Ending this madness but 'saving face'

Yes to reducing the power of "transphobic". It has so little credibility as it's sprayed around in response to anything - questions, concerns, seeking clarification, scientific fact etc.

Solve this problem and you will get more people talking.

We need to use the word a lot. Overuse it and overuse it.
It's impact will be soon jbecome diminished . People will roll their eyes when they hear it.

Using words to draw parallels with the things that go against so-called British Values.

At the moment, the ideology spreads because it appeals to values like toleration, freedom, acceptance, integration, love thy neighbour, equality blah blah.

But there are other words.

-Extremist/gender extremism (instead of TRAs or trans lobby);
-'grooming' of parents, carers and service providers with 'project fear'

• the 'radicalisation' of students and LBG organisations into extremism
• A cavalier attitude to a Thalidomide catastrophe in waiting
• examples of persecution and intolerance of non-conformity or dissent.

And so on.

The promotion of Gender extremism is the antithesis of the values that we, as a country/school/community/public-body/organisation/individual, purport to hold.

We might have to draw pictures to make it clear.

Paper trails will be an important part of this. Save all your correspondence on the subject with organisations. Nobody can say they weren’t warned.

I have emails to a political party, a high street chain, a school and the BBC.

Somewhere to collate redacted complaints would be helpful, an online document?

They can't pretend at a later date that they didn't know when the pendulum moves.

Maybe also watch out for individuals too, the GG CEO is moving to Action for children?

A starting point/ point to build on is that of woman’s concerns about self Id being reasonable.
A second (face saving) move could be to undertake impact assessments to explore how policy/practice is effecting all those with protected characteristics. This would allow them to look at gender reassignment and sex and to look to support both.
It really isn’t hard to produce a clear, coherent and ‘inclusive of all’ narrative that, whilst enraging activists, will appear balanced and thoughtful to the rest of the world!

This is a really important thread, OP - thank you. I remember years ago, when I had to make a complaint about behaviour at my child’s school, a teacher told me to make sure I used the word “safeguarding”.

I think that one thing that might make schools, hospitals, girl guides etc more scared than being thought transphobic is the thought that their policies might lead to a major safeguarding breach. Admittedly the example of girl guides isn’t encouraging but I think that’s the way to go. The problem at the moment is that organisations are taking advice from lobby groups that are lying to them about their obligations under the law. We need to expose that.

Paper trails will be an important part of this. Save all your correspondence on the subject with organisations. Nobody can say they weren’t warned.

Follow up doggedly with your schools etc pressing safeguarding as something that cannot be compromised on.

I agree it needs a critical mass of public discussion. So as much publicity as possible.

Insurers - insurers need to know and understand what they are underwriting. Organisations need to know that they may be invalidating their insurance.

I’m horrified by the thought that it’s going to take a serious assault or death/s to really expose this. But looking back, all our safeguarding files and structures have arisen in this way.

Yes to reducing the power of "transphobic". It has so little credibility as it's sprayed around in response to anything - questions, concerns, seeking clarification, scientific fact etc. When a Libdem officer can call those discussing the rights of child murderer Ian Huntley to be in a women's prison "transphobic bigots" you know how meaningless it is.

Has anyone noticed that the much shouted #nodebate is hardly ever used now. Why? Because the relentless linking of this with the tactics of oppression (threats and violence against women, masked men, systematic attempts to shut down meetings, silencing women) has meant they've had to stop.

We now need to ensure that the same level of scrutiny happens to children and safeguarding. There is a clear evidence trail of inappropriate behaviour towards schools that is targeting children. Examples include;
Organisations demanding single sex toilets in defiance of the law
The deliberate undermining of safeguarding principles
Misuse of suicide statistics when training staff (and likely children)
Deliberate promotion of parental alienation tactics subverting the principle of 'working in partnership' with parents
Using social media to hound schools into complying with demands.

All of the above has clear evidence trails. It's all unethical and professionally dangerous. Schools must held to account where they promote and use any of this stuff and be made aware that they will be held accountable for the damaging consequences.

When it becomes just another argument you disagree with, and not something unpleasant in and of itself (racism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny) then everything becomes relative. Freeze peach and all that

Those words: misogyny, homophobia, child protection, in particular shoul be used more often.

