transgender medicine

Susan, the point I was trying to make is that it is not in your control what others do or say (on either side of the argument) or how they approach it, so it's not anyone else's issue what you personally do or don't want to see in the paper. We will all have different ways of approaching this. We're not a hive mind. As I've expressed, I personally think your approach as expressed earlier is naive and won't be effective. You think you know my mind better than I do. I find that quite goady and think your prying into my political intentions is uncalled for and none of your business.

So as I said, let's leave it there and agree to disagree.

and made comments about there being a gay and trans gene. I don't want to see that being quoted in the press either.

Uh what? I was quoting what the guy said in the video. This was literally his opening line: 'there is no gay or trans gene so when gay/trans people say 'i was born this way', they are wrong'.

Can't see the controversy myself. Or do you agree with him that people become gay because of their upbringing?

It's interesting the way all sorts of groups, normally with completely opposing views, are coming together to fight this massive threat to women's rights.

Yes, and according to many transgender people and allies, the most intolerance comes from older, right wing, white men. So why are the TA's focusing on mumsnet? Easy target because we're mainly women? Misogyny? I have seen a lot of gender critical views from men lately, yet they are not the focus of twitter hatred, that honour seems entirely reserved from mumsnet. Curious...

Susan, no one asked you if you would vote for Trump. You were the one that decided that another poster would.

You were the one that introduced the fallacy that A = 3, and made comments about there being a gay and trans gene. I dont want to see that being quoted in the press either.

You are not the thought police here. No one has declared their support for this group, so that would be a lie

I never claimed to be the thought police. Just expressing my own thoughts, same as you are. We just happen to disagree on them. If you can robustly defend your views, so can I.

I don't want to read stuff like 'Mumsnet users, who have declared their support for a right-wing anti-LGBT group that believes in conversion therapy' in the press.

We can't control what lies they make up or the exaggerations they make, You are not the thought police here. No one has declared their support for this group, so that would be a lie.

Well that's like Ereshkigal saying 'would you vote for Trump if he promised to introduce self ID' and then announcing she knows the answer if you said the question was goady and muddying the water.

I am not pro self-ID.

I would not vote for Trump in a million years.

I would not compromise my integrity by supporting an organisation that did not support women (even if they agreed on one narrow point, but for different reasons).

My concern is credibility. I felt the same when Theresa May sold out by getting in bed with the DUP for instance.

I do not enjoy seeing stuff like this on Twitter:
twitter.com/L_12345ac/status/989172838354636801

I don't want to read stuff like 'Mumsnet users, who have declared their support for a right-wing anti-LGBT group that believes in conversion therapy' in the press.

That's just me, but it's where I am coming from.

Think what you like. And so will I, about your completely non-disingenuous posts, your excellent arguments and good faith discussion. I think transgender activism is a huge threat to women's rights and I do think it needs to be challenged for the greater good. I would have to make that decision if it ever came down to it. My voting choices aren't your concern. Like everyone I have the right to vote for whoever I personally feel is the best or best of all bad options, or abstain. Which is what I'm probably going to do here, next week and in the foreseeable future if nothing changes.

It's interesting the way all sorts of groups, normally with completely opposing views, are coming together to fight this massive threat to women's rights.

Article in the times (sorry I don't have a share token) www.thetimes.co.uk/article/left-and-right-unite-to-fight-massachusetts-bathroom-law-sdthcbl0s

About how feminists and conservative Christians are coming together - Hands across the Aisle.

This issue transcends "left" and "right" and brings together everyone who gives a shit about women.

Well that's like Ereshkigal saying 'would you vote for Trump if he promised to introduce self ID' and then announcing she knows the answer if you said the question was goady and muddying the water.

Yup, I think I know the answer to that one then....

I note that you didn't really engage with several of my points, so that's too bad.

Erish I note that you didn't answer my question of whether you would sacrifice abortion rights if you were guaranteed that self-ID would be scrapped. I.e. would you vote for someone like Trump if you knew he would be tough on trans rights but at the same time tough on abortion?

Yeah, sorry, that was a bit unclear, Upstart. He was saying that nobody is born gay- they become gay due to traumatic circumstances.

