To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

I can’t believe I am wasting my day playing the gender critical “nothing is transphobic” game

no one has said ‘nothing is transphobic’

"I am losing this argument on mumsnet - The gender critical perspective is very popular and influential here, (and currently very influential in terms of public policy ) despite its widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles . In the wider world, however, ultimately this harmful ideology (“gender critical feminism”) will fall, as do all ideologies that fail to account for the reality of actual human lives and experience. Trans people are here to stay, no matter how much you fear and hate them, they are part of human diversity in the real world, and sooner or later you will just have to accept that."

Gosh. piggle, is this your words? Did you post this without any sense of hypocrisy?

Mumsnet is actually pretty representative of the views of the majority of the UK population. The polls over the past years have shown that the majority of people do not support the extreme beliefs that you wish to claim as the minimum privileges for some people.

You continue to advocate for the full support of these demands it seems, yet, even the organisations that used to clamour to attain Stonewall Diversity Champion status have realised that supporting these demands fully causes harm to other groups and are no longer supporting Stonewall.

You are making unfounded declarations all over the thread. Can you point out the 'widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles' of where it is supported that humans can change sex? Can you point out where it is 'widely' supported that male people who believe they are female should play sports in female sports categories?

I think you must exist in your own little bubble that does not have contact with much of the outside world if you wish to confidently assert that the belief that sex is immutable has "widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles'. That is just more hyperbole.

"In the wider world, however, ultimately this harmful ideology (“gender critical feminism”) will fall, as do all ideologies that fail to account for the reality of actual human lives and experience."

This is projection, in my opinion. Although, I am glad you recognise that this part that an ideology "will fall, as do all ideologies that fail to account for the reality of actual human lives and experience."

The issue with your statement is, of course, that it is the philosophical belief of humans having a gender identity that needs to be recognised in law and policy that is the 'ideology' that fails 'to account for the reality of actual human lives and experience." Because you see, it is only philosophical belief and it is not scientific understanding that humans can change sex.

"Trans people are here to stay, no matter how much you fear and hate them, they are part of human diversity in the real world, and sooner or later you will just have to accept that."

People with gender identities should be accepted in this world as with any other person with a philosophical belief.

What no person gets to do in the UK is to force any other person to comply with their philosophical belief.

Indeed. It has been repeatedly pointed out on this and other threads, LGB Alliance does not exclude people with transgender identities at all.

It is an inconvenience that fact.

The gender critical perspective is very popular and influential here, (and currently very influential in terms of public policy ) despite its widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles

If it wasn't for all the pesky women, the government, and the general public, you'd have gotten away with it, eh?!

Honestly, Piggle. I suggest you try getting out more and speaking to ordinary people. I can imagine academic bubbles are still in thrall to some pretty wacky ideas, but the wider world is just not on board with 'gender identity'.

It's a faith, believing that our inner feelings about 'gender' override the material reality of sex. It's one you're entitled to hold. You're not entitled to insist everyone else shares it, though.

The gender critical perspective is very popular and influential here, (and currently very influential in terms of public policy ) despite its widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles

Oh, that gave me a much needed chortle. Thanks pal.

The session that this group disrupted needs to be repeated on every page I think. Because I don't believe that any of the posters who are calling the conference 'transphobic', or 'anti-trans' as it has pivoted to over the past couple of years, have addressed just how Jamie Reed is transphobic. And why she should have been silenced.

I think readers will see the pattern by now and understand that baseless accusations cannot support this action which was homophobic despite all the attempts at denial.

I reckon that statement about widespread rejection in academic and scientific circles is a classic!

And needs supporting evidence because that is a doozy of a claim.

If any physical science academic is providing an education that states that 'human sex is mutable' I would be questioning their credentials and also questioning just how many other academics supported them.

'ideologies that fail to account for the reality of actual human lives and experience'

'Hello, is that the Irony Department? Can you come and collect an outsize item, please?'

