKR” maybe they truly don’t? Is that possible? Does anyone with even the faintest pushback on an issue automatically become a horrible bigot? Even if you secretly think I’m worse than what I write, maybe ask yourself if it’s helpful to say that? Or why your brain jumps to that conclusion?

All I was trying to point out before was exactly what karaddin said: if you know nothing about trans people and you head online to learn more, you’ll be dragged HARD in two very different directions. Honestly if I didn’t know a thing, and the first two things I encountered were Rowling’s letter and one of your posts Varys? Can you empathise with someone who emerged thinking that she had the high ground in terms of tone? Seemingly calm and evidence based on one hand, and explicitly advocating to ignore writings on the other, brandishing them TERFs who shouldn’t be listened to? Honestly, if anyone says to me “don’t read this letter opposing my views” … I’ll be pretty damn curious to read that.

There’s an awful lot of confused people in the middle ground. The left far too often brandishes them as bigots immediately, and doesn’t allow for the possibility that people can be confused, or maybe just wrong? Can a person still be earnestly wrong, in good faith? 

Which is also why I agree with @BigFatCoward here: whether you like it or not, Rowling’s views have got a foot hold with a lot of people. There needs to be equally carefully written rebuttals of her views (they’re depressingly difficult to find, amongst the standard ‘she said this therefore she’s a TERF, therefore stop reading’). I don’t think the analogy with racism really works, because racism no longer has a legitimate voice in the country. It’s well outside the Overton window, we know it’s stupid and wrong. Trans issues are, regrettably, not the same. The very fact that Sturgeon floundered in that interview means that there is still a debate here, still voters to think of. So “ignore the opposition” doesn’t cut it; it alienates the middle ground. 

[Raja]

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

they’re depressingly difficult to find

They're really not that difficult to find. You haven't been looking if you genuinely think this, and a lot of them are far above the standard you describe. It's as simple as people like you not doing the required reading and then being like 'bah, they're calling everyone bigots'.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

My initial response was to Week directing someone to a number of authors on a specific subject. And I haven't read them all but I'd bet good money they all say roughly the same thing. And that has never been a good way of getting an understanding of an issue. 

Perhaps my different reaction comes from having seen some pieces from multiple trans women that are really going above and beyond to try give a fair and good faith interpretation of JKR on the issue. I think they have gone as far as it's reasonable to look for in weighing her comments within the constraints of 'trans identities are ultimately valid and our rights deserve to be protected'. I think they're significantly more fair than you're imagining, but we do come to the point of disagreement between us - unsurprisingly I don't think a perspective that rejects my identity needs to be included.

Apologies for chopping up this next bit of your post to group the relevant parts together for my reply

Quote

Obviously good faith actors are most important, but even the most horrific bigot has something to bring to a discussion, not because you listen to them or agree with them, but because it helps you understand why they are the way they are, it's the first step to being able to change someone's opinion.

...

Nobody has ever had their mind changed by being ignored (and I assume that is the end goal for everyone). 

Unpalatable as it can be, if you want to understand transphobia, you need to sit down with some transphobes. If someone said to me 'go and address Violence against women and girls', i'm going to have to sit down with some people that absolutely make my skin crawl such as rapists, domestic abusers etc - accepting that its easier for me to sit and listen to them because im not the one who is directly affected by their actions.  

Perhaps a useful framing to look at how you're looking at some of this is more akin to how people that work in deradicalization programs are going to need to be around people who are, quite clearly, radicalized. I don't actually disagree with you that if things are to improve, someone needs to be doing that work but its going to call for the right people to be the ones doing it and generally can't be done by someone personally impacted by it. And given the perspective you bring into the conversation it makes perfect sense to me that you'd put more weight and attention on this aspect.

Quote

Obviously when it comes to something like trans athletes the the people you listen to when making policy are experts in the field or affected actors, but if its about forming opinions, even the most vile rhetoric is helpful to understand the core problem.

