Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Who is the driving force behind the Trans agenda?

112 replies

StandingOvulation · 03/10/2018 17:28

Long time lurker becoming braver in FC.

I'd like to know where all the money and power is coming from driving this juggernaut. I've read through many many threads, but not really worked it out.

Also I also would like to know how the change from transsexual (always thought were very few men, very benign) to the transgender tour de force of today.

Obviously I know the ultimate aim of the TRA - obliteration of woman. Sad

Please be basic with me, I'm nowhere near as well read as the intellectuals I see in here.

Tia

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
hoodathunkit · 11/04/2019 14:39

Russian bots are known to have been involved in astroturfing the Black Lives Matter movement and also Russian bots were demonstrably implicated in the various satanic ritual abuse hoaxes targeted against Hilary Clinton.

Anyone interested in this as a theme can check out this interesting, and in many places disturbing, series of radio documentaries about this issue

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/28TzwkvPxBrDh69KgNh8VwP/meet-the-most-powerful-man-you-ve-never-heard-of

I believe that this is highly relevant to the trans issue globally

It works by using the properties of western democracy against it, so create / infiltrate liberal and human rights groups and then bankroll and otherwise endorse such groups to the point where they reach ridiculous extremes and appear to be caricatures of themselves.

Then bankroll / create groups that inevitably arise in opposition to the extreme liberal groups.

the aim is to create a divided society where minority groups oppose one another and where society experiences disruption and public unrest

AnyOldPrion · 11/04/2019 13:50

Re my previous comment, a Twitter thread:

twitter.com/zaneemma/status/1116146915870011392?s=21

AnyOldPrion · 11/04/2019 13:45

From page 1 as I’m catching up.

For context, it takes about a billion dollars to bring the average drug to market.

Isn’t it about opening up new markets for already tested drugs. Thalidomide would have been safe, had it been used for the purpose for which it had been tested. But the market wasn’t big enough, so it was pushed off-label as a cure for morning sickness.

Isn’t Lupron also a drug with a relatively small usage? Now being used off label to a rapid-growth market in the US.

But also, I know “cross-sex hormones” are probably not huge money makers. But once you sterilise someone, they have to take synthetic hormones for life. That might not be an enormous market, but it’s a steady one for years and years into the future. If you make (or have shares in a company that makes) testosterone, then there’s a great incentive to create a market for it.

R0wantrees · 11/04/2019 13:22

I was just re-reading this thread having gone looking for comments by Steve Bannon.
With all of the Brexit/Julian Assange/democracy/freedom of expression discussions there's a lot at stake.

‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower
For more than a year we’ve been investigating Cambridge Analytica and its links to the Brexit Leave campaign in the UK and Team Trump in the US presidential election. Now, 28-year-old Christopher Wylie goes on the record to discuss his role in hijacking the profiles of millions of Facebook users in order to target the US electorate'

by Carole Cadwalladr
(extract)
"A few months later, in autumn 2013, Wylie met Steve Bannon. At the time, he was editor-in-chief of Breitbart, which he had brought to Britain to support his friend Nigel Farage in his mission to take Britain out of the European Union.

What was he like?

“Smart,” says Wylie. “Interesting. Really interested in ideas. He’s the only straight man I’ve ever talked to about intersectional feminist theory. He saw its relevance straightaway to the oppressions that conservative, young white men feel.”

Wylie meeting Bannon was the moment petrol was poured on a flickering flame. Wylie lives for ideas. He speaks 19 to the dozen for hours at a time. He had a theory to prove. And at the time, this was a purely intellectual problem. Politics was like fashion, he told Bannon.

“[Bannon] got it immediately. He believes in the whole Andrew Breitbart doctrine that politics is downstream from culture, so to change politics you need to change culture. And fashion trends are a useful proxy for that. Trump is like a pair of Uggs, or Crocs, basically. So how do you get from people thinking ‘Ugh. Totally ugly’ to the moment when everyone is wearing them? That was the inflection point he was looking for.” (cont)

www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

birdbandit · 04/10/2018 21:46

People who really want the drive towards sex equality sent back a few decades, for old fashioned gender stereotypes to be reinforced.

For men to be manly and women to be feminine and submissive to the men.

People who want gay kids to be reassigned to their "correct gender".

And if they achieve this and make sqillions selling the pharmaceuticals, then ace job.

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 21:38

Nice word play.But you know what, I wasn‘t aware (though l technically knew) they are both Hungarian.

Maybe the right has got it all wrong, and what we are really looking at is a grand conspiracy of Hungarians. They act like enemies, but work together and their end game is to make us all mad. And to that end, they have deviced the ultimate weapon: the crypto-Hungarian Donald J Trump.

