GC and the extreme right etc etc

I would refer you to the two sources I mentioned: the Swedish study and an examination of the full impact of the FPFW FOI requests (which are public) which confirm exactly what I said.

I'm not going to provide links as when I have, those with 'English' degrees have chosen to ignore the content of them entirely and make comments about them unsupported by the contents of the documents.

I haven't told anyone anything about myself that isn't relevant to what I have said.

I think that's fair.

I've been around long enough to know that appeals to HQ to assure bona fides were a thing on a platform where usernames are transient but I'm not going to do that (and haven't linked this to my former account for practical reasons).

On the other hand, you're welcome to look at all the hostility in this thread and others and judge for yourself. I was previously scolded for "not reading the room" because I advanced some fairly basic pro trans ideas and there are several similar comments in this thread (including an accusation of DARVO) which equally seem to come from a place of wishing these ideas gone so usual service may be resumed.

You post contains a number of statements that simply are not true. There is no evidence that trans people commit crimes of the same kind or the same rate as cis men.

There aren't any reasons, and there isn't any evidence, to conclude that a group of male people defined by self declaration don't commit crimes of the same kind or the same rate as other males. If you have it, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

Women's violence levels are lower than men's so they wouldn't be actually violent towards other trans-women. Surely any murders have only been committed by men?

If you don't want to debate, don't. But women aren't going to shut up talking because you tell them to.

This. And we'll draw conclusions about anything as we see fit.

Do you have any basis for that claim at all?

I'm aware that there's a trope of infantilising trans men (even when they're 34 and been seriously considering this since they were nine like Elliot Page who has this week been accused of Rapid onset over a mere 25 years) and claiming that trans women are all older people who have 'benefited from the patriarchy' but there's no evidence to back this up that I've ever seen.

You post contains a number of statements that simply are not true. There is no evidence that trans people commit crimes of the same kind or the same rate as cis men.

The infamous 'Swedish Study' on which such claims are based quite literally proves the reverse.

Even FPFW's 'research' on the matter actually uncovered the fact that trans people are considerably less likely to be in prison than cis people, although further studies on why are clearly needed.

As for:

That they will also go so far as pretend that the physical differences between men and women are inconsequential in sport

I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say. All I have pointed out is that the IOC and other sporting bodies (who are entitled to set out rules for fair competition) have shown that safe trans integration has worked over a considerable period. Any contrary claims have to address that fact or be honest about their basis in bigotry.

lie about crime statistics

You are welcome to point out any lies in anything I have said about crime statistics but as I have only addressed you inferred use of the Swedish study and FPFW's biased reporting in this post, I'm sure that there aren't any.

and encourage the medicalisation of children unable to give consent

The Tavistock case is under appeal. The fact that the 'experts' against trans healthcare were all drawn from US religious groups is a concern which will need to be addressed.

More worrisome, to me, is that the lead lawyer has a long and shameful history of using these same arguments to both force women to keep unwanted pregnancies (he acted for the father in that case and it remains one of the least feminist legal actions of all time) and to further decrease access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.

This isn't some victory for feminism; it's an attack on access to contraception as was stated by Bell's legal team during the case.

Until the appeal is resolved, I think basing a take-down on its flawed science (one of the experts in the case's own professional society is appealing as they've stated he misrepresented the evidence that far) would be akin so someone coming to Mumsnet to spam post the quote relating to Maya Forstater’s view of sex being ‘not worthy of respect in democratic society’.

Yes, it can be done, but as the case is far from over and vast swathes continue to be contested but the lawyers....

It doesn't add anything at all, except to the partisan jeering.

You clearly feel strongly that you are threatened by trans people, but I'm genuinely unconvinced that even if everything you said was true it could ever justify removing human rights from people.

Isn't most of the violence towards trans people commited by men?

The vast vast majority. There has even been violence by other male trans people.

[quote bigotryisbad]@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

Your one line responses seem more like an attempt at a Duh-DoS attack than a genuine attempt at discussion.

I think it's valid to simply not engage save to say:

Prove the things you claim have validity and I will address them if I want to when you have done so.

You have no claim on my time any more than the smug "make the nasty person who thinks trans people have human rights and they should be protected go away" or "TRA" as so many posters wish to classify me. I'm not American. I'm not 'other'. I was on Mumsnet many years ago. I have 2 DDs and relevant professional skill and experience.

Every time you react to 'other' someone brave enough to post against the prevailing wisdom you reinforce the idea that the GC movement centres small 'c' conservative bigotry in a new wrapped that lets people claim to be feminist. [/quote]
Your post contained a large number of assertions. It's not up to other posters to provide evidence either way.

