I KNOW it's been asked before but I still don't understand ....

Factsheet:

sages.org.uk/publications/sages-factsheet.html

It is about sex and gender, and the GRA consultation. One minute to find on google.

Because many people, perhaps most people, will tell a lie if it benefits them, and will turn their face away from the harm that befalls others.

Because telling the truth has become punishable.

Because people allow others to set the terms of their integrity, to make the rules.

It's no different from every atrocity in history. People who want to think of themselves as good are nothing more than cowards with a self preservation instinct.

Noone believes the lie apart from the most deluded of all. And even they have to work hard to maintain the delusion. Don't answer questions, don't look at the consequences, don't make things clear, don't look the truth in the face.

Newcomers and lurkers.

Women have organised speakers today(25th August) to talk about the impact of the Gender Recognition Act and guess what?

The organisers turn up at the venue to find it's been targetted by Gender Extremists with grafitti. A demonstration is expected because the adverts to join a protest went out a few weeks ago.

The meeting is going ahead. Doesn't that beg the question: "what is so dangerous that the people affected can't even talk about it without inviting public disorder and intimidation?"

It makes our discussion on our use of closed language an inconsequential one. The people demanding transgender rights don't bother with such niceties. They use force.

twitter.com/let_woman/status/1033333076519268352?s=17

Sorry if this already exists!

I had an emergency c section- it was a nightmare before hand afterwards was almost as bad. I remember thinking why didnt someone just give an a4 sheet with 12 bullet points stating what to expect and what was going to happen- maybe that’s what we need. Just plain old bullet point sheet of information- proper old fashioned public service information. Staying stand point and explaining why.

Sorry I don’t have much time today but Wich- that’s exactly why we need to stop using them. They are closing the debate by shutting it down with abuse and closing the availability of understanding with jargon. It really does make me think of 1984. I think we should consciously opt out of all of it and stick with full explanation for the sake of newcomers.

First paragraph is complete - should say people have bought that gender (...) is the same as sex.

The biggest language slip is gender instead of sex. The whole house of cards rests on the fact that people have bought that gender (feminine, masculine; language used by feminism from the 1970s onwards to show the ways societal structures and ideals shaped the paths and choices open to women and did not rest on female biology).

Gender is not sex - at all, and was never intended to be used as such. However, the advance of gender studies (and the language of gender) replaced women’s studies (and the progress of women’s rights).

The march of gender brought greater understanding of masculinities and how they were constructed (but took the political impetus out of talking about women and being female - if you talk about gender, you talk about the interactions in society of men and women, what is perceived as feminine and what is perceived as masculine - that is observational, and analytics - but not a political force for change)

Then the concept of gender identity (an innate sense of whether one is masculine or female) helped conflate masculine/feminine with male/female. A man can be feminine - no issue there (aside from the entire concept of certain things being feminine, and thus associated with the historically weaker sex, caring, domesticated and objectified woman). But by being ‘feminine a man cannot become a woman, only a feminine man.

Unless you confuse matters by calling gender sex. Because of gender is masculine/feminine, then that can be changed. And people prefer to say gender when they are not talking about the sexual act. What gender is your baby? The question sets my teeth on edge because even if you believe in the concept of gender identity as an innate feeling, how can a baby express or say this? Any gender specific clothing, colours etc for a baby are determined by sex!

So language is important.

What language do you find difficult to understand? Happy to help but it might be better on a new thread

I think it's good old misogyny bubbling away under the surface and then, like toxic lava, finding an acceptable conduit to flow to the surface. Organisations can deny women, call them names, silence them and exclude them, all in the name of being progressive and inclusive. The fact that their inclusiveness is centred on other men is what makes it genius.

They can go back to privileging men, just like the old days, rolling back women's rights and invading their spaces, but maintain the moral high ground because women are bad, terfy, transphobes.

The whole debate is about language vs reality.

Cauliflower and PamAyers, totally agree regarding language and acronyms. It stopped me from understanding the debate for ages. Then after the assault on Maria Mac I spent a month reading and finally came to grips with the language and meanings (mostly).

Unfortunately the terms are already out there being used, largely introduced by the TRAs and their organisations I understand, so there's little chance of avoiding them.

I'm sure someone on here compiled a kind of glossary of terms and acronyms thread for newcomers to the debate a while back, or am I dreaming?