Now that theory would make a cool vid for YouTube Wink

Turph · 04/10/2018 19:46

The current choice seems to be between Soros&Co and Orban&Co.
The Hungary Games?

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 17:19

In stifling free speech, on this and many other topics, support for the extreme right wing is growing.

Turph, you've nailed it.
The current choice seems to be between Soros&Co and Orban&Co. It is ridiculous. The sane, grassroots left is basically dead and what we have instead is a totalitarian 'Left' that is in essence identity politics on steroids and neoliberal with a feminism that centers everything but women, or the 'free speech' Right, that sees feminism as the root of all evil. And neither has anything to do with the realities and challenges of the people, with anything that feels like a 'grassroot' movement.
I feel, as if I am stuck in a Kafka novel.
(The one 'positive' or rather entertaining aspect of the whole affair are the rightwing conspiracy vids on youtube. Some are incredibly funny.)

Turph · 04/10/2018 16:51

So a sinister agenda coupled with such fantastic marketing that anyone under the age of 40 (?) is terrified about being on the "wrong" side of history seems to be a juggernaut that is unstoppable
The backlash is bigger than this debate. In stifling free speech, on this and many other topics, support for the extreme right wing is growing. When nobody cares about being called a racist or a homophobe we will have free speech, but at that point we will all be suffering.
It's a false dichotomy - silence "bigots" or slip into full-on Nazism. The reality is more that the silencing gives weight to crazy theories. There are real, obvious and reasonable concerns about self-id, for example. Making it equally taboo as suggesting a cabal of Jewish people rule the (flat) earth means the anti-semitic argument starts getting looked at as not impossible. (Disclaimer: obviously I do not believe any of that nonsense! But those views are out there.)
No-platforming people like Tatchell and Greer is madness and more importantly has not been challenged. They stayed no-platformed. Milo Yiannopoulos caused riots at Berkeley. Why? He might be objectionable but he should speak if he is invited, as should any speaker.
The very concept of free speech has been hijacked by the right, "freeze peach" is a meme used by the left to challenge it. How did we let this happen?
If the only people who can speak freely are called bigots, people will eventually just decide to be bigots, including all the woke kids in uni.
If this happens the alt-right concepts of trad wives, homophobia, racial segregation and a resurgent church will become edgy and taboo. Who stands to lose out? Most of the people who are currently on the left. We're like that polar bear standing on the tiny melting block of ice. But we're doing it to ourselves. Everything should be up for discussion. Everything. The things we believe are settled won't be settled for the new generation of real bigots so we need to have the courage to actively defend what we believe in and be able to face challenges, rather than designate some topics as out of bounds.

tillytop · 04/10/2018 16:27

Dd has the whole "cis"thing off pat - I was astonished that all the terminology was so familiar to her. Exactly the same here and I can't even discuss it properly with her because she has depression and anxiety (as do so many of today's young people) I feel as though she's been kind of brainwashed, I'm genuinely scared.

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 10:44

And that is what some people in this debate feel here. They fear that if they are seen to speak out and question the trend to change the law to allow ‘self-identification’, they will come to harm. Real harm.

So a clique of violent, well connected thugs is apparently all there is needed to upend Democracy? Depressing.

ErrolTheDragon · 04/10/2018 10:39

And then there's a large and influential vested interest in parts of academia

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384385-hoax-papers-lampoon-grievance-studies

Such Pomo-addled nonsense that they can't spot hoaxes.

IrmaFayLear · 04/10/2018 10:13

In short: good marketing!

This comment in a nutshell. Undoubtedly there is big, big money coming from somewhere (I wondered on another thread how prisoners were funding cases represented by top legal firms), but cleverly they have managed to get the virtue-signalling "woke" on board - and the whole public sector, including schools. Dd has the whole "cis" thing off pat - I was astonished that all the terminology was so familiar to her. Dh said, "Eh?" As a 50-year-old ordinary bloke, he is clueless.

So a sinister agenda coupled with such fantastic marketing that anyone under the age of 40 (?) is terrified about being on the "wrong" side of history seems to be a juggernaut that is unstoppable Sad

R0wantrees · 04/10/2018 10:12

What cowards. But why? Jesus, can you imagine politicians being so cowed by some activists against austerity or pro-renationalization or more money for women's shelters, or more money for the NHS?

Previous articles by James Kirkup:
Feb 2018
"So a couple of weeks ago, when I wrote here about the way fear is chilling the debate about Britain’s laws on sex and gender, I really meant the fear of reputational damage. I referred to the fear that MPs and journalists feel that if they question moves to allow people to decide their own legally-recognised gender they will be accused of transphobia and bigotry.

That fear is real, and troubling, but there are worse things to be afraid of. Fear that you will lose your job and your livelihood. Fear of physical attack.