What doesn't help is anyone who says 'I'm not sure that the inclusively is more important than the competitive fairness when it comes to trans athletes' immediately being rinsed as a transphobe, there are many legitimate arguments on both side of that question.

This one is hard, because I know there are a lot of people that react like that without listening to what's being said, so I'd ask you to consider a few things:

1. We're talking about reactions on the internet, and regardless of what you're talking about a lot of people immediately jump to incendiary rhetoric. it's a problem and I'd like the culture of the internet to change but it currently is the way it is. I don't think the public conversation should be focused on those voices, whether they're the bigots hating us or the hurt among us lashing out.
2. A disproportionate number of trans people, especially on the internet, are young. This is due to a number of factors, including shortened life expectancy, the ability to find community and information being greatly improved by the internet, and by improving public perceptions allowing more people to be honest with and about themselves*. We're both old enough to know that young people are impulsive, passionate and often dumb. This contributes to more of 1).
3. The experience of many trans people in their body does not match any of the discussions around us having an advantage. I'm talking about myself in this bucket as well. I'm on the tall side for a woman, but I'm the same height as multiple cis women cousins and other friends, I am physically weaker than pretty much all the non-elderly cis women in my life, my joints are utter shit and can't handle any level of impact. I'm also completely unaffected in that I'm never going to want to be involved in sport, but I do feel that spike of "injustice! outrage!" whenever I hear someone talking about potential advantages. Even before transition I was on the weak side, even working out 5 times a week I never built much muscle, I just lost weight, so none of those narratives feel authentic to me. I'd like to think I don't contribute to 1), but I'm sure this does in others.

All of which amounts to me saying "can we please try look past that". The primary question that should matter for a general rule based on fairness is whether the average trans woman experiences an advantage beyond what is standard variation within cis women. The trustworthiness of research answering this question is certainly an issue though, I have seen research in the past which suggested it did not, and I've seen trans women comment on some more recent research that was less confident on that front. I've also seen research that I regard as not at all trustworthy which claims our performance is equivalent to cis men and I freely admit that I dismiss that on the basis of the source and it being too far outside my personal experience. If it gets replicated by more trustworthy figures then I'll give it more time. But I would like to emphasize that any advantage needs to be an unfair one, if not you need to explain why a small physiological advantage is fine in a cis woman but not in a trans woman. 

Alternatively rather than trying to use a general rule, you have certain metrics that you apply on an individual level - most rules I've seen that try do more than a blanket yes or no dabble in this, often using testosterone level as the shorthand measurement. If that's the metric being used than I think every cis woman would get flagged as unfairly advantaged against me lol. If you take this route then any trans woman that falls within the metrics needs to be accepted without any further bullshit, but you do also run into fairness in the other direction when cis women exceed it - again testosterone level can come up as an example there.

Now this is far too much and probably no one will even read it, but I'm wanting to demonstrate that there is plenty of appetite for a sincere discussion of the issues even from someone that sometimes gives a "fuck off" response to people they don't think are reciprocating that good faith.

[kiko]

24 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I am in no way saying everyone that is not a trans activist is in that group, but many of the people JKR has been agreeing with and choosing to associate are in that group. If I don't want to see what they're saying, I don't go hang around with them.

How do you know that?
The things I know about JKR is that she wants women spaces without trans women, she made a weird comment about wymin and associates with bad folks. All pretty damning. 
But: I only know that because I have read it on this board and then only because I have this weird fascination with the UK thread. Is what I learned true? Should I put more weight on this NYT opinion article? What action do you recommend to understand the discussion about JKR'S view on trans issue. 
While I happily agree that we shouldn't make room for the vile opinions that do exist here on this site, I am deeply worried by people saying we shouldn't even look at the other side.

Look, we are lucky to have a trained professional on listening to people to get out the truth on this board. Shouldn't we listen to him?

 

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[BigFatCoward]

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

 

Now this is far too much and probably no one will even read it, but I'm wanting to demonstrate that there is plenty of appetite for a sincere discussion of the issues even from someone that sometimes gives a "fuck off" response to people they don't think are reciprocating that good faith.

