Even Vera 😓

[Wavingnotdowning]

Even Vera 😓

Just watching tonight's Vera. Obviously men should be allowed in womens' hostels. Daren't make a comment out loud as the teenagers have swallowed woke hook line and sinker.

we have posters who declare that legal fiction is somehow representative of reality…. spreading such misinformation

You’re making stuff up again Helleofabore.

Total invention.

Really? So I misinterpreted this post below?

”The medical profession doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion.”

“Nor the law either.”

when the first sentence was in regards to this:

”Funny, then, that there has been gender reassignment surgery for over 90 years. The medical profession doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion.”

in reply to this:

”Being a child who is LGB does not require a parent to believe in something that is factually untrue and impossible.”

So, this doesn’t mean that we are supposedly to believe that the law in some people’s eyes represents a change in sex? When that change is fictional and limited so really not actually saying that someone can change sex??

Please explain how I am making things up? What did I invent?

Please, Point out where I made the error. I will apologise if I have erred in believing you WaityWTF were not agreeing with WomanStanleyWoman2’s attempt to say that gender reassignment surgery professionals and the law both agree that ‘sex can change’.

Maybe you don’t agree with the other poster or you meant something else?

Please feel free to clarify.

It seems false to me. Can you explain what a sexuality and a personal, unrelated to sexuality, identity have in common?

”You’re also consistently misusing the term gaslighting, which serves to diminish its usefulness and impact in actually threatening domestic abuse situations.”

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a person or group causes someone to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality.

Please also tell me how I have misused the term gaslighting? And really? You wish to continue to dismiss that the son who wrote that article has not actively coerced his mother to accept his and his sibling’s version of reality as being scientifically supported: that his sibling ‘changed sex’.

Not only that, seems to have encouraged their mother’s friends to also apply emotional pressure to submit wholly to the demands of the two children when a compromise could have been discussed.

Yeah, maybe I don’t understand what gaslighting means. But that coercive situation seems abusive to me forcing the mother to adapt her perception of reality to suit her children to maintain any relationship with them.

No compromise, no debate.

Tell us again, which MN posters would support a person gaslighting their mother and recommend that the abuser threaten to cease contact? Because I really want to see that in action please.

“But go you! Keep flying the flag in protest at trans people asking for anything as outrageous as their mum calling them by their chosen name and pronoun.”

But go you! Keep flying the flag of no compromise, no discussion when it comes to parents seeking to support their child while not being coerced into believing that people can change sex and that every demand a trans person makes needs to be granted fully. No compromise allowed!

And go those who ‘applaud’ emotional blackmail as a means to make their mother submit to those demands rather than find a solution that works.

I wonder if that person who wrote the article even accurately represented their sibling’s views or whether the author made the decision according to their own uncompromising beliefs.

Helleofabore, using the phrase “tell us again” to put totally invented words and meanings onto other posters is really a stretch.

You have misinterpreted and misrepresented again. And you’re right that you don’t understand the meaning and usage of the term Gaslighting if you still believe it applies from that article.

If you really can’t perceive the bias, prejudice and hostility here after all this back and forth, I can’t help you today.

Hopefully others reading this will have more insight and see this for posting pattern for what it is.

And before either waity or stanley try the ‘you don’t understand’ tactic, I have four different sets of friends who have navigated this very situation with their children. It can be done with understanding and discussion while maintaining a supportive environment.

So please tell me what I misinterpreted?

Lay it out for me so all reading can see where I misinterpreted what was written.

No thank you.

I’ve been patient, and polite, but it seems like you want a squabble, and given you’ve already invented stuff I didn’t say several times there not much point carrying on.

Re-read my posts and the article if you want to go round again arguing with whatever version of the world you think this is.

”If you really can’t perceive the bias, prejudice and hostility here after all this back and forth, I can’t help you today.”

Yes. I believe you have shown bias and have dismissed the coercive nature of that part of the article.

I think you have your own prejudices. I have merely pointed out that it was coercive and that sex cannot be changed in reality. I pointed out that the comparison between an LGB child and a child with a trans identity is false, and emotionally manipulative. I have trans people I live in my daily life.

Are you interpreting my disagreement and asking questions as hostility? Please point out my hostility towards you.

It seems rather hypocritical considering how many times you have told me I am making things up and not actually then addressing my comments. But yes, I guess readers will see your posting pattern for what it is.

Uncompromising and seeming to not be based on facts but on beliefs.

