Has “no debate” become “shut up”?

Sandi Toksvig is annoyed that some women are standing up for their rights.

The strategy of “no debate” was always an admission of defeat. After an open letter in the Sunday Times in October 2018 petitioned Stonewall to “acknowledge that there are a range of valid viewpoints around sex, gender and transgender politics” and to “commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate”, many of the signatories – including several trans-identified individuals – were demonised both in the press and online. Apparently “respectful debate” was simply not an option.

A series of developments in recent years has seen the strategy of “no debate” gradually collapsing. There has been the Cass Review, a series of victories in the courts for gender-critical campaigners, and the rise of groups such as Sex Matters and LGB Alliance. All of this has contributed to a new climate in which the public seems increasingly willing to discuss these issues openly. While organisations such as the BBC still attempt to ignore such important subjects, they no longer have the gatekeeping power they once enjoyed.

And so it is perhaps inevitable that those who have insisted on “no debate” are looking for other ways to avoid the responsibility of defending their positions. The broadcaster Sandi Toksvig is one such example. In an interview with the Sunday Times, she has apparently moved on from “no debate” to “shut up”. This is what she had to say in response to the interviewer’s question about women’s fears that their right to single-sex spaces is being eroded:

“I don’t get this. I’m in my 45^th year in showbusiness, travelling the country touring. I’ve been to every service-station toilet in the country. Every one has a sign up saying male cleaners in attendance. I don’t recall anybody saying, ‘We need to group up against these male cleaners.’ Why would someone dress as a woman when they could just pick up a cleaning cloth? If it really bothers you there’s a toilet some place else. Go there. Shut up. Let’s join together and fight stuff that actually needs fighting. Why are they talking about this when women in Afghanistan are not allowed to sing or to look a man in the face? Who is benefiting from all this? The patriarchy.”

Let’s leave aside the nonsense about male cleaners, who announce their presence with a sign precisely so that women can avoid them as they are working (something that predators have rarely been known to do). The most astonishing aspect of Toksvig’s position is her assertion that those who oppose her should “shut up” simply because she hasn’t made the effort to understand their arguments.

“Shut up” is an understandable response when a child is bawling. It is an inelegant but effective parental strategy, because infants are incapable of reason and so there is little point in inviting them to debate why screaming about sweets at the checkout of Tesco is anti-social and unbecoming. But the view that women ought to be entitled to single-sex spaces has an entirely rational basis, one that has been outlined endlessly with great care by numerous intelligent people. Can it be that Toksvig hasn’t listened to any of them?