Debating the trans-rights v women's rights issue. Short thread.
Helen Pluckrose left the debate in a huff accusing feminists of being authoritarians and nasty.
Theoretical debates are well and good, but they need two elements, and these elements are both necessary.

The first one is knowledge of the 'language' one needs to debate. In this case, this means knowledge of ethics, human rights law and equality/non-discrimination law. Because an uninformed debate is a worthless debate.

The second one is awareness of the context in which the debate takes place. In this case, this means awareness of the wrongs *already* inflicted on women as a consequence of the introduction of ill-defined 'trans rights' into human rights and equality law.

The wrongs include women raped in prisons by transwomen (intact males); thousands of female children undergoing mastectomies; school girls loosing their right to female toilets; women being fired and silenced because of their attempt to enforce women's rights.

A debate that takes no account of the context and reduces it to a 'freedom of speech and association' issue, in which women have to fight for their rights in the 'market place of ideas' is a debate in bad faith.

And to conclude, it does nothing to dispel the notion that academics are navel-gazing selfish individuals incapable to connect with real life.
Knowledge+context. In the pursuit of knowledge, too many forget context.

For full disclosure, I am an academic too.