It's interesting that the session the 'trans kids' chose to disrupt was given by Jamie Reed. Here is Jamie's spouse, Tiger:

'The gender-affirming care model relies on vulnerable people’s impatience—rushing them toward major medical changes rather than stopping to understand the root of their pain and suffering. This affects not just patients, but entire families. And as Jamie has shown, confused and scared parents get told—falsely—that without transition their children are likely to commit suicide.
I’m going public because I want people like me who have complex and nuanced reasons for their gender distress to be part of the conversation. I want people to know there are more options than medicalizing their bodies for the rest of their lives. '

https://www.thefp.com/p/tiger-jamie-reed-detransition-wash-u-transgender-affirming-care

Of course, different people have different ideas about what rights trans people should and shouldn’t have. But the one I see most often on mumsnet is that trans people shouldn’t have the right to be addressed by their preferred name/pronouns and as their gender. It’s interesting that I saw a thread a couple of days ago on mumsnet from a woman who’s family insist on sending letters and cheques to her husbands surname despite her not changing her name when getting married. Everyone was rightly outraged by this. Yet trans people can’t choose their name and pronouns? Whenever a trans woman is described as “a male pretending to be a female” this is violating this right.
Another right which trans people in the UK supposedly have, but in practise is hard to come by, is the right to gender affirming healthcare. This video portrays how difficult it can be to get gender affirming healthcare on the NHS and how life saving it is in many cases:

Trans people are also very likely to experience discrimination and in many cases assault as a result of being trans. The constant stirring up of anti-trans sentiments (on mumsnet and elsewhere) only makes this problem worse. I’m assuming most of the people on this thread are from the UK, and we are very lucky to live in a country with good rights for trans people. But in many places in the world being trans is illegal. We should be fighting for trans people to have rights globally rather than trying to take them away. Before anyone accuses me of being homophobic or anti-woman/anti-feminist. I am myself bisexual and the majority of my friend group is queer. I am a cis woman. In my work I research women’s health (a historically under-researched area) and advocate for equal opportunities for women within the profession. I also volunteer for several hours a week at a women’s charity and regularly donate to women’s charities. Division only makes us weaker. Women and trans people supporting each other will make us both stronger.

That's incorrect. They don't exclude trans people.

They don't stop them subscribing or becoming core supporters, they didn't prevent them buying conference tickets, there was no sign on the door saying 'no trans people'. They aren't excluded.

They aren't actively included - they aren't centred in the aims, or sent personal invitations. But that is not exclusion. Any more than they are excluding Jains, or bus drivers, or astrophysists, or vegans - all of whom fail to get a mention in the organisation's aims.

It's astoundingly narcissistic to think everything that isn't actively all about you is excluding you.

"I know you won't see that - it's the cornerstone of the #nodebate approach to life. A fragile totalitarian approach that brooks no dissent, tramples all over the rights of others and is completely tone deaf about the rights and needs of children to mature safely without dangerous psychological and medical interventions."

This needs repeating too.

LadyGrinningSoul8517 · Today 08:59

I haven't seen anything homophobic on MN, could you link to a few examples of such posts, please?

Re transphobia, what do you mean by that?

People calling for trans people to be locked up, denied medical care, prevented from speaking? Or factual statements, such as saying that TWAM? Only women have cervices? Transw should not be in women's prisons?

If the former, I'd agree that it's transphobia, the latter, common sense and medico-scientific fact.

Piggle, you keep wanging on about the LGBA being a transphobic hate group and have linked to the trans zealot's statement. That's a highly partial piece of propaganda, with no basis in fact.

If by transphobic hate, you mean "lesbians who won't consider transw (ie men) as potential sexual partners," then it seems to me to be a ridiculous definition, best ignored as fantasy.

I’m assuming most of the people on this thread are from the UK, and we are very lucky to live in a country with good rights for trans people. But in many places in the world being trans is illegal. We should be fighting for trans people to have rights globally rather than trying to take them away.

OK, so why aren't trans charities doing that then? Why are they and organisations like Stonewall vociferously campaigning for the single sex exemptions in the EQA2010 to be disregarded, to the detriment of women instead of tackling actual transphobia worldwide? As an example, Scottish Trans Alliance were the main drivers for violent male sex offenders who identify as women to be housed in the female prison estate. If anything they are an anti woman organisation and that is what women are trying to push back against.