Same reason it's different for any non- reality based ideology which most of the community think, for good reason, is causing harm to many vulnerable people I suppose. I don't think she was refusing to believe he was trans as such, she was refusing to accept the pseudo religious ideological reasoning behind his identity statement. There is a lot of offensive assumptions about other's identities made in order to show how one is different from others. Not sure shutting people up for fear of the consequences you've threatened (the concept of threat is overt) is de-radicalising (I'd call it radicalising tbh) because no hearts and minds are won.

I have reread that article twice tonight and have read it several times before when it was first published.

It doesn’t get better on rereading.

So you maintain that I have made things up, but won’t say where, but believe that posters will see my posts as ‘wanting a squabble’.

OK.

So for readers benefit. Only some trans people believe they can or have changed sex with treatment. No clinician should ever be telling a trans person that they can. That would be very harmful for the trans person. The only thing that can happen is that they can have extreme body modification through hormones and surgery to change their body to replicate the opposite sex.

The law in the UK has provision for holders of a GRC to be treated in some situations as the opposite sex. Exceptions to the law can be made. We have just seen the Scottish Prison Service make that clear. That transitioned males, even with an GRC, are not automatically women, if they were there would be no extra process for placing them, they would go straight into the female prison. So, no. Legally there are also limits to ‘changing sex’.

It is important to check any facts you read on social media. Please do feel free to check for yourselves. I would advise original sources such as the EHRC for the law . There are no peer reviewed papers to be found to support any person on earth changing sex.

As this poster has not pointed out where I have misinterpreted what they have said, but has also said I have misused the word ‘gaslighting’ despite my posting a definition of the word and discussing how it applies to what the author of that part of the article has written, I am confused as to what I have misinterpreted.

But then I do note that my posts have been portrayed as hostile, and dishonest, while the author of that part of the article has been portrayed as righteous when I have pointed out it was an act of coercive pressure (the mother was threatened also with ostracism from what was portrayed as a small community) that was abusive. And that a compromise could have been worked out.

So, there seems to be double standards at play here on this thread too.

“I don't think she was refusing to believe he was trans as such, she was refusing to accept the pseudo religious ideological reasoning behind his identity statement.”

This was my interpretation of the article after numerous readings too. The families I know have found positions and compromises that work for them. It can be done.

For any interested readers, here is the relevant link to the EHRC guidance issued last year.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-provisions-equality-act

As I said, there are no accepted papers detailing how treatments ‘change the sec’ of any human. Because it is not possible, despite some philosophical papers arguing theories. And most trans people who discuss this acknowledge this as fact. Some do not for many different reasons.

Hopefully others reading this will have more insight and see this for posting pattern for what it is.

Sorry, but as a person who's been reading along, I say thank goodness Helleofabore (and Bicycles) has the patience and forbearance to ignore your horrible sneery tone and keep on calmly dissecting the nonsense.

I really don't think you're persuading as many people as you think you are.

Because they are both part of who you are. And I would fully support anyone distancing themselves from a parent who would refuse to accept that.

So, this doesn’t mean that we are supposedly to believe that the law in some people’s eyes represents a change in sex? When that change is fictional and limited so really not actually saying that someone can change sex??

This is your opinion, yet you keep presenting it as fact. That’s where you’re going wrong.

Can you explain what you mean, please? What have I got wrong? What is opinion ? What is the facts as you see them?

Well that’s great - for them. I’m sure you can understand that not every family behaves in the same way.

You are staying opinion as fact. I don’t know what else I can say.

What opinion am I saying is fact?

Are you saying it is opinion that someone with extreme body modifications and hormones still do not change sex?

Or are you saying that the law in the UK supports that a person has changed sex for every single aspect of life?

Because just repeating ‘you are stating opinion as fact’ does not clarify at all what you mean.

So in your eyes it is therefore appropriate for an adult child to threaten to cease contact for him
and his sibling to their mother based on ideological belief? And that if she doesn’t comply, she will also lose her friends as well?

You believe this is appropriate, proportionate and righteous. And not abusive at all?

Fine. We disagree. I believe you support abuse in this way.

Believe what you like. No one needs permission to cut contact with someone else. Forcing a relationship genuinely IS abusive.

I don't understand that. My love of reading is a part of me but it's not like my sexuality. This doesn't help me see the commonality. What do you mean 'refusing to accept that?'. The parent may well have accepted that the child 'was trans' but refused to believe that people can change sex and/or that gender ideology is progressive. Which bit do you think a parent should accept?

Well if she’d accepted her child was trans (no need for quotation marks), why did she refuse to use their chosen pronouns?