And that is what some people in this debate feel here. They fear that if they are seen to speak out and question the trend to change the law to allow ‘self-identification’, they will come to harm. Real harm."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-violent-misogyny-of-the-gender-debate/

March 2018
"Bluntly, why the hell is no one in politics shouting from the rooftops about this stuff? We’re talking about people trying to put the frighteners on Mumsnetters, for goodness sake. In any other area of public life, politicians usually fall over themselves in their rush to speak up for middle-class working mothers. Yet the politicians who were desperate to talk biscuits at Mumsnet Towers are curiously silent about the intimidation that some women now report there." (cont)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/

May 2018
Are girls who might otherwise grow up to be lesbians being nudged or pushed into thinking themselves transgender? I do not have a conclusive answer and nor, so far as I can establish, do any of the clinical experts who work in this field. I do think it is legitimate question to ask, and that the people – lesbians and others – who ask it should be heard.

But I’m not sure they are being heard, because some people make too much noise shouting about transphobia, while others who should be speaking up stay silent. I know a fair number of MPs who privately acknowledge and share some of the concerns and questions I’ve outlined here. None is willing to speak about this publicly.

Perhaps that will change. Perhaps politicians will surprise me and show willingness to do their jobs properly and give voice to all sides of a complex, difficult debate. MPs will get two chances to do so tomorrow. First, Penny Mordaunt, the new minister for women and equalities, takes her first questions in the Commons. Then there’s a backbench debate on “homophobia, transphobia and biphobia”. Both sessions will offer some clues about how willing MPs are to acknowledge the complexity of the gender debate and the interests of the different people and groups concerned. Perhaps some of the things I’ve mentioned here will be raised. Perhaps."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-silencing-of-the-lesbians/

May 2018
"Surely a bright, thoughtful chap like [Stephen Doughty MP] didn’t mean to imply that it was his job as Member of Parliament to tell newspapers what they can and cannot write? Surely he had no intention of acting as if it is in any way appropriate for a politician to decide what is and is not acceptable for journalists to say, and how they say it? And I can only hope that it was by a simple accident that he singled out by name a female journalist and suggested that her employers stop her saying the things that she thinks – because Doughty happens not to like her saying those things?

As I say, I must assume that he meant none of these things, that he had no such moronic and bullying intent when he spoke and acted as he did. I assume that Doughty is an honourable politician determined to do his job in a democracy and ensure that matters of public policy are debated fully and honestly, whether or not some people find such debate offensive. Because, as I am sure Doughty knows, there is no right not be offended and if we ever let hurt feelings stop us discussing matters of public interest on the basis of the facts, everyone loses." (cont)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

July 2018 "Why has the Government decided to say it will listen to grassroots feminists? That brings me to the less public bit of the story. Some people have been listening to the women’s groups, even if they don’t say so publicly. They include quite a lot of MPs, of all parties. The steady flow of letters and emails from constituents has helped some see that quite a few voters are unhappy about this. (This poll from Pink News underlines that point: 18 per cent of all voters, and 13 per cent of Tories, support allowing people to change their legal gender without medical approval.) That sort of feeling does tell on politicians, even if many aren’t keen to say so publicly, for fear of being accused, like those women’s groups, of nasty transphobia.

(If you doubt the extent of that chilling effect, consider that bomb threat I mentioned. It was made against a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Hastings, in Amber Rudd’s ultra-marginal seat. Even though it would only take a few hundred angry women to switch votes to topple her, Rudd hasn’t yet responded to campaigners’ requests to speak about what the police call a “serious” incident. I find it hard to think of other circumstance in which a former Home Secretary would stay silent about a bomb threat made against a public meeting in their constituency.)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

Sept 2018
"To recap: the State put a rapist in a jail full of vulnerable women. That rapist then sexually assaulted four of those women. MPs wanted to know how that happened, and to question the ministers responsible for those events. The Speaker of the House of Commons said they could not do so.

The story of transgender policy in Britain today is a story of political failure, where many people fail to do their job and speak openly about matters of clear public interest. Writing about it this year, I’ve grown accustomed to that failure, though no less angry about it.

But even by the dismal standards of the trans debate, where supposedly responsible figures routinely shirk their duties to appease a small, aggressive group of activists and lobbyists, John Bercow’s decision strikes me as repulsive, a disgusting abdication of responsibility that brings shame on its author and his office."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-state-has-failed-karen-whites-victims/

R0wantrees · 04/10/2018 09:58

(Apologies if this has already been linked)

Sheila Jefferies speech at DrRadFem's 'We Need to Talk, Inconvenient Women' discusses the evolution of legislation and the roots of the agenda:

drradfem.org/inconvenient-women/

WickedLazy · 04/10/2018 09:56

I once had a convo with a sexist bloke that went along the lines off him saying "men who're really into foreplay are gay as fuck" Hmm because in his mind "real men" take what they want and aren't fussed if the woman is satisfied or not. He couldn't see how contradictory that idea is, surely being a good lover makes you more of a real man..?