I do not believe that is true. I don't know about a gene as such, but I do not think that we choose sexual orientation or that it is a result of experiences- I think it is something that we are born with- a natural attraction to either sex or to both. I don't have enough experience or knowledge of gender dysphoria to make any comment, but I don't think it is caused by a father who doesn't hug his son (which is what the guy in the video says).

I think if the aim is to get the majority of the population on-side regarding thinking trans is a ridiculous concept and should not be recognised at all

But just for the record that is not what I think and have never said anything of the sort.

I think you're extremely naive Susan so no I don't think I'm being more so than you. So let's leave it there.

SusanBunch Wed 25-Apr-18 18:32:15
I am watching the ‘Reparative therapy’ video. It’s enlightening. Apparently there is no gay (or trans!) gene*

Are you saying there is a gene that makes people gay, or trans? do you have any evidence for that claim?

There has been a search for the 'gay gene', it made many of us nervous that it would lead to a gene test and from there to, for example, selective abortion.

And what would that be? I think there probably will be a right wing backlash to identity politics in general.

I think the potential harm would be getting on board with and potentially voting for right-wing parties in order to ensure that self-ID does not go ahead. Except once it ceases to be a problem, all the other problems that affect women such as poverty, austerity, benefits cuts, misogynistic legal systems, access to abortion etc, will suddenly become visible once again and the right-wingers who ended the self-ID debate won't be so up for helping out with those.

I think if the aim is to get the majority of the population on-side regarding thinking trans is a ridiculous concept and should not be recognised at all, then yes, you need to get on board with right-wingers and ensure the rise of the right wing. That is what they are saying too. But what I think is even more naive than my stance is not fully thinking through the consequences of that. Would you e.g. be prepared to sacrifice rights to abortion if it meant that all plans for self-ID were scrapped? Just hypothetically speaking.

I am sure he has a lot of medical expertise.

It's not about his general medical expertise. It's his specific experience of the transgender movement.

This is just in the past few days, most of it today. You might not think it's a big problem. I guess it's not if your only goal is to scrap self-ID. But what if that comes at a greater price?

And what would that be? I think there probably will be a right wing backlash to identity politics in general. It won't be caused by gender critical feminists. Feminists will be blamed, and women will not benefit. We won't stop it just by not talking about it. But your position seems to be that we shouldn't debate the validity of transgender beliefs or the science because we can just campaign for specific protections for women. Which as I said on the other thread is naive at best.

Yes, I do get your point on this particular video. I am sure he has a lot of medical expertise.

But on another current thread, people are defending the GC contingent teaming up with a Canadian religious hardliner called Kari Simpson, who also think being gay is a huge sin.

On another, people are saying that Ben Shapiro is in fact a great guy (ignoring his anti-women and anti-poor stance) for complaining about the Boston Marathon rules allowing trans people to run as women.

On another, people are defending the publication spiked online, saying it is a brave publication supporting free speech (when it often writes damaging misogynistic stuff)

On one a few days ago, someone linked a 'great' video to someone called 'Activist Mom' who seemed to be a hardline LGBT hater and Trump supporter.

This is just in the past few days, most of it today. You might not think it's a big problem. I guess it's not if your only goal is to scrap self-ID. But what if that comes at a greater price?

BF was just an example. They could come out with an anti-trans video and I bet someone on here would link to it and people would say it's good that the issue is getting a wider audience.

You completely ignored the point I made. This guy directly has a perspective informed by experience that is relevant to his work. That doesn't apply to Britain First which is why its not a good comparison in response to my original point. That is why I watched it and would recommend it to other gender critical people who liked to read as widely as possible and knew to look past the source. No I wouldn't share it on FB.

I just wanted to clarify. I did think it was a typo.

You mean not suggesting, right?

Yes, it's a typo. Quite obviously.

FWIW I agree with Susan for the most part.

In parallel with other groups who might be toxic to your own agenda rather than in partnership.

You can achieve more that way: other groups reach people you might not otherwise and your own cause isn't undermined / doesn't loose credibly.

Appearance is important. Especially when you are in essence fighting a propaganda battle over much of the wider subject.

How you stress and make a point, is as important as the point itself.