Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

When you stand for nothing

34 replies

BovaryX · 07/12/2019 12:15

TimeLady has posted an excellent article by Janice Turner in The Times which analyzes the extensive influence wielded by a secretive lobby group who are unknown to most of the public. This lobby has embedded itself into influential institutions and its radical policies are promoted by politicians. It deliberately avoids media scrutiny or public debate. The emphasis on secrecy is an acknowledgment that if its agenda was widely known, there would be legitimate, valid resistance. Key pieces of its agenda are on the manifesto of the Lib Dems. John McDonnell yesterday also confirmed Labour’s commitment to self ID. Why are politicians in two major parties signing up to the demands of a lobby group whose aims are so unpopular with the public, secrecy is their modus operandi? Why are politicians who want to run the country espousing an ideology whose proponents are unable to coherently defend it when questioned? And have instead tried to criminalize any debate? Part of the answer is fear of a Twitter mob descending wielding fictional claims of ‘hate speech’ as a bludgeon. But the other answer? A total absence of principles. This lobby’s influence is an existential threat to freedom of speech, freedom of thought and democracy. Enlightenment values. The politicians pandering to this?

When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything

OP posts:
TimeLady · 07/12/2019 20:43

Forgot the link to the Whittle article

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Original poster
BovaryX · 07/12/2019 18:55

Er, lobbying in secret is an explicit, acknowledged tactic. Why? Because of the profound unpopularity of their aims. I suggest you read the link. The media might have been asleep through much of this, but the virulent attack on freedom of speech seen in Maya and Harry’s case has woken lots of people up. Sorry.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

OP posts:
reginafelangee · 07/12/2019 18:48

A secret lobby group - how very New World Order.

Time to get those tin foil hats adjusted.

Original poster
BovaryX · 07/12/2019 18:41

Normatively in the sex gender distinction sex precedes gender; gender is culture written onto the sexed body. In the terms of the Gender Recognition Act, one's gender precedes one's sex. One's acquired gender becomes the sex in which one is recognised in law

Thank you for this. It really is like something out of 1984. The deliberate manipulation of language in order to invert external reality and remove the ability to describe it. Replacing the word sex, with its unambiguously clear biological meaning is strategic, deliberate. As to ‘demobilizing’ the distinction between sex and gender, interesting use of martial imagery. They are waging a war on language, freedom of speech, academia, women, democracy. It’s quite incredible.

OP posts:
TimeLady · 07/12/2019 18:13

Just come across this

''Sex Changes'? Paradigm Shifts in 'Sex' and 'Gender' Following the Gender Recognition Act?'

by Stephen Whittle and Lewis Turner
Manchester Metropolitan University

Published: 31 Jan 2007

Haven't waded through it yet, but this bit caught my eye

The Act has already introduced two crucial changes. Firstly, the sex/gender distinction is demobilised with both terms in the wording of the act. Indeed, in the sex/gender distinction, female usually refers to sex, the sexed body, and woman usually refers to gender; the cultural meaning of female sex. In the terms of the Act the referents change round; gender refers to female and sex refers to woman. This suggests that the terms are interchangeable. Secondly, in the wording of the Act, gender precedes sex. Normatively in the sex gender distinction sex precedes gender; gender is culture written onto the sexed body. In the terms of the Gender Recognition Act, one's gender precedes one's sex. One's acquired gender becomes the sex in which one is recognised in law.

Remember, Whittle was brought in as the official advisor to the select committee in 2015.

Original poster
BovaryX · 07/12/2019 17:34

TimeLady,
Thank you for these links, you have been invaluable in helping me try to decipher this, especially because I am unfamiliar with the leading lights in this lobby group. The ‘legislation by stealth’ aspect is an affront to democracy. And most people don’t know about it at all.

OP posts:
TimeLady · 07/12/2019 16:51

BovaryX,

This might be of interest as a bit of background if you are relatively new to all this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change

Press for Change had been operating under the radar for years, culminating in successfully getting the GRA passed in 2004, largely unnoticed by the public or press. You will see they have form re. the 'legislation by stealth' approach.

My suspicion is those involved were (are?) the ones pulling Stonewall's strings back in 2015 when the T was added to the LGB

Original poster
BovaryX · 07/12/2019 12:27

Uncompromising,
I think that both Maya and Harry’s case have forced the media to pay attention and recognize the chilling threat to freedom. Most people know nothing about this. I was one of them until recently. But that’s not surprising because secrecy is a deliberate tactic.

OP posts:
Uncompromisingwoman · 07/12/2019 12:22

Excellent post BovaryX. This seems like a mountain to climb, when even institutions like Marks and Spencers cheerfully invite men in to share changing facilities with women having their bras fitted and sports organisations give away women's sport to self identifying men. BUT, we are at least getting to the stage where people are calling out the trans bullying and people are becoming aware and asking questions about what has happened.

Swipe left for the next trending thread