So often a carefully worded argument is put forward and then someone screams ‘transphobe’ and the fear of being labelled overrides everything else.

Make the position clear and get in first and loud - this is misogynistic, homophobic and presents a danger to the rights of women and children.

Everyone in power is ignoring the fact that there are other rights at stake and seem only to be reacting to the ‘transphobic’ whistle. So we need to whistle as well. Danger to children, where it is an issue, makes it clear that an unthinking support of all the demands of the transgender lobby leaves an institution in danger of doing damage to a great number of people.

Make them say that the rights of women and children are less important if that’s the position they are taking. Usually, I think, this is not a conscious position it’s just that all thinking is short circuited by fear of being labelled transphobic. So give them other labels to worry about - misogynistic, homophobic, unfair, uncaring of the rights of women and girls, dangerous to vulnerable children.

We have the advantage that we have actual rational, coherent, fact based arguments to back our whistles- but in the current climate whistles are what influence decision makers.

I think a key point here is that the vast majority of ordinary adults have not woken up to this.

We need to get it out there that it can affect your kids. Then schools and hospitals will start experiencing increased pushback from parents. We need to get to that critical mass.

It’s time for public discussion and public warning, like newt says, making it clear that ‘we didn’t realise’ isn’t going to cut it in the digital age.

Organisations need to consider that 2) is the least bad option reputationally and, more importantly, the correct option ethically; when you’re wrong, you’re wrong and no good will come of pretending otherwise.

At this point, the question for organisations is not ‘Do we want to go first?’, but rather ‘Do we want to be seen to go second, third or fourth?’.

UpstartCrow’s suggestion draws a clear line in the sand without getting tangled in admissions of poor judgement to date, or attempts at face saving. It’s understated, but speaks clearly both to those with concerns and to various boundary pushers.

It's Women saying "No" to men, again, isn't it?
How to say "No" to men, with the least amount of damage to women and children. A sad state of affairs.

Take away transphobe, they'll take away homophobe. Does being called a racist have the same sting or do some people not care?
When it becomes just another argument you disagree with, and not something unpleasant in and of itself (racism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny) then everything becomes relative. Freeze peach and all that.
Newt is right. Hit them in the pocket. Why is sex segregation "doomed"? Because the organisations who live in that world are either large publically accountable entities like the NHS (susceptible to political lobbying, public opinion and those with an agenda self-selecting for equality roles) or small, poorly funded bodies like refuges or rape counselling services that can easily be litigated into bankruptcy.
It works for them, whilst the Equalities Act still exists we should do likewise. We could probably raise more money than them too.

All their power lies in 5 little letters.

phobe.

It's about time we took the sting out of it. Maybe we could start using it ourselves. Flood every conversation with phobe.
The word will turn into a joke.

Until we do that, nothing will change.
We will voice concerns and they will hurl the transphobic insult at us.
People are so scared of that word.
But, It's Only A Word.

Excellent thread.

''While we are happy to offer support to dysphoric individuals as far as we can, that cannot override safeguarding and support for other vulnerable groups.''

We need to keep encouraging individuals to speak up (she says! I'm too scared to). The more people who stand up and are brave enough to say 'the emperor has no clothes', the more people will see it.

Like the other day the group on fb for gay men - their boundaries were very clearly asserted saying 'this group is not for dysphoric women.' People just speaking sense and telling it like it is help redraw the boundaries and gives other people courage to speak out too.

people need to be scared of being sued....that's what I have seen in the NHS I'm afraid

We need somehow to take the power away from the the word transphobe
and get to the point where people see the word for the cop out it is aren't afraid of being called this word, which basically, lets face it, is a rather lazy insult
It is so frequently tossed at anyone, whether Health care provider, teacher, concerned parent, in fact, anyone who dares to question, that it is already losing it's power and ability to silence people.

That's the direction things should take.

interesting
maybe publish very public warnings?
suppose someone had written to a national newspaper (and been publlished) saying saville is a dangerous predator, we are publicly warning you, the BBC, of this, take action now or face that you will be held accountable