We still don't release insects at their meetings. Because sunlight is better than footstamping.

@Raspberryripple11
"the one I see most often on mumsnet is that trans people shouldn’t have the right to be addressed by their preferred name/pronouns and as their gender"

Thats compelled speech. Nobody has the right to tell me what to say and how to say it. I will not say black is white, to refuse to say water is not wet, is not transphobic.

"Yet trans people can’t choose their name and pronouns?"

Name yes. Pronouns no - you cannot compel me to agree to your theatre.

"in practise is hard to come by, is the right to gender affirming healthcare"

Doctors and medical professionals are the ones who (would) know what the right treatment is, in conjunction with the patient. What you are advocating for is patients to have the right to insist on specific treatment, even if it is provably harmful for them, something no doctor should ever do. For example, an anorexic who believes they are fat going to a doctor and insisting on a gastric band being fitted. I do not support Anorexic Affirming Healthcare - because it is clearly harmful and comes from a place of mental health distress, just like the confused, hurt and terrified gender questioning people who have been told they need affirming healthcare, when what they need is hollistic mental health support.

"Trans people are also very likely to experience discrimination and in many cases assault as a result of being trans."

And that is always wrong

"We should be fighting for trans people to have rights globally rather than trying to take them away"

We should. Nobody here is taking them away. Nobody.

"the majority of my friend group is queer"

define "Queer"

"I am a cis woman"

You mane "I am a woman" there is only one kind.

" In my work I research women’s health (a historically under-researched area) and advocate for equal opportunities for women within the profession. I also volunteer for several hours a week at a women’s charity and regularly donate to women’s charities. Division only makes us weaker. Women and trans people supporting each other will make us both stronger. "

Good for you and I agree with all of that. Trans identified men - are not female, are not women.

That you cannot see trans identified men are trying to take away womens rights, LGB rights - is damning, however much of an ally you THINK you are.

I also have a suspicion that 'denying medical care' is either - objecting to children having irreversible changes made to their body or ignoring the utterly batshit demands of such nonsense as the Edinburgh Action for Trans Health manifesto (I suggest people look it up - it's fascinatingly bizarre).

Piggle:

Also: They weren’t protesting LGBA people meeting

No, they were protesting against them meeting. Or about them meeting, as you please.

That's the crux of it.

Homosexuals do not want homosexuality redefined to included opposite sex relationships. They are NOT opposed to same sex relationships where the partner identifies as another sex. They just want the sex bit maintained in law because for various reasons this offers them legal protection.

One of the homophobic issues they've had to deal with over the years is the idea that one partner in the couple has the 'feminine' roll and one has the 'masculine' roll. It's about imposing heterosexual issues and cultural differences onto homosexual couples.

This will most certainly include issues relating to having children. If you are a heterosexual couple you will have completely different challenges to having a family compared to a homosexual couple. Regardless of how you identify. And that's relevant.

Remember one form of conversion was the idea that lesbians should try sex with a man "because they don't know it unless they try it" and other such coercive techniques. And we are talking about a bunch of issues, particularly for young lesbians, that they have to navigate - the mere issue of asserting themselves and knowing it's ok to say no regardless of someone's identity is uniquely a gay experience. .

No one is stopping trans activists from setting up their own uniquely trans support to advocate for issues that uniquely affects them.

What the LGB Alliance are saying is there are areas where we need to have visibility and talk about issues that are uniquely gay without it being overshadowed or deemed unacceptable to talk about because it upsets someone else.

That doesn't stop a problem that exists from being there. It just drives it underground.

We need to talk about and tackle these 'flash points' head on and be honest about them so we actually DEAL with them rather than let any party be harmed or caught up in problems relating to these issues.

One particular problem within schools is this homophobic response to gender nonconforming appearances and behaviour which pushes young people down the trans pathway when the gay pathway might be the right one for them. That's not transphobic - that's enabling young people to be free to see the difference and be their true authentic self without duress because they are the victims of homophobia and it's somehow feels initially 'safer' to become trans because of what everyone else is saying and because thats where the support is. Not to mention issues of internalised homophobia.

