To only now realise that Pride is very anti-women - not just anti-lesbian - but misogynistic and male-orientated

[loveyouradvice]

I had no idea....

prideinlondon.org

Of the TWELVE photos that welcome you to their website ONLY ONE is of women .... and to compound the irony that one is of Stewards, i.e. women helping Pride happen, rather than celebrating and enjoying Pride as an active participant

I am really shocked that in this day and age ANY organisation that claims to represent WOMEN AND MEN can be so foolish as to show that they don't think women are important on the first page of their website.....

Beyond, I've also heard "woman with a trans history", which is insufferably twee as well as untrue

GnRH agonists have been in use since the late seventies/eighties, why would they have made up a list of side effects? It's not as if the real ones aren't bad enough?

Also when you say "made up" do you mean made up like reported online but unofficial side effects, or reported by yellow card but deemed clinically irrelevant, or completely made up from nothing?

You can have surgery to reconstruct parts of your body or change your appearance, but as of current you can't change your genetics.

Indeed. Any hormonal changes or surgically mediated changes are cosmetic. They do not change the sex of the person. Sex is set at conception, observed (not assigned) at birth and remains through life.

So you cannot change sex. That’s why we don’t put the space in transwoman.

Get the L Out originally printed a list of side effects that were made up, back in their early days, to try and scare people into not seeking any medication.

I’d like to see this - I can compare to the official drug information and subsequent reporting. Do you have the list?

The list of side effects for all GnRH class drugs is long, and unpleasant. There’s no need to make anything up to scare people - the existing side effect list is bad enough.

The FDA is currently investigating 10,000 yellow card / adverse event reports on Lupron - considering the size of the treated population that’s a very big deal.

These are not benign drugs. They are powerful, and have multisystemic, often irreversible effects. They should not be being used on children (except under exceptionally rare circumstances for central precocious puberty for example) AT ALL.

So we are in the situation where we wonder why adults would want to demedicalise adult treatment, leaving them sexually intact, but push treatment on minors that will leave them infertile, with minimal sexual function in later life. From an ethics point of view, that’s all the red flags. All of them. Waving in unison.

The way children are ‘marketed’ to directly over the Internet is of deep concern too. There are websites, you tube influencers and adult lobby groups telling children to access these drugs and showing them how.

Some lobby groups advocate confidential disclosure - that means that for example they encourage a teacher to keep quiet if a child disclosed to them that they are having issues with gender. Why is that a problem? Well it goes against all the safeguarding regulations we have - it’s been called an abusers charter before.

The way children are being targeted over puberty blockers is deeply worrying. Direct pushing via the web, coaching to say ‘the right things’ to access drugs, incorrect information given to parents and children - that these drugs are a harmless pause button etc and reversible.

It all adds up to a rather murky, unethical situation. To put it mildly.

Does anyone have the text of the offending leaflet? Because I am finding it hard to accept the second hand reports of its content. Bearing in mind that apparantly these 8 women shoved aside a party of NHS workers and trampled on their rainbow flag.

I have the one side Bert, iirc the other side was screenshots of abuse, so I didn't save that.

This is also online, footage from the groups go-pro
m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0xtqIvuGzg

The statements in that leaflet seem factually based, and focused on lesbian identity.

Would someone care to break down from the text (sorry, channelling my sixth form English teacher here..) exactly what their concerns are. Using textual analysis, rather than howls of transphobia if at all poss. Ta.

Pride is patriarchal and misogynist in the same way as the gay movement always has been. Women (lesbians) have been welcome as hangers-on as long as they make the tea, metaphorically suck cock and don't make waves (i.e. 'what about the lesbians?' type statements). Not criticising the men or any of their fetishes is also important as is being pro-porn.

*Yet another disingenuous poster, Intercontinental. The lesbian protest must've been extremely successful to draw out so many unapologetic lesbophobes over the last fortnight. "Anti trans" my arse "

Well that's a bit much prawn! Saying one leaflet written and handed out by a small group of lesbians seems anti trans to me does not make me lesbophobic. So in the spirit of mn, you can fofttfsof with that.

Labelling people who disagree with you as disinegenuous is a weak position at the best of times. I think the protest WAS really successful in getting attention for the group. It's certainly drawn the media spotlight into them and their views. I'm saying them - are you actually one of the protesters maybe?

Re sex, if you mean genetics then no, the genes can't be changed. Not entirely pertinent to trans whatever because that's gender afaik. If you're wanting to have a pick-apart exchange about definitions you'll need to find another playmate because I'm too language critical to go down that blind alley.