Several reasons why organisations rollover and accept the TWAW twaddle:

Firstly, organisations don't want to offend LGB (and legitimate) T people and vocal trans-activists take advantage of this;

secondly, the likes of Stonewall etc have been working behind the scenes for years, pushing trans propaganda;

thirdly, many people have an outdated vision of who qualifies as a TW - they don't appreciate that the majority of those claiming to be TW don't have body dysphoria but are men with a sexual fetish and a fully functioning penis; and

fourthly, it is women who are affected, not men. Go figure

Good points @carrotsandcauliflower

There is a danger that people can be put off by terms and the appearance of cliqueyness.

It's blimmin' hard work to communicate ideas at the best of times. It's even more difficult when the Establishment - all political parties, councils, quangos, government departments, criminal justice system, businesses, and organisations like the Girl Guides - have been groomed to accept transgender rights, without question.

People like me don't know where to begin. There is no single Group that represents me, although there are small groups dotted around the place that HELP me find the words.

Can you help me find better words? I'd snatch your hands off for better words, without acronyms or concepts like 'misogyny' or 'sexism' that always need explaining.

GIve me words that will help me to take on the world, make allies, persuade others and win the day, even though I'm a nobody.

At the risk of saying something silly here- as I am new to the detail of all this-
I think that all the acronyms and language that has become specific to this situation isn’t helpful for people looking at these forums for the first time. I’m still not sure I understand what peak trans means- I think I’ve worked out it means the point at where you got the fact that all trans men a. Dont look at women with a women’s gaze. B. Want to be let into private women’s spaces while retaining their penises and still being attracted to women. If you come across this issue like I did it would be good to glance over threads in plain English - which I know makes typing a bit longer but it means that people can quickly pick up the gist of the arguement against self Identification.
I think the linguistics close the content off to people who have never come accross this- perhaps we should also be trying to open this all up to help make the knowledge accessible.

R0wan

Thanks for linking that thread

Oh and we are in an anti-science, post-truth, individualistic, appearance-more-important-than-reality era

It's virtue signalling. They are ignorant about what's really happening, and they don't mind throwing women under the bus as a side issue. They don't really care what women think

I think it's because most men can't think of anything worse than wanting to be a woman. And that they get virtue points by repeating TWAW without any impact on them and without thinking (and/or caring) about the consequences on actual biological women.

But they don't truly believe that TWAW - they know they're really men. And that's why they're listening to them rather than us.

It’s because people really do believe in woman brain. Sexism basically.

The law of unintended consequences, perhaps? It's all been done with the best of intentions, but they didn't think it through.

I'd believe that if they didn't ensure that transitioning didn't affect inherited family titles. They thought that through.

Add Stop Funding Hate to your list: I got crucified by men and women shouting TERF on one of their FB threads the other day. They are shutting down debate all over the shop.

Shelia Jeffreys spoke brilliantly about this at the last We Need To Talk meeting in London. She explains what the Yogyakarta Principles are, how they came about, and how we're seeing the implications play out now in the rapid rise of transgenderism ideology.

The law of unintended consequences, perhaps? It's all been done with the best of intentions, but they didn't think it through.

Why is the Labour Party in its current meltdown? Ed Milliband's cheap-as-chips membership deal combined with the 'gentleman's agreement' of it being Corbyn's turn to stand as the token Trot in the leadership elections...and whaddya know, it's an unholy mess. And as (ex) Labour members here can testify, extraordinarily hard to rectify after the event.

Maybe MPs who have drunk the kool aid would understand that analogy.

Because it's coming down from way up high, the Parties can't ignore it.

3.The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)18 emphasised the importance of “a single, strong and clear strategy to lever progress”.19 Stonewall told us that “establishing a transparent mechanism for cross-government working, with a specific ‘trans equality’ remit, would provide a way to focus expertise and to consult with trans communities”.20 We also heard from various quarters the view that the UK government should adopt the overarching principles on trans equality embodied in two international declarations:21

the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, adopted by the International Commission of Jurists in 2007;22 and
Resolution 2048: Discrimination against transgender people in Europe, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in April 2015.23

These set out an overarching framework for trans equality in law, based on the principle of a universal right for individuals to determine their own gender identity and to have this respected and recognised.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39005.htm