LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

You just love stereotyping everyone don't you? And you're very wrong.

I could say exactly the same about you.

Please show me where I am deeply entrenched in my prejudice? And please show me claims that I have not evidenced either then and there or could provide evidence for when asked?

I don’t think you have provided any evidence at all for your repeated claims against LGB Alliance.

I fully expect that readers can see that very clearly.

And you want me reported for having a different opinion to you? Obviously not a fan of free speech then.

Again, did you read what I wrote?

Have you actually read the guidelines for this particular board of MN? Yes or no?

Do you realise they are rather different to the guidelines for posting on all other areas of MN?

Do you understand what a negative generalisation is? It refers to making a broadbrush negative remark about any group. Something you have consistently done.

By posting on this forum board you automatically agree to follow the guidelines of the board. At the end of the day, the MN moderators may choose to delete posts if they read the thread to moderate it without any reports at all!

It has nothing at all to do with whether I am a fan of free speech or not. And only a fool would draw that conclusion if they had read the guidelines and my posts about ‘reporting posts’ on this thread.

I have said at least twice that I am NOT reporting your posts, and it is therefore an absurd take you have just made. I want your posts to stand as they are a live demonstration as to the tactics used by extreme activists that are very entrenched in their view points which have little or no solid evidential foundations.

I repeat, I want people to read your posts. They are remarkably illustrative.

"But you’d expect that a group of men who identify as women might display less stereotypically masculine behaviours than other men.That is not the case."

Not always the case, but more often (in my experience) it IS the case. They're not all the same, they're all individuals.

"If anything this is one of the more welcoming online spaces for trans people."

😂Oh that's funny, really funny! 😂

"but you are so deeply entrenched in your prejudices that you cannot acknowledge this fact nor can you produce evidence to substantiate your prejudiced claims."

I could say exactly the same about you.
And you want me reported for having a different opinion to you? Obviously not a fan of free speech then.

I'm sorry if you think I should sit here on tenterhooks waiting for your next question, but I do have other things to do with my life apart from sitting here looking at mumsnet! And I have answered you.

So now you're telling me it's a "fact" that I've not seen any homophobic content from Stonewall?
You have a very inflated opinion of yourself if you think you know exactly what I've seen or not. Get over yourself!

If your claims are 'facts' then you'll be able to provide the evidence that

🤣🤣

This thread gets better and better!

Hypocrisy writ large!

We're all entitled to our own beliefs, including me, and I don't give a jot to what you think of mine.
And show me where I've demanded medicalisation of children?

What a nasty, ignorant comment. Being disabled is not unusual, there's lots of us around.

Only too well aware of that.

It's not me making ignorant, nasty comments it is you.

What a nasty, ignorant comment. Being disabled is not unusual, there's lots of us around.

If your claims are 'facts' then you'll be able to provide the evidence that "Stonewall are actively homophobic and leading action to harass and forcibly drive homosexual people out of the support they set up."

Maybe the posters who are so vehemently against LGBA could also point out where a young detransitioner or desister who is LGB can go for advice about getting to know themselves as not a trans person.

How many detransitioners have reported the significant lack of support for them at Stonewall and Mermaids and other trans inclusive groups?

How many detransitioners report the complete ostracism they face when they start asking questions that they groups cannot countenance answering and actively refuse to engage with?

starlee, hearach? Any suggestions?

or are you incapable of acknowledging the young desisters and detransitioners? Do you seek to further isolate them by withdrawing potential support?

Who do they contact for help?

Like the way they successfully reported the tweets by a detransitioner, concerning the effects of medical transition on his own body.

Twitter is full of pornographic videos, posts minimising the impact of child abuse, and tweets glorifying violence against women and so much more.

But what do TQ activists seek to remove from the site? A man being negative about the impacts of the medical procedures he had. Were they scared someone might change their mind as a result of his thread?!

Fair enough Deacon. I suspect quite a number of Starlee’s posts would have been deleted if reported for the negative generalisations they keep using amongst other things.

And hey, if they cross the line, they cross the line.

