JULIE BINDEL: This gender ideology is nothing less than a crime against a generation

Ah poop

It's funny, when I was young and knew everything I was scathing about the mail, now I've seen a bit more of the world I'm disappointed by people who take the stance I took.

People need to look up the definition of the word bigot before they use it.

If you were placing a bet, it's certainly the thing to go for.

Feminist killjoy pearl-clutching buzzkills. As ever. With all the boring old whiny concerns about safeguarding and children, determined to get in the way of the good old chaps who just want to have a bit of fun?! Must be fash. Or bigots. Something bad, anyway.

And no one will publish Genevieve Gluck so she self publishes and now via reduxx.

One good thing about the internet is that it's easier to do so.

The Times has been relentlessly anti Tory since Covid, at least. I took out a subscription for the Times after giving up my Guardian subscription, and this antipathy has been very evident all that time.

Because it is the Daily Mail that gives a voice to people such as Julie Bindel, who used to be a regular feature writer for the Guardian before they were captured. Likewise, Suzanne Moore now writes for the Telegraph and Hadley Freeman for the Times.

Thanks for all the article and Bindel links

At that young an age, I believe they were saying that they wouldn't be treated, but they might have a one-off discussion with the parents to give advice.

Maybe that could be better done by a GP rather than a specialist service; but perhaps if the child is strongly obsessing over it then it's an appropriate referral to get advice from specialists.

Obviously the explosion in cases is a worry and deserves research and looks suspicious.

So many parallels between the obstacles JB faced then and the obstacles now.

In 10/20 years time this will be the medical scandal of its time, much like how lobotomies earned the Nobel prize before people realised how horrific they were. Much like doctors prescribed thalidomide before realising the consequences. Everyone who clapped on the mutilation of sex organs even in children, will be hanging their head in shame in the future.

Off topic. But I'm surprised that people think the Times is backing labour. They still seem to me to be desperately trying to persuade us that Rishi is competent.

Did anyone see the daft piece about his mock-up home alone video on Christmas Day? Such a guy, working on Christmas Day and still having fun. Vomit emoji.

I made public services disappear. (As he didn't say).

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/three-girls-drama-child-sexual-exploitation-rochdale-blackpool-pimping-a7739006.html

Bindel again, on the obstacles she faced investigating and trying to whistleblow/report on CSA grooming gangs.

This is what is really baffling. How have parents of young children got sucked into believing in their child's declarations that they want to be or that they are the opposite sex? They know that children of that age can't separate fact from fantasy and are just starting to learn about the world, but take their declarations that they are the opposite sex at face value. It makes no sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/30/ukcrime.childprotection

Bindel on CSA in Blackpool. 2008.

Back when the Guardian was still a paper with morals.

Safeguarding doesn't give two hoots which paper something is published in, as long as it's published tbh

I think a lot of the snobbery over newspapers isn't about journalistic standards; but simply over the punditry and political values being expressed.

So it's not liked that there are popular newspapers that say something different to the acceptable middle class left/liberal perspective, and which may "lead the stupid astray"; when these are value questions which need to be examined and debated and argued for, and tabloid punditry is just a part of that.

I agree that appeasement is not appropriate here, Mumsnet is full of erudite women who would be able to cite historical failures of this strategy, maybe there were successes, the historians and politicians could probably analyse those too.

We are a diverse range of thinking women from many backgrounds, but we have managed to agree on at least this one issue.

The strategy of discounting news from the mail reminds me of court dramas where prosecution tries to discredit a witness. How about we use our eyes and look at the evidence.

The Times used to be good on this but has gone a bit tumbleweeds lately. Probably because they're clearly backing Labour now (eg the splash today that Labour will magically create nurseries in schools with no detail on where the space will even come from, let alone the staff or money) and this issue is a bit inconvenient in that regard.

As to the article, personally I thought it was something of a rehash of others' work. Specifically Nikki da Costa and Michael Biggs in May 2022. When the Times had much more of an interest in this:

Gender referrals for children three times higher in Blackpool

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af2b20b2-d868-11ec-bb99-1bcd45646516?shareToken=f672912bb6e73734c90c3b1baa28691f

As recently noted, the Times has gone largely quiet on these issues. A specific journalist/editor was suggested as having had an impact, but also the apparent decision to get behind Labour for the next election.

OK, so you're happy with the article and most of what JB has written, but you object to two specific phrases used. Why make so many posts dwelling on this rather than commenting on your agreement with the rest of the article?

You said yourself that "do gooder" is used by many people of all political persuasions about many different people whose actions they disagree with, and that it's not inherently right wing.

The other phrase you objected to is "right on". This is often used against so-called progressives by people who are more socially conservative, but not necessarily right wing.

Adopting DM language when writing for the DM seems appropriate to me. It will appeal to their readers. She would have written a different article for the Telegraph or Times - or the Guardian if they'd let her.

If teachers, social workers, the police and the medical profession are all Stonewalled up to the eyeballs, it does seem a very uphill struggle to provide good balanced help to the children and teenagers involved.

Which is why we need a LOT more reporting in a LOT more places. I think The Times is pretty good on this? Albeit behind a paywall (which is, of course, the huge advantage the Grauniad has, and may be one reason they won't have one)

Is the fact that only the DM will publish this kind of article not worthy of discussion?

I note the change of direction from worrying about tone and language to 'only the DM'.

Once again, I'd really like to get back to the content of the article. What on earth can be going on in the heads of these adults? I can understand how parents/carers/teachers of teenagers get caught up in this but when they're 3 and 4 years old?

I'm not happy about giving the Mail clicks given all the absolute tripe they have on their site, which is in no way empowering to women at all. It drives a lot of the "this is what a stereotypical woman is" that a lot of trans women aim for - so not good.

However. They do have articles by writers making good solid sensible points using facts and research, and they should be encouraged to carry on doing that. And for that reason I WILL always click a link to those articles. Because it shows them that people want to read it.

In the same vein, i will usually need an archive link to the divisive tripe the Grauniad prints - unless it is to a similar well researched, well argued and based-in-facts article. They do occasionally have them.

I literally don't care if people "think" I'm RW. I am a socialist to my bones so that gives me a giggle. But i do worry that a polarising belief that to be GC (or as i prefer 2nd Wave Feminist) is RW means that other people who are not yet informed, have not been peaked and have no idea what's going on out there, don't listen - then yes, it would be useful not to use some of the "dog whistle" phrases that the TRAs jump all over. Guessing that is more down to the sub-ed than the writer?

It’s not the DM’s language. It’s Julie Bindel’s language. Have you ever heard her speak, or read her tweets, or previous articles?! She just doesn’t truck any nonsense. Do gooders is tame. Try “trans taliban” or “queer ISIS.”

The main people who take issue with her using terms like these are people like Owen Jones and IW. They should not be appeased.