Until we organise as well as the transactivists we're not going to stem the problem

[dorade]

Everyone, regardless of race, creed or sex is entitles to the same human rights.

I have three issues with much of the current trans ideology:

1. The erosion of women's spaces, sports, achievements and quotas by biological males who wish to identify as females.

1. The transing (and therefore subjection to lifelong medical treatments, invasive surgery and potential sterilisation) of children for failure to comply with societally-imposed gender norms.

1. The erasure of lesbians, either by transing of potentially lesbian girls or by transwomen claiming to be lesbians.

The trans lobby is vocal and well funded. They have found an enormously soft target in schools/government/social care, all of whom unsurprisingly associate transgender with gay and lesbian issues and don't want to repeat the bigotry that gay and lesbian people were (and are) subjected to. Identity is not the same as sexual orientation. A person's sexual orientation treads on no-one else's rights. The same cannot be said for gender identity.

When articles, such as the recent transgender rapist one, appear in the press, the vast majority of comments show that the public is not fooled. Yet people keep quiet so as not to appear bigoted, thus allowing the movement to steamroller on at the expense of women and children.

I believe that the main target for opposition should be in our schools. Organisations such as Gires and Gendered Intelligence distribute material that promotes ideas such as pink and blue brains and that any child can choose whether to be a girl or a boy to impressionable children, backed up by teachers. Opposition to this is needed and it is not happening in any concerted way. I think a backlash has every chance of succeeding as there is huge latent support for it.

The average person in the street knows little to nothing of trans issues, but is likely to believe that a transwoman will have had his penis removed. The fact that in 2 weeks' time the Government is going to be debating replacing sex with gender identity as a protected characteristic is way off the radar of 99% of the population.

Mumsnet is brilliant in debating these issues, but we need to take it to the next level.

Thank you. You'd never think I studied feminism in one of my modules at Uni.
I'm more than happy for everyone to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't negatively effect others.
So why is it that some believe that to give to one you have to take from another?

No the wrong link came up. Sorry, tablet is playing up. Here is the right link
www.yahoo.com/finance/news/target-boycott-cost-more-anyone-141019006.html

So why is it that some believe that to give to one you have to take from another?

Taylor. It's deliberate. Once you see it for the purposeful agenda is, everything else becomes clearer.

The campaign to say transwomen are women is huge, it's global. It's the entire argument, right there.

If you end up pussyfooting around the linguistics, the lack of logic, the misogyny, etc you can tie yourself up in knots. The bottom line is they are men. Unfortunately it's become almost blasphemous to say so.

Disagreeing with that one crucial underpinning argument tends to get you shut down immediately. But it's the only one that matters.

You can't debate this ideology, without being 'offensive', if being offensive is a denial of biology.

Sooner or later, you just have to stick your heels in, jut your chin out and say no, men are not women.

Tell him there is no such thing as reverse sexism.

And if it's OK for other groups to define other groups then us cis women retain the right to term transwomen males. And say no when they enter female only spaces

With regards to Shakespeare thats a perfect analogy because everyone mistakes that phrase to mean names arn't important when it's supposed to be meant ironicly- in the play their nAmes are important because they are their background, their history, their lived experience, and it's orecusisely because their families are mortal enemies that their romance intenIfies when otherwuse it would have burned out.

Names are their lived experience

Our female terms are our lived experience

Taylor22, I found genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/ put it very coherently for me.

Wow @wheryouleftit that was an amazing and informative read! Thank you so much!

I so want to post that on the debate group. But I've quit. Apparently it's just language and means nothing more.
If it's just language I guess they won't mind me calling a spade a spade...or a man a man.

It's bizarre isn't it? Why are women having to justify the biological facts. I can't see how to fight against nonsense, especially when others support it. I'm lost for words.

I think the title of this thread is spot on.

But what can we actually do?
I've not read anyone being prejudiced. Simply saying you live your life just don't seek out to negatively effect me.

If it's just language I guess they won't mind me calling a spade a spade...or a man a man.

You'd think, wouldn't you? But it is LITERALLY VIOLENT.

But what are the T's main and most successful tactics? They mass report somehow. How are they so successful with this? When they're only 0.3%, how do they amplify so well? What other tactics are working for them?

Orwellian abuse of language

Repeating false statements until people accept them on a subconscious level

lying about statistics

Emotional blackmail

Happy to find this thread, the whole thing didn't sit right with me. My only friend seems all for it but with a DD i perhaps have had to think more about these things.

I have tried to bring up DD to be whatever and who ever she wants whilst still being a girl. Reitterating she has the same choices as boys. One interview struck me that the family said there DD didn't want to be girl and they had to repaint her room not pink! Did she have to change gender just so she had a colour choice? I do wonder.