I'm not quite sure why asking questions is seen as othering. I neither knew nor cared about your nationality, whether you had children or how long you'd been on Mumsnet. I was asking for proof of what you claimed.

If I have no claim on your time, you also have no claim on mine. And I shall treat your baseless claims with the contempt they deserve.

Isn't most of the violence towards trans people commited by men? How does male abuse of trans people come from GC feminists? Do violent abusers often get inspired by feminists?

Oh of course. Anything you don't like is a "dog whistle".

Of course the other thing, Bigotry, is that I don't think anyone on here knows if you're male or female, or for that matter whether or not you identify as trans.

& yet no one is trying to silence you, I don't think. Mostly PPs are encouraging you to post & explain your ideas further?

So I'm not sure where the rhetoric about 'silencing' is coming from.

It feels a bit DARVO-ish, tbh.

Trans-hostile and woman-respecting are not the same. If you think they are Big then that says more about you than us.

It is a fact that every transwoman is a biologically male. In the UK most are late transitioning older men (not children). Thus they have lived their lives benefiting from a patriarchy where women are supposed to defer to men. It would be incredibly surprising if the learned expectations were not retained upon transition. Even if you do believe in lady brain then surely you can see how this life experience would affect their default behaviours post transition?

That sounds an awful lot like tone policing & scolding women, Bigotry.

If you don't want to debate, don't. But women aren't going to shut up talking because you tell them to.

Which is basically where I came in.

No one here has ever argued trans people should be denied human rights.

What is argued is that women’s rights should be defended.

No one has a right to participate in sport for the opposite sex. No one has the right to use a changing room for the opposite sex.

Yes. The GC movement does tend towards hectoring and attempts to stifle any debate about their more unsavoury connections and roots.

Thanks for the undeniable proof.

Asking for evidence is transphobic and bigoted (and somehow akin to a DoS attack?)

Telling women that they're bigots who should shut up and refusing to back up your claims is "brave."

Objecting to being labelled a bigot is "othering."

It's genuinely interesting.

More trying to silence women

A large part of any dog whistle is using them deniably...

Which is exactly what you've done here.

You may be entirely innocently using language in a way common among people trying to silence and 'other' trans people; but the effect on a trans hostile board like this is still to create distance to enable greater hatred.

The joke is, many far right and extremely religious people support transition rather than have gay children or people.

people.com/politics/missouri-dad-gives-viral-testimony-about-transgender-athlete-daughter/

This bit barely hides its message of: don't let the heretics speak in public! Look what happened in the UK! People listened, decided that the heretics had a valid argument and then they rejected our plans for strict blasphemy laws. Bastards! Don't let it happen here! Resist free speech in the USA!

like the TERF movement that has achieved mainstream legitimacy in the U.K., defining the conversation around trans rights and leading to a rollback of those rights. Last September the British government decreed that trans people lacked the right to legally self-identify and in December the British High Court banned gender-affirming health care such as puberty blockers for those under 16. There is every reason to believe that, by allowing this set of writers to define and shape a media consensus against trans people’s humanity and right to define ourselves, we are setting ourselves up for the same progression in the States.'

My rewrite:

Substack writing is like the mainstream view in the U.K., defining the conversation around womens rights and child protection leading to those rights being retained. Last September the British government decreed that trans people lacked the right to legally self-identify and in December the British High Court added more oversight to the prescribing of puberty blockers for those under 18, which dramatically reduced the use of PBs. There is every reason to believe that, by allowing Substack writers to be read widely highlighting trans people’s desire to define ourselves with no regard to impact on others, we are setting ourselves up for increased women's rights and child protection safeguards to be introduced in the States.

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

Your one line responses seem more like an attempt at a Duh-DoS attack than a genuine attempt at discussion.

I think it's valid to simply not engage save to say:

Prove the things you claim have validity and I will address them if I want to when you have done so.

You have no claim on my time any more than the smug "make the nasty person who thinks trans people have human rights and they should be protected go away" or "TRA" as so many posters wish to classify me. I'm not American. I'm not 'other'. I was on Mumsnet many years ago. I have 2 DDs and relevant professional skill and experience.

Every time you react to 'other' someone brave enough to post against the prevailing wisdom you reinforce the idea that the GC movement centres small 'c' conservative bigotry in a new wrapped that lets people claim to be feminist.

Blah blah blah blah blah

Well, Bigotry, if I'd mentioned trans people, or meant trans people, you might have a point.

I thought I was talking about angry shouty blokes on Twitter etc. Many of whom like shouting at, & about, women speaking up for their rights, y'know?