This comment would appear to be a paradigmatic example of non-nuanced. Neither of those people is anti-trans except according to a narrowly doctrinaire definition. Pluckrose is a left-liberal who writes against critical theory and identity politics from a universalist liberal perspective. She has repeatedly written in defense of trans and gay rights, although she does not believe that "trans women can be accepted straightforwardly as women in every situation". Stock is a feminist philosopher who regards gender self-identity as potentially harmful to the interests of women. Both of these are reasonable and nuanced positions that can't be adequately summarized as "anti-trans" whether or not you agree with them.
> Neither of those people is anti-trans except according to a narrowly doctrinaire definition.
They certainly aren't "pro" trans either, though. The point wasn't whether or not they were extremists, it's whether they were representative speakers for ALL the relevant perspectives. And they clearly aren't.
The question isn't whether or not a representative discussion "could" be held, it's whether it happens or not. Letter was held up as an example of nuanced discussion, the specific example given was one-sided.
No justification of it being one-sided has actually been given, merely assertions of that.
The conversation in question was, in fact, an expansion of an extended disagreement on twitter that got derailed by a bunch of gendercrits deciding to scream at Helen until she had to lock her account.
If you're curious as to the actual conversation, I'd suggest reading it on letter for yourself.
How seriously this crowd takes her says a lot about its own values and methods.
edit: as a parody of the sort of meta-level discussion that is more concerned with intellectually bogus, self-absorbed notions of "truth" and "nuance" than the lives of actual human beings, the response is peerless. Well done!
As a parody of the type of nuance-free ideologically driven commentary under discussion, this is peerless. You managed to efficiently cram accusations of fraud and fascism alongside guilt by association and misrepresentation in very few words. Well done!
Edit: it’s a shame you decided to edit your post after I responded. The new version is not quite as successful.
