Complaints against Baroness Nicholson being organised

Oh for goodness sake. We have lives you know. I can't sit on mumsnet all day ready to answer demands from other posters. I've been out and busy sorting out real life people's problems. I've just walked in the door and will come back when I have time. But short version to be going on with :
I answered an OP about Baroness Nicholson, not Stonewall (who I also don't support).

But I need food, and it's 9:30, so you're going to have to wait...

So no answers as to whether Peter Tatchell and Nancy Kelley are being held up to the same 100% pure standard.

And no acknowledgement that this position of not allowing a person to change their position as more information comes to hand is actually a sign that only 100% purity is acceptable and a sure sign that this movement is 100% intolerant while fully believing they are the most tolerant and morally superior group.

I await the attempts at reverse ferreting that I expect will start happening after the Cass report is released. Because apparently there are no golden bridges allowed.

I am a lesbian and a mother and I am not pro marriage for anyone from a feminist viewpoint.so on some issues I am in agreement and on some not. However ENs support for women and girls and her investigations about the harms of gender ideology have been outstanding, so I definitely support her in that.

ToGanymedeAndTitan · Today 18:09

“At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.”

You'd think if that was your experience you'd be for people being able to have surgery on their own body if they want to, not the opposite where you think they shouldn't.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood that if she had very large breasts for her body frame that may have meant she would have had a constantly aching back and neck. So it wouldn’t have been a case of wanting a reduction for either cosmetic or psychological reasons.

I did not suffer this way but a friend did. She had enormous breasts at a very young age and it caused constant discomfort. Luckily she was able to have a reduction when she was a bit older, though I can’t remember if she was lucky and the NHS agreed, or she managed to pay herself.

Personally I think that Emma Nicholson is very clear-sighted on the safeguarding of women and girls in a way that is gobsmackingly refreshing, after women like me have been banging our heads against a brick stone wall for years while Local Authorities, schools and government departments lose their fucking minds.

Which is why she needs shutting down with cries homophobia from people who think lesbianism should include men.

I don't like what Emma Nicholson said when she was an MP about lesbian parents and how she voted. Not at all. I am looking at the published rationales behind it and I'm still unclear if it was part of her religious belief system or part of a political belief system. I myself had a religious upbringing, which I have eschewed, as beliefs like 'lesbian marriage is wrong' were expected of me. But it's a belief that people are legally entitled to hold. I don't like that belief and it offends me - but I understand that it's legal to think and say it.

MPs have difficult decisions to make while trying to balance their personal beliefs with the public good and their party position - e.g. Tim Farron felt he had to step down as leader of the Lib Dems over the same issue. Shame he didn't step down over his party's direction of travel regarding gender ideology, but hey there we go. At least Nicholson has that one right.

Personally I think that Emma Nicholson is very clear-sighted on the safeguarding of women and girls in a way that is gobsmackingly refreshing, after women like me have been banging our heads against a brick stone wall for years while Local Authorities, schools and government departments lose their fucking minds.

At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.

You'd think if that was your experience you'd be for people being able to have surgery on their own body if they want to, not the opposite where you think they shouldn't.

Especially when it is nigh on impossible to get breast reduction on the NHS.

At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.

Had I known at 14 that I just had to say "I am a boy" I'd have been shouting it all day long.

Back and neck issues mean I have been in pain all my life. A breast reduction would have alleviated that. But it is, as I was told back in the 90s, something women have.

So, no. SRSs should not be available on the NHS. There is no parity. Why should I think that is appropriate?

I haven't RTFT but I hope anyone criticising the Baroness for opposing same sex marriage years ago is openly acknowledging that Stonewall also opposed it at that time.

Hardly a squirrel.

It is actually directly relevant in whether there is a balanced application of the lens being focused on the Baroness.

But, crack on trying to make out that it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

She is a women voting according to her personal credo.

Her anti gay voting was far more nuanced than that. And was voted down.

Her anti abortion voting was also more nuanced. And was voted down.

And, whilst I disagree with her nuances, I don't think it makes her a hate filled or vile woman. It makes her a woman with her own ideas, a woman who uses the political system properly.

That I do agree with her stance in women's rights is, at this moment in time, the only thing I deem important.

I don't require anyone to achieve a level of perfection or 100% accord with my own credo. That way lies insufferable arrogance, utter inflexibility and a hard line stance that only harms all who come into contact with it.