We'd slept together a few times years before, told him funny how my bi ex gave me many many orgasms, and him zero. Told him I'd sleep with my ex again over him in a heartbeat because he was crap in bed, and no doubt this was why he'd slept with many women, but very few more than once... I think there might be an element of fear that modern women will prefer these new softer, modern men who're more like us. And that they'll be getting all the sex, makeup and dresses or not. Makes sense that they'd then push for these men to become eunichs...

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 09:55

I’ve stopped counting the politicians, cabinet ministers among them, who tell me privately they worry about the trans agenda but won’t say so publicly.

What cowards. But why? Jesus, can you imagine politicians being so cowed by some activists against austerity or pro-renationalization or more money for women's shelters, or more money for the NHS?

It makes no sense.

WickedLazy · 04/10/2018 09:42

"What I think is really behind it is rich white men wanting to strengthen the patriarchal society since they started losing ground to feminism."

^I agree with this. Once other men start dressing and behaving like women, masculinity is threatened, and the patriarchy too. Misogynists can't let these "fruity", camp/feminine men undermine all men. Thus the push for them to be re-labelled as women, men are still men (except men who were born in the wrong bodies and should have been women, because they like pink glittery dresses and wearing makeup, but don't worry that's easy peasy to fix), and all is right with the world again.

Pro trans people bleat about being soo open minded, but can't see how closed minded the whole thing actually is.

R0wantrees · 04/10/2018 09:23

Spectator lead article by James Kirkup concludes:

"All raise serious issues of public policy, yet politicians are silent, fearful of questioning the trans-rights advocates and the consequences of their orthodoxy. Sometimes with good reason, too. Those MPs, mostly women, who have tried to debate this issue have been showered with online hatred. I’ve stopped counting the politicians, cabinet ministers among them, who tell me privately they worry about the trans agenda but won’t say so publicly

That silence troubles me. I am no social conservative, no culture warrior defending ‘traditional’ values. My interest here is fear of political failure, of what happens when sensible politicians fail to do their job by weighing evidence and reconciling conflicting interests. The failure leaves the trans debate dominated by shrill and aggressive groups intent on eliminating inconvenient evidence and dissenting views.

Failing to debate trans issues on the facts also creates the conditions for deliberate and harmful populism. Rows about trans people in bathrooms are a staple of America’s culture wars. The current vacuum of leadership on the issue means Britain could easily go the same way, if a politician on the make decided to make trouble. That would benefit no one, least of all transgender people, who deserve to live their lives with the same ordinary dignity as anyone else.

That’s not all that’s at stake. Trans-genderism is the perfect ideology for the on-demand internet age. It gives unquestioned primacy to ‘lived experience’, elevates emotion above evidence and convicts — after instant trial by social media — any scrutiny or doubt of that most heinous contemporary crime, intolerance. It chills debate and stifles critical thinking.

Should policies and laws be made on the basis of facts and evidence, or feelings and demands? You might not think so today, but the way our political system responds to the transgender rights movement will matter to everyone."

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/

R0wantrees · 04/10/2018 09:20

Wait, you mean Bannon is behind the weaponization of intersectional feminism and the transagenda?

No, of course not.

These things are very complex.

Biologifemini · 04/10/2018 09:20

I wouldn’t underestimate pharma and sales targets. They have form for creating illnesses to treat. That is why the current DSM is so controversial. Many personality types have been ‘ pathologised’.
I expect it is a combination of this and social contagion at work.
And the sexist stereotypes reinforced by men and the kardashians. Basically you aren’t female these days unless you look like a blow up doll. This is highly prevalent.

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 09:14

and all that without a logically plausible argument...

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 09:13

Bespin,
that still does not answer the question, how a small minority got into the position to run roughshod over the rights and boundaries of half the population that had fought for a century to get those rights and boundaries acknowledged.

Bespin · 04/10/2018 09:07

here's the thing about stonewall having seen the first meeting of 40+ trans people when stonewall consulted on this there was a lot of disagreement in the room and quite a few who didn't want stonewall to represent them but to have just trans groups given stonewalls history with trans people over the years. I'm glad people made the effort to come together as we still face a lot of challenges

deepwatersolo · 04/10/2018 08:12

here's a radical thought for you maybe it's trans people driving this. I know how crazy is that and of course I'm just saying that to protect big pharma.

But how come trans people have these enormous, fast successes, while pretty much all other minorities, let alone the majority called women, have had a hard time to further their cause in small steps over decades?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.