If it was last night, it might have been me that reported it - posts that are just "I never said that, you're saaad" or similar I tend to think detract from civil discussion. Happy to leave them up in future, in case there was any doubt as to whether the people posting those sentiments and not actually engaging in questions being asked, are here in good faith to have an honest discussion?

Yes, it is always interesting to note what TQ+ political activists regard as too dangerous to leave in writing.

Those who would like equal freedom and tolerance for gay people and women tend to be willing to let pretty much everything stay there in evidence and add the evidence of arguing with it, rather than seeking to control reality by deleting and silencing the bits of it someone finds unpleasant.

Because whatever you do to hide that bit of reality you don't like, the sad fact is that it doesn't go away.

Just so you know starlee I did not report your post that ended with this statement , that seems to have been deleted.

I would say you have said something that those from other platforms who constantly monitor this board for snap shots or to control what is being said here didn’t want left to stand. Considering a number of posts have gone this morning from today and yesterday, I’d say there is a high likelihood that you have probably said something in one of the other paragraphs that one of those visitors didn’t like being said.

It wasn’t me at all. Posts showing readers the tactics used by those with the same arguments as extreme activists are very useful to be left standing.

Well, there's a surprise a post which was factual, truthful and evidence is available to back it up is deleted because some people just can't handle the truth and yet certain posters are able to make unfounded, unevidenced, untruthful claims about LGBA for pages and pages.

(Somewhat similar to an earlier post, a moment ago.)

This idea that "My opinion is as good as anyone else's", is commonly offered these days. It comes from a good place, that of a concern for tolerance and democracy. But it leads to a fallacy of ambiguity if you're not careful. Let us disambiguate, again.

"My opinion is as good as anyone else's," might mean (1) "I have as much right to an opinion as anyone else," or (2) "My opinion is as likely to be correct as anyone else's".

Starlee herself in this very thread gives us many examples of instances where case (1) applies but not - no, really, not - case (2).

In my opinion, some opinions are really not worth much at all, even though, of course, people very much have the right to hold them. Amongst such opinions are, for instance, that humans have a separable soul that may or not match their body in some inexplicable sense, and that human beings can change sex. Both these opinions are just plain wrong.

(I leave disambiguation of the notion that my experience is as good as anyone else's for another time.)

[I can't bring myself to misuse 'valid' the way Starlee does, old pedant that I am. (She is far from unusual in this misuse; soon 'valid' in her sense will make it to the OED, aargh. Not quite yet, though. If you are tempted - if you use 'valid' how Starlee does - look it up, and desist. Please. It's just sloppy.)]

[And again, Starlee, I don't really expect a response.]

Just putting this here too. Because obviously a group in Australia is seeking to legally prevent any lesbian group defining themselves as single sex.

Very tolerant of female’s who define their sexuality based on the sex of their partners and nothing to do with gender. So ‘inclusive’ of all people’s views, isn’t it, not allowing females to establish their sexual boundaries and then their own spaces around that definition?

Sometimes it is important to disambiguate.

"You are wrong to say x" could mean , (1) "You ought not to say x." Or it could mean, (2) "x is not true."

"I feel I am a woman" (said by a man), should elicit the response, "You are not wrong in sense (1)," (it is probably good to share your feelings, after all), but "You are wrong in sense (2)" (because you are not a woman, you are a man, after all).

Of course Starlee will disagree with the desirability of this response. But I wonder if she can understand the disambiguation. I suspect that not.

[I do not expect a reply, Starlee.]

This special report by Janice Turner on the Tavistock is very relevant here. She says that even some senior Stonewall figures are starting to express concern.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e1356292-ebdd-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=7d215351dcddcbcfde7e212a6273df05

Also Lucy Bannerman’s interview with a former Tavistock patient who was basically ditched after making the rare decision not to go onto cross sex hormones.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0bf8b08e-ebe2-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=1fe1dab8eb1d48cc9e1dd17fc9fb1eb2

I know Starlee & friends are likely to ignore these reports because they’re from The Times, but I’m sharing them anyway.

I guess I just can't ever imagine saying to anyone 'Yes, you have the wrong body, because your kind of true self/soul/personality is only ever found in other types of body'.
This is why I need the thinking explaining clearly, because it seems outrageous to me.