The Baroness herself spoke about how many complaints there have been to the HoL about her (I forget how many & will try to find it), compared to zero for a male in the HoL.

This is just what happens to any woman who sticks her head above the parapet & supports women's rights these days.

Oh... hello?

Any answer to my question about whether posters determined to monster the Baroness are also 100% comfortable with 100% of the comments from Peter Tatchell, Nancy Kelley and other spokespeople who are representing Stonewall?

Anyone prepared to answer?

I am happy to post some up if you need reminding that Peter Tatchell wrote about intergenerational sex and has some other interesting tweets around that issue. And well, there is that Nancy Kelley statement about lesbians and prejudices. I don't need to be any kind of 'expert' to find these statements, in fact, it has long been discussed on MN and you know, often by people who would say they were either L, G or B.

So, how about Peter Tatchell? 100% supportive of 100% of what he has said in all his years as a very vocal activist.

And Nancy? 100% on board with 100% of what Nancy says?

No answer then?

So, when we are told to educate ourselves and then change our opinions accordingly, as I would imagine BN has done, are we ever pure enough for you? Or is it once we're stained that there's no way back?

Oh look, a squirrel.

Then tell us your opinion of Nancy Kelley’s recent homophobic comments, saraclara and soulmagic?

@saraclara

Don't pay heed to what helleofabore says, she'd be the first to admit she's not an expert on LGBT matters.

If those quotes were from either a male politician from the opposite side of a poster's party, or from someone on the other side of the teams debate, three posts on here would be very different. Those people don't get the benefit of the doubt.

I was around when she made those comments, and remember being appalled by her. I'm sorry, I find it very unlikely that she's suddenly become a beacon of tolerance regarding homosexuality in her old age. And people scratching around for reasons to dismiss those past attitudes of hers, just appear desperate.

No doubt it's some regressive fetishistic nonsense.

As I posted earlier, I dislike this particular tweet from the Baroness, because well healthcare is healthcare and when it is provided on the NHS, it should be done well and without judgement.

That said, I don't think the colourful language is especially harmful especially if it reminds people considering surgery what is involved. I've unfortunately come across trans people who were unhappy with the results of their surgery, either because their expectations weren't met and/or because it didn't resolve their dysphoria.

I'm expecting a spotlight to be shone on adults after the Cass report is published and hope there can be an open discussion. Informed consent is essential to mature people too. Especially when their mental health is fragile. I sincerely hope that psychological assessment and support remains part of any NHS pathway and would like to see stricter safeguards around private options.

They were ambivalent because the lgb community was ambivalent.

Some people thought it was a good idea because it would encourage gay men to commit to monogamous relationships.
Some people thought that homosexual love should be acknowledged socially.
Some thought it was a good idea due to things like inheritance.
Some people thought it should be a human right.
Some people thought marriage was opposed to the nature of male homosexuality and irrelevant to gay men.
Some thought marriage was an oppressive patriarchal structure.
Some thought marriage exists to manage childbearing and issues around a union between people with opposite reproductive roles.
And I am sure some other things.

There was more a sense, and not just for SW, that lobby groups should really work in areas where there was strong consensus among the people they represented. Rather than trying to form the opinions of those people.

I don't know that we should be sure this kind of worry was wrong. Arguably it was part of what established this idea that reproductive role is not something that should be recognized in law, because it's necessary to treat all people identically. This is less so where there was legislation as in the UK, but I think we can all see that there is significant international influence going on with the way people think about these issues. And in places where it was treated as a rights issue, that set a kind of precedent around whether you could have a social/legal institution that treated male and female categories as different. You can see how it's usually argued, not as, should we have SSM, but can we not have SSM.

I wonder what the "etiquette training" includes.

One reason why it is not routinely available on the NHS is price. There is potentially limitless demand for health care and the NHS cannot afford everything.

Some prices:
www.thelondontransgenderclinic.uk/price-list/

Surgery for trans women

(available from the NHS following assessments after attending Gender Dysphoria clinics)

Gender surgery for trans women includes:

removal of the testes (orchidectomy)

removal of the penis (penectomy)

construction of a vagina (vaginoplasty)

construction of a vulva (vulvoplasty)

construction of a clitoris (clitoroplasty)

Breast implants for trans women (trans-feminine people) are not routinely available on the NHS.

Facial feminisation surgery and hair transplants are not routinely available on the NHS.

As with all surgical procedures there can be complications. Your surgeon should discuss the risks and limitations of surgery with you before you consent to the procedure.