For the past week, after commenting on a post that appeared in my feed, I’ve been caught up in a Twitter war about #transgender rights.

The post claimed trans women had no right to use women’s toilets; I disagreed but recognise there are safety issues to be addressed.

A thread.

I knew I was entering a fraught debate, but I was surprised how vicious and unprincipled my opponents were willing to be. Misinformation ruled. Some assumed I must be a #transwoman and abused me accordingly. Many seem to think a trans woman is just a rapist in devious disguise.

I was called, among other things, #misogynistic, rapey, dishonest, hypocritical, a traitor, and an idiot. Much of the abuse was laughable, some less so.

I try, always, to argue rationally and courteously, but these simple standards are hard to maintain under sustained pressure.

I can’t say I gave as good as I got, because I wouldn’t dream of serving up the kind of #vilification I copped. I had to call in my sister @Clareopedia for backup, and we are a fairly formidable team, but we were vastly outnumbered and therefore easily outgamed.

Every time our reasoning helped someone to see the issue might not be as simple as they were insisting (“No men in women’s spaces!”), that person would back out, to be replaced by several new players demanding answers to the same questions (some fair, some absurd) all over again.

I had evidently happened on a large & passionate community, some of whom were retweeting my comments with disparaging commentary of their own to attract more attackers.

They were mostly not interested in debating actual complexities; many simply demanded assent or silence.

I had entered the debate hoping - perhaps naively - to enlarge our mutual understanding. I believe most people have some valid point somewhere.

At first (as I vented later) it was like trying to teach manners to a flock of seagulls. By the end I had to add... if you were a chip.

I wish I could say no one on my side of this debate would behave the way these people did, but I know that’s not the case.

Social media gives us unmoderated global discussion of complex problems by people with limited knowledge and no respect for process - a recipe for disaster.

I might not’ve written this thread if it hadn’t been for a 2018 Guardian story I saw today discussing how toxic this debate has become. It moved me to publicly declare my support for academics struggling to elucidate issues on BOTH SIDES of this question. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The question - how do we provide #safespaces for all vulnerable people? - rests on shared principles (all vulnerable groups deserve protection) but founders on how to apply those principles without playing one group off against another. Pile-ons and slanging matches don’t help.

It seems pointless to make a plea for restraint - the political climate is against it. But we can do 2 good things: 1) listen for your opponent’s fair point/s & give them credit, address those points reasonably. 2) be a #moderator, & support opponents applying similar principles.

The long and short of it though (& the point of this whole debriefing thread) is that spaces for #civildebate are shrinking as spaces for unmoderated #conflict expand, & I have no idea what to do about people who believe virulent denigration of others is a means to anything good.