Anybody that isn't reading your input and giving it more weight than most wouldnt deserve to be in the discussion. You can never discount lived experiences as a source of information.

I'll try and respond to the rest later, but I've been up all night (which may account for some of my thoughts being a bit jumbled) so i'm going back to bed. 

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, kiko said:

While I happily agree that we shouldn't make room for the vile opinions that do exist here on this site, I am deeply worried by people saying we shouldn't even look at the other side.

Once again, I explicitly suggested that reading their opinions directly is one of the options for finding out what they think - how on earth do you get from that to saying it shouldn't even be looked at. I merely noted that, clearly in my opinion, it's not a pleasant experience. 

6 minutes ago, kiko said:

How do you know that?
The things I know about JKR is that she wants women spaces without trans women, she made a weird comment about wymin and associates with bad folks. All pretty damning. 
But: I only know that because I have read it on this board and then only because I have this weird fascination with the UK thread. Is what I learned true? Should I put more weight on this NYT opinion article? What action do you recommend to understand the discussion about JKR'S view on trans issue.

As for what I'd recommend to someone wanting to know more - I'd reiterate that I think the sources Week suggested were making a fair attempt at examining and explaining the situation based on who was mentioned. Personally I don't want to read even more about her, so I'm not looking through at this point myself to verify and its been some time since the ones I've seen previously so I don't remember exactly which they were to recommend them. If videos were more your jam I think I recall Jessie Gender on YouTube having a crack and extending significantly more benefit of the doubt to JK than I do despite her normally being significantly more radical in her politics, and the expectation of having them represented in media, than I am.

For the bolded - providing citations for the views of the various people in question, that's going to result in spamming the fuck out of this thread and not something I'm going to dive into on a Friday night. Can we start with Matt Walsh - is it reasonable to state that he's a fair right figure, and not remotely a feminist one at that, and state that its worth raising an eyebrow that JK would praise his views as communicated in his film?

I can also talk to some of her other actions, her entry point into this whole discussion greatly misrepresented the facts of the case that she was objecting to - an unfair dismissal claim where Maya Forstater did not have her contract renewed (note - note even actually fired) for creating a hostile workplace for colleagues and damaging the not for profit she was meant to be working for. JK characterized this as firing a woman for "stating sex is real" - full write up https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-forstater-tweets-support-hostile-work-ncna1105201. JK caught backlash for this, and did not take it well, leading to the TERF community being primed to love bomb her as soon as she later complained about the "people who menstruate" language the next year. Since then she's demonstrated a clear trend on the issue over time, including accidentally copy/pasting a rant into the middle of a reply to kids art (which also demonstrates that she's reading the TERF forums at the same time as doing PR tweets to kids. She attacked Graham Norton for saying that he (GN) shouldn't even be getting asked about his views on trans people after Billy Bragg extended the comment to be applicable to her as well as John Cleese.

This is a sampling of some of the things from the last few years that don't depict a person looking to engage with the subject in good faith and very much identifying herself with one side of it.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

If we want to know whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete at a high level in female sports, should we only listen to trans athletes or trans doctors? Or should female athletes and specialist in the field be allowed a say? 

Again, you're conflating understanding trans experiences and weighing the arguments about trans sports as if they were the same thing: as I said earlier, you have to do the former before you can sensibly do the latter. If you don't, how would you know which side has better points?

But in any case, even taking this on its face, the issue with it is: when did you last see a trans athlete get a platform on the issue of trans sport? I can't remember seeing one interviewed in any major media source. We hear from cis athletes and doctors and constantly from cis politicians on the subject. They drown out the trans voices, who are rarely interviewed at all, and where they are, their views are pushed down towards the bottom of the story. Nobody seems to care whether they buy in.

If you're genuinely concerned with hearing both sides on trans issues, it's not JK Rowling being pushed out of the conversation.