Also when you say "made up" do you mean made up like reported online but unofficial side effects, or reported by yellow card but deemed clinically irrelevant, or completely made up from nothing?

I mean literally made up. They wrote some absolutely horrific side effects, but because they were literally complete bullshit it was easy to disprove and they took them down.

It's not as if the real ones aren't bad enough?

It was ridiculous, but I think their goal was to try and spread fear about safer medication people might opt for, so trans people wouldn't try and take anything at all.

That’s why we don’t put the space in transwoman.

Or you could just put trans women under the 'women' umbrella?

Because the 'we' you're referring to are something of a minority. Society is changing. Our entire perception of the construct of gender is changing.

What were the horrific side effects?

Because the list of actual side effects is fairly horrific.

Or you could just put trans women under the 'women' umbrella?

Do you believe humans can change sex?

Do you have the list?

They deleted it so unfortunately our only hope are screenshots/pictures shared on SM. They were a very small group and people were wary of sharing the misinformation, so ridiculously hard to come by. I think some platforms outright banned spreading screenshots.

Tumblr/Twitter might have the list somewhere, but you'd have to be prepared for a long search.

Well if you ever find it let me know.

Do have a look at the side effects of things like Lupron. Full prescribing info is available online, as for any drug, it has to be by law.

Ah, right. The dog ate it. But you're sure it was terrible.

Absolutely nothing to do with the leaflets handed out to Pride, though, was it?

Bert, do you mean the pride leaflet handed out by get the l out? If yes, it's on a blog belonging to the group. Can't remember the URL but google will oblige I should think.

Was there shoving of NHS workers? I haven't seen that in any reports. Pushed to the front used in the context of pushing in at the front of the queue where you aren't meant to be, not actual literal pushing, surely?

Absolutely nothing to do with the leaflets handed out to Pride, though, was it?

No, it wasn't

Do you really think "people don't want to spread misinformation" and "barely anybody knew who they were" can be likened to "the dog ate it"?

It was awful. But unfortunately I don't have an eidetic memory. I think they were going for "literally the worst possible side effects one can think of." It would be laughable if it wasn't terrifying, what they were willing to do.

I don't think they trampled on the flag either Bertrand. There were lots of people standing on it at one point in the pics, I think just because it's massive!

literally the worst possible side effects one can think of.

Sterilisation?
cognitive damage equal to roughly 8-10 points?
Placing a child on an affirmative pathway that doesn’t have an easy ‘off’ ramp and sets them up for surgery and cross sex hormones that will destroy fertility and sexual function?
Metabolic disturbance (diabetes, fat metabolism changes)
Osteoporosis and severe joint damage?

And of course increased risk of cancer when moved onto cross sex hormones

Or more horrific than that?

Or more horrific than that?

Well, objectively, yes. It was a list compiled of extremely serious, extremely painful and extremely gross side effects. It was designed to put people off.

Obviously I'm not denying that a lot of current medication can have a negative impact so I don't know why you're telling me Which, really, makes the fact that they tried to spread lies even worse.

Do you believe humans can change sex?

I think I've answered this question.

I believe that the word 'woman' is becoming naturally associated with gender identity, rather than sex, and objecting to this isn't just petty and confusing, but futile. I also believe that it's the right direction to go in, that gender identity is becoming increasingly important and recognised, and that obviously it's a large change which we're going to have to accommodate.

I don’t expect you to have the list if it’s gone, but surely you can remember at least one example of an OTT, made up side effect?

I believe that the word 'woman' is becoming naturally associated with gender identity, rather than sex, and objecting to this isn't just petty and confusing, but futile.

Think it's futile, do you? And yet 82% of British people oppose Self-ID, which very strongly suggests that they don't share your opinion, Rosesandflowers. I'd guess most ordinary people think that lesbians = female homosexuals is pretty much a given too.

The pushback by trade unionists against the Labour Party's lesbophobia and misogyny suggests the tide is turning. And the tantrums thrown by Pride London over a protest by 8 lesbians show that they suspect and fear that people are beginning to register that the Emperor has no clothes.

I also believe that it's the right direction to go in, that gender identity is becoming increasingly important and recognised, and that obviously it's a large change which we're going to have to accommodate.

Speak for yourself. Sex is real, immutable and important. Gender is damaging piffle, and dismantling it is the work of feminism.

Don't know why someone would need to invent worse effects than sterilisation, brain damage, joint damage and cancer and I'm doubtful that anyone did.