1) So, I've had a discussion with @jasonintrator where we agreed that there is an important difference between thin (ie non-evaluative) trans-exclusion and thick (bad) transphobia. Not all trans-exclusive views are transphobic: eg my views on collision sport. Its important https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1346875116588818434

2) then to sort out the merely trans-exclusive positions from the (bad) transphobic ones. Transphobia suggests a motivation - fear - and I think that's profoundly unhelpful, (who know what motivates people to be unreasonable?) so let's just call these the unreasonably

3) (or ill-founded) trans-exclusive views. We've got one agreed level of reasonable trans-exclusion: collision sport. And you can think of some wildly horrible trans-exclusive policy of your own to go at the other end. (I won't).

4) What makes trans-exclusion reasonable in women's collision sport? Basically, sexed bodies: the physiological differences between males and females that are ethically important.

5) Sexed bodies matter in lots of contexts, but not in others. Contexts of physical exertion, of privacy, of intimacy, and of security (like, when you are asleep, and vulnerable). This is why sports, prisons, dormitories, loos, and so on are a focus (just for public policy)

6) In each of these contexts sexed bodies count, ethically speaking. The harms inflicted by male sexed bodies are multiple arising from our superior strength, propensity to commit sexual violence, and so on. To protect female sexed bodies from that threat, we have single sex

7) protections, won, over the years, by the women's movement. Physical harm isn't the only value here (see for example fairness in sport) but it is the clearest. PTSD, recognition deficit, are relevant values etc.

8) what is needed, then, is a careful - and perhaps cautious - (on the basis of a precautionary principle) assessment of the harms that arise from the abandonment of single sex protection in these contexts, in favour of sex-ID

9) In some contexts the harms will be small, in others, they will be huge. There are reasonable trans-exclusive views, and then there is transphobic hate - which we all reject. Behind all the hyperbole and smears, this seems to be the situation:

10) a careful, cautious messy compromise, different across different spheres. From my reading of her work, this is what KS argues for. And she has been pilloried for *successfully* opening up the space for that careful attention to specific contexts and social research.

11) In contrast, #nodebate has been the watchword of those who do *not* recognise the difference between trans-exclusion and transphobia, and who *deny* the ethical and political relevance of sexed bodies (intimacy, strength) etc etc.

12) In denouncing KS, - and let's face it that what the letter did - the letter signers make that careful debate *less* likely to happen, and this is focussed in their failure properly to distinguish trans-exclusive from transphobic views.

13) OK, I realise that that was the most hideous piece of mansplaining ever. Sorry, but I am really talking to @jasonintrator Also, that it is not for me to hand over rights (though I don't think that's what I'm doing).

14) and lastly, there's a way of doing philosophy which sounds arrogant, but actually isn't: it goes "This is what I think: tell me why I'm wrong" That's what I've been doing, and I'm happy to be put right.