Honestly the issue is trans people want to make it all about themselves rather than realising 'its a bit more complicated than that's and that actually some people will find the virulence and militancy of trans promotion to be harmful to them.

Which is actually exactly what these numpties are demonstrating in real time.

'the one I see most often on mumsnet is that trans people shouldn’t have the right to be addressed by their preferred name/pronouns and as their gender. '

What 'right' is this? People have every right to ask, to say how they'd prefer to be addressed. And others have every right to refer to people as they see fit - so long as they're not threatening or abusive.

"the one I see most often on mumsnet is that trans people shouldn’t have the right to be addressed by their preferred name/pronouns and as their gender"

You aren't addressing the WHY bit to the reason it's being said.

That's the bit about the harms to others. And the implications for safeguarding and rights for others.

Which are EQUALLY important.

The equality bit is the bit that's lost in the conversation.

My reality and lived experience is of equal value and worth to someone else's. You believe that people can be 'born in the wrong body' and that history can be rewritten in line with that. That negates others identity, experiences, puts them in more vulnerable positions and undermines some of the legal protections they have.

The use of language is important and carries massive implications. It's not a neutral act.

'the right to gender affirming healthcare'

Anyone who wants to access plastic surgery can go right ahead and do so.

What is less straightforward is whether the NHS should be involved in this highly contentious area.

Giving off-label, unevidenced drugs to young people who cannot possibly understand the potential consequences nor give meaningful consent.

Hormones and plastic surgeries to 'affirm gender'.

Nobody can even define 'gender identity', so the idea that the NHS should pay to 'affirm' it is ... surprising.

https://chuffed.org/project/115124-supporting-the-crick-kids

£7,150 and counting

report as funding actual hate crimes - they should get 550 reports according to this poll https://chuffed.org/report-campaign

I frequently ask people to refer to me as Your Gorgeous Majesty and so far no fucker has taken me up on it.

I've yet to complain to the ECHR about this egregious failure to respect my rights, though.

No one has to comply to a person’s philosophical belief. It is rare to see anyone refuse to use someone's name because that can be said to be a material fact.

However, the choice to use someone's preferred pronouns and whether to recognise someone's gender identity is subject to philosophical belief.

And we have recently been shown just how meaningless the language that some people demand is and how it IS based on philosophical belief.
Because to be a person with a transgender identity, this is not even based on having gender dysphoria beyond a rare diagnosis. We have been told this now by professional academics as well as trans people themselves. I can find a recent quote for you if you wish. There is no medical condition required for identifying as having a transgender identity. And how would this diagnosis go in any case for a Neptune gender identity?

Therefore the only commonality for people with transgender identities is their philosophical belief.

Meaning no one needs to comply with another persons philosophical belief. No one.

No matter how kind or respectful that person who is trying to shame me into complying tells me that it is to use the preferred language, it is someone who is demanding that me support their own philosophical belief.

You, general you, are totally free to choose to base your own language on using the sometimes centuries old established meanings of words and the established protocols of language that are based around sex. Not someone's identity.

Another issue that the recent discussions about the male boxers has shown us that the word 'cis' is also meaningless and based on someone's philosophical belief.

In fact, because we were reminded that 'cis' means any person 'assigned' female at birth, this also includes those male people who have been incorrectly registered as female. And I am talking about the male people who have differences of sex development where their bodies are capable of processing the testosterone that their testes produce.

What this means is that there is now no words to describe a unique group of female people that reliably means just those female people, either pre or post puberty, who have bodies that are female sexed.

Cis is a meaningless word. Maybe the pic will show what I mean better.

Using preferred language around describing someone is based on someone else's demand to believe in their philosophical belief. It is purely up to you.

What you don't get to do, is to shame others for not supporting your belief if they do not choose to. No one gets to infer / imply or to directly state it is ‘disrespectful’ in anyway to use accurate language that has commonly understood meanings amongst the majority of the population.

Names are a different discussion. Usage of other preferred language is a privilege. It is one of those additional privileges that is often promoted as a right. But it is not a right that anyone has to observe.