Excellent piece in the Guardian by Owl Fisher 8/3 [Edited by MNHQ]

Hilariously on twitter they're all agreeing whole heartedly.

Obviously none of them listened to the today programme on Friday.

Well he fits in quite well out there these days! Although I’ve read a few articles in the US press recently around adults who weren’t vaccinated and have contracted measles - they are pissed off now.

the American phenomenon of 'anti-vaccers'

Andrew Wakefield is British. Bit unfair to imply all that nonsense is the fault of the Americans.

There's definitely a push to conflate the American phenomenon of 'anti-vaccers' with feminists. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip.

It's the same OWL Sonic and they aren't saying the opposite here, they are just no good at getting their point across.

An article, which Paris Lees referred to as "evidence-based", and told Navratilova she didn't know what she was talking about, and that Dr Renee Richards, a medical doctor and transsexual athlete, wouldn't know much either because they were just "an ophthalmologist". But Owl does know.

I don't understand.

Is it the same Owl who a week or two ago wrote this piece? Saying the opposite, stating there is no advantage?

Or is this a different Owl?

metro.co.uk/2019/02/27/being-trans-doesnt-give-you-an-advantage-in-sport-but-fear-of-discrimination-keeps-us-from-playing-8750386/

This piece smacks of someone trying to set themselves up a media profile on issues beyond their expertise in being in a nonbinary or trans power couple.
(the claim to the professional background in ‘film making’ is a bit sparse and maybe not very lucrative- you can see their actual output on IMDB- Where interestingly they are listed as ‘he’
m.imdb.com/name/nm10313820/ )

And noting that this article comes out at a time that they have a book for trans teenagers to sell, which has already been out for a few months since it launched with a book tour.

But anyway, back to the thrust of Owl’s argument:

Yes - I think anyone would agree with Owl- it’s an obvious truth, that self appointed experts can be dangerous. Talking beyond the limits of their knowledge and taking advantage of gullible or vulnerable audiences who may not be able to tell the difference between opinion and expertise and the like.

I am interested then to know what qualifies Owl and Fox Fisher to write a book of ‘practical advice’ for teenagers struggling with gender identity, including ‘how to’ on binding and taking hormones?

Are they actually also educationalists? Counsellors? Psychotherapists? Doctors? Some kind of research academic? Youth worker? Their relevant expertise in advising teenagers is in ..er...

On their publishers’ website
www.jkp.com/uk/trans-teen-survival-guide-1.html

Trans Teen Survival Guide
Owl and Fox Fisher
Frank, friendly and funny, this must-read guide is packed full of advice from authors who understand the realities and complexities of growing up trans. Readers will come away empowered and armed with practical advice on how to navigate everything from coming out, clothes and pronouns, to wearing binders or packers, hormone therapy and self-care.

Some reviews on here:

www.amazon.co.uk/Trans-Teen-Survival-Guide-Fisher/dp/1785923412/ref=nodl_?tag=mumsnetforum-21

Ohhh that one. I seem to remember some videos that were taken off YouTube?

What case?

I am surprised that Owl still gets journalist work after their court case...

Barracker, thanks for insane earworm

Owl not fox

Ah.

But, what I think we'd all like to know, is
what does the Fox say?

Nah, don't be silly. This lot's schtick is pure "Will you women just shut up!" in lots of creative ways. There's not an ounce of humility or reflective practice in these two at all.

For a moment I thought there was a glimmer of hope it was the First.

We know that was their intention because it's the TRA line and they can't deviate from it. Women butt out, you don't know what you are doing.

Second ( which it could also be) just because you're a female athlete, it doeasn't mean you're qualifies to speak about testosterone levels in sport.

This is what they were going for.

Be careful what you wish for (and listen to R4 this morning, about 8.30).
Also, do you need us to try to get them back on, so that you can check whether, if you can’t change sex then you probably can’t change species either. Soz

I can read this two ways.

The first ( which is how I initially read it) just because you're trans doesn't mean you are qualified to speak about testosterone levels in sport ( I assume they have been asked to do so)

Second ( which it could also be) just because you're a female athlete, it doeasn't mean you're qualifies to speak about testosterone levels in sport.

So I'm not sure which of the two they are saying, although I have no quibble with a cry for more critical thinking, please.

Did you click on the embedded links?

I agree with every word but not in the way owl intended.

Excellent piece in the Guardian by Owl Fisher

I felt sure that this would be ironic but I actually agree with every word of the article. I wonder whether * finds the bonkers claims of RMK a bit much? Surely some of the AWAs must realise that the recent days have caused irreparable harm to their cause?

I guess that means that women are allowed to speak out about women's issues as they are directly affected?

Oh no. I don't think * would go that far.

*I just can't be arsed to google which fucking wild animal goes with which made up pronoun today, insert your own. This is not transphobic, it is attention-seeking-twat-phobic.

Ferret and vile?