Sorry if this is a bit basic i haven't read all 29 pages yet.

But what are the T's main and most successful tactics? They mass report somehow. How are they so successful with this? When they're only 0.3%, how do they amplify so well? What other tactics are working for them?

To me it looks very much like a done deal, like happens with big planning applications.

We have a big development near us in the throws of the planning process. Originally, it was a big company (not planning) and a lot of controversy was caused. However, it was obvious that this company had lots of influence much further up than the local council and that it would go ahead.

There has been a group who have thrown everything they can at it in order for it not to take place. They have even gone to the European Court. This has only achieved an irritating delay.

The matter is now in the hands of a professional big developer. They have altered the original plans to make them more acceptable. They talk to and negotiate with the planners behind the scenes. There is positive publicity, meetings and nice pictures - very little to disagree with - we need housing and they are nice houses and there will be nice landscaping and a lake.

When it goes to the council, it will be nodded through. Everyone knows about it. It is a formality. So much nicer than the original idea. The councillors and planners are suitably placated and can't do much anyway. In June, it will be passed. There will be huge inconvenience to the masses, but they are inconvenienced anyway.

Perhaps someone should try and understand how big developments get through these days - there are a lot of parallels and Stone wall seem to use them.

As someone who's worked on a big property development process, I agree.

Affordable housing, well yes that's a requirement, but we only need to do the minimum required to get away with it and we don't have to do it here.

But what are the T's main and most successful tactics? They mass report somehow. How are they so successful with this? When they're only 0.3%, how do they amplify so well? What other tactics are working for them?

Money. Stonewall receives funding from private donors. They completely reversed their stance on trans inclusivity. Call me cynical, but minority groups don't get this kind of exposure without being funded by people who want it.

Even Riley Dennis doesn't make his videos out of the goodness of his heart. He is funded by EF.

George Soros has donated $28m to LGBT groups in the US with the drive to rename them The Trangender Alliance.

Late transitioners are typically middle aged, middle class, rich white men. They fund causes close to their hearts.

Surgery, hormones - very expensive, whether it's paid through insurance or privately (USA). Lifetime reliance is extremely lucrative.

autogynephiliatruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/transformational_impact-1.pdf

Ugh. It hadn't occurred to me it's the rich middle class using their money and power to shout down women and telling THEM to check THEIR privilege.

I was thinking about this more last night BMacklin.

Any not-for-profit advocacy groups only survive because of funding, whether it's donations, or government subsidies.

GIRES, Transmedia Watch - both charities. Both dedicated to furthering trans. I know little about how charities work, but people only donate to charities whose cause they agree with.

Both those charities, and Stonewall are very powerful. You can't be a powerful charity without money to fund all your resources.

Trans-people are a tiny minority, so someone, somewhere is giving a lot of money, as opposed to lots of people giving a little bit of money.

There is also the trouble with new research. Scientists and gender specialists are being hounded. I read somewhere that scientists don't touch trans research with a bargepole, for that very reason.

All the trans positive resources that are getting sent out to government, schools, institutions, the ones changing culture and protocol cost money.

The ideology does not stand up to scrutiny and trans-activists try every means possible to stop people having a public debate. This is a highly manipulative, very well funded wholesale gaslighting programme.

I'm clinging on to the old adage that you can fool some of the people some of the time...

Arg! Joining on this thread rather than starting a new one as we're a bit overloaded with threads and this is something we could act on. I was excited about the book 'Bedtime stories for rebel girls' about strong girls and women and telling their stories. But surprise surprise, there's a story about Coy Mathis, who was a little boy who loved pink and sparkles so is clearly actually a girl, who won the right to use the girls toilets in elementary.cue a pink and sparkly party!!! In one page t
they contradict the whole rest of the book and advocate child transition. The cognitive dissonance is outstanding. I've tweeted #rebelgirls it would be great if other twitterers could do the same.

Why is it always the boys who come out who are celebrated for being 'brave'? Where are the stories about girls coming out?

Deciding to be a woman is deserving of such compassion and understanding. Why? Desiring to be a man goes by relatively unnoticed. Wanting to be a man -completely understandable. Wanting to be a woman? Madness - you must be sooo brave.

Thanks qumquat. I've seen that story on Facebook, I'll tell people about the hashtag.

Oh FFS qumquat, really? I bought that book for DD the other day and she's very excited to read it.

Dilemma, send it back, rip out that page (and loose the one from the opposite side of the page too) or use it as a character conversation starter (although I didn't want to have this conversation with 8yo DD yet).

How did you deal with it?