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

My initial response was to Week directing someone to a number of authors on a specific subject. And I haven't read them all but I'd bet good money they all say roughly the same thing. And that has never been a good way of getting an understanding of an issue. 

I would say that saying 'I haven't read these people's views but I assume I know what they're saying' is not a good way of getting an understanding of an issue.

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Obviously good faith actors are most important, but even the most horrific bigot has something to bring to a discussion, not because you listen to them or agree with them, but because it helps you understand why they are the way they are, it's the first step to being able to change someone's opinion.

I'm sorry to say it, but some people's opinions cannot be changed.

However, the most effective way of changing opinions is to expose those people to the people they're prejudiced against, showing them that those people are normal and they have a lot in common. Most trans people just want the same as anyone else does. They want to fall in love and watch TV and have a nice home and friends and a rewarding job. They also don't want things that get in the way of that: harassment, intrusive requirements to get medical care, constantly having their existence used as a political football. Who would want that?

But again, you need to listen to trans people to understand how intrusive and unpleasant the current atmosphere is to their lives and why it doesn't have to be this way. Only then are you equipped to evaluate the arguments.

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Unpalatable as it can be, if you want to understand transphobia, you need to sit down with some transphobes. If someone said to me 'go and address Violence against women and girls', i'm going to have to sit down with some people that absolutely make my skin crawl such as rapists, domestic abusers etc - accepting that its easier for me to sit and listen to them because im not the one who is directly affected by their actions.  

I don't disagree. But first you sit down with the trans people. Have you done that? Because you kind of seem resistant to it, in this thread.

33 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I already emoji thanked but I’ll thank you again. @Varysblackfyre321 I really don’t know what to say, if someone expressly says “I do NOT endorse or defend JKR” maybe they truly don’t? Is that possible? Does anyone with even the faintest pushback on an issue automatically become a horrible bigot? Even if you secretly think I’m worse than what I write, maybe ask yourself if it’s helpful to say that? Or why your brain jumps to that conclusion?

All I was trying to point out before was exactly what karaddin said: if you know nothing about trans people and you head online to learn more, you’ll be dragged HARD in two very different directions. Honestly if I didn’t know a thing, and the first two things I encountered were Rowling’s letter and one of your posts Varys? Can you empathise with someone who emerged thinking that she had the high ground in terms of tone? Seemingly calm and evidence based on one hand, and explicitly advocating to ignore writings on the other, brandishing them TERFs who shouldn’t be listened to? Honestly, if anyone says to me “don’t read this letter opposing my views” … I’ll be pretty damn curious to read that.

There’s an awful lot of confused people in the middle ground. The left far too often brandishes them as bigots immediately, and doesn’t allow for the possibility that people can be confused, or maybe just wrong? Can a person still be earnestly wrong, in good faith? 

Which is also why I agree with @BigFatCoward here: whether you like it or not, Rowling’s views have got a foot hold with a lot of people. There needs to be equally carefully written rebuttals of her views (they’re depressingly difficult to find, amongst the standard ‘she said this therefore she’s a TERF, therefore stop reading’). I don’t think the analogy with racism really works, because racism no longer has a legitimate voice in the country. It’s well outside the Overton window, we know it’s stupid and wrong. Trans issues are, regrettably, not the same. The very fact that Sturgeon floundered in that interview means that there is still a debate here, still voters to think of. So “ignore the opposition” doesn’t cut it; it alienates the middle ground. 

I think this is all fair enough but it lays the burden on trans people to do constant emotional labour, while transphobes behave badly: and the only response it has to 'I shouldn't have to do this' is 'do it more'.

[DaveSumm]

34 minutes ago, Raja said:

They're really not that difficult to find. You haven't been looking if you genuinely think this, and a lot of them are far above the standard you describe. It's as simple as people like you not doing the required reading and then being like 'bah, they're calling everyone bigots'.

OK, I wasn’t clear there; I have found them as I was looking for them. But from the perspective of someone new to it, I don’t have much hope that the first thing they stumble across will be reasonably written.