The Gender Critical Manifesto

[venusinscorpio]

Let's put a list of salient points together about what the issues are with the trans agenda. It will be a useful resource.

Long post, sorry! But inspired by venusinscorpio upthread I have just been looking at transgender murder rates.

According to Wikipedia there was only one murder in the UK in 2016, a FTT. However, this was reported here as a homophobic attack. There were no MTT murders.

Looking at the US, according to The Advocate, ‘the world’s leading LGBT news source’ there were 27 transgender murders in 2016. These comprised of 22 MTT, 3 FTT and 2 gender fluid (sex not reported).

The majority of victims were black; only one MTT victim was white - and this was not officially ruled as a murder, although the family suspected foul play. SO NOT ONE WHITE MTT WAS DEFINITELY MURDERED LAST YEAR. The fear of murder and violence as often reported by white MTT in the media is not reflected in the statistics.

It is worth noting that murder is highly racialised in the US. Around 13% of Americans are black see here but are disproportionately likely to commit murder and to be the victims. (52% of murder vicitms were black according to the FBI.

FBI data gives the number of murders in the US in 2015 as 15,696.

The Williams Institute gives the number of transgenders in the US in 2016 as 697,529 (0.58% of the population)
This means that while trans make up 0.58% of the population they account for only 0.17% of the murders.

The percentage of female murder victims was 21%.

The FBI give the overall murder rate for the total US population of 4.9 per 100,000 people.
The transgender murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000.

Therefore, if you are transgendered your chances of being murdered is less than half that of the general population. And if you are a white MTT then your chances of being murdered are virtually zero.

Great analysis. It's even more interesting to note that the "transgender" population is now being considered 1.4 million in the US. I imagine including anyone who claims to be in any way gender incongruent. Which makes the supposed murder rate even lower in comparison. I'll try to find the source.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.amp.html

I haven't had time to RTFT but skimming through I think you women are doing an absolutely awesome job. I've bookmarked the Wiki page to peruse at length and I think it will be a game changer.

Oops, correction in my above post. I've incorrectly stated the numbers of transgenders in the US is 697,529. This was the figure for 2011 (0.3% of the population). The link correctly goes to the most recent figures from the Williams Institute, which gives the number as 1,395,150 (0.58% of the population). This is from 2016 and is the number I have used in my calculations.

And it tallies with venusinscorpio's data from another source. And yes, it does seem as if transgender numbers have doubled in the last 5 years - maybe they're using Stonewall's definition!

These are adults as well. The figure for "trans kids" is unknown.

venus
Hope you dont mind me reposting this here
heatst.com/world/anger-as-five-transgender-convicts-are-moved-to-a-womens-prison/

Not at all!

https://www.transgendertrend.com/surprising-referrals-children-tavistock-clinic-continue-soar/

We decided to take a section of the media – the UK national daily newspapers – not only to find out the number of articles about ‘transgender kids’ published between April 1 2016 – March 31 2017, but to analyse the content of those articles in order to understand the actual message which the ‘general public’ has been receiving over the twelve-month period. What are the ideas that the media is promoting and what kind of societal beliefs is it helping to establish?

Really good article where they examine all media reports about trans children over a year for bias and misleading information to look at why so many more children and parents may be seeing transition as a desirable option.

I played a thread in chat about this but an hour later it's gone from the front page with no replies, so I'm highlighting it here as an example of how the denial of biology as the defining characteristic of femaleness / maleness silences women on issues of women's oppression and makes it easier for our rights to be denied.

Surviving rape is a pre-existing condition in Trump's America, and so is having had a c-section. They are both reasons why a woman could be denied health care insurance under the bill proposed by the Republicans. It remains to be seen whether they'll manage to pass it or not. The bill is disgusting for a lot of reasons, but this is one of the more jaw-dropping.

In the article, a doctor tries to explain that refusing medical insurance on the basis of having had a c-section would be illegal, as it's 'gender discrimination.' But since we are no longer allowed to say that only women get pregnant and only women have c-sections, or maybe because this doctor really has bought into the mass delusion that biology is no longer real or relevant to injustices against women, she is quoted as having said "most of the people who have c-sections identify as women" and "a majority of people who get pregnant identify as women."

So, at the point of fighting against this travesty being passed into law, we are rhetorically hamstrung, can't even utter the words "THIS BILL IS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST WOMEN", for fear of being called bigots and transphobes. "A majority of the people who will be affected are women" doesn't really pack the same punch, does it? And if this does become law and is challenged in the courts, all it will take for it to be found not to be discriminatory against women is for the argument to be made that a person who is legally considered male, a "transman", could also be refused on the basis of a previous c-section, and therefore there's no discrimination here, it affects men as well as women.

This is the impact of allowing an undefinable, wholly subjective, internal sense of "gender identity" to become the protected characteristic, instead of female reproductive biology.

*posted not played.

Here's the link: m.mic.com/articles/176092/under-the-gop-s-health-plan-sexual-assault-would-be-considered-a-preexisting-condition#.m12H5rWpa

she is quoted as having said "most of the people who have c-sections identify as women" and "a majority of people who get pregnant identify as women."

Aargh!! What an excellent example of how the "subtle" "inclusive" stuff undermines women's legal rights and protections against sex discrimination around biological issues.

In this country pregnancy/maternity is a protected characteristic in itself, but it does fall under the umbrella of "sex discrimination" so we need to pay very close attention to what they do with that regards to "gender identity" as a protected characteristic in future. Some stuff falls under the heading of "indirect sex discrimination" because it mostly affects women. I'm not saying that will necessarily change but we need to be on the ball and flag up where our legal rights as women would potentially be in conflict if both gender identity and sex are protected characteristics. Or heaven forbid, just "gender".

Sorry I've been at a work seminar today and was thinking about unintended consequences as we looked at examples of that in the area I work in. I am not a lawyer though! As I'm sure lawyers can tell

Just checking in I'm really busy with family stuff this weekend but should have some time on Monday to do wiki stuff.

Would anybody else like to join up? The wiki is here and there are lots of ways to help -

• Post your best links on the relevant page and add text to say why they are important
• copy and paste yours and other's (with permission) best MN info posts on the relevant page
• start new pages for things you think are needed
• tidy up formatting
• tidy up text - edit things down to simpler language
• find sources
• add notes for things that need doing
• give feedback, even if you don't want to sign up

Random thoughts -

• The actual list of salient points is going really slowly! I think there is a mix of factors - 1) it's such a vast topic to boil down, 2) we need to word things just right, 3) maybe there's a reluctance to be the one responsible for the final wording? (I'm feeling that a bit tbh).

• We have hardly any pictures, do we need them?

• Who is our audience? (if it's just a resource for us that's fine). If we want to share the wiki wider, are we ready? What needs doing before we share it?

• What does everyone think about the overall tone of the wiki? Is there anything anybody would like to change?

I played a thread in chat about this but an hour later it's gone from the front page with no replies
GoldStars3 please could you repost that thread here?
I am processing my fury at this, in order to think about how we organise a response.
The fact is, they are so scared of the power that we have as women. Semantics won't cut it in biology.
I am hoping that guerrilla maternity units will be set up offering free caesarians, < clutching at straws>.
On the rape clause, it's beneath contempt and women may look to organising separatist economic structures, with our own women's insurance.

I found another gender critical wiki set up by Gender Critical Dad
gendercriticalresources.com/doku.php

Is it possible to add a page of links to crimes by MTTs? I'm not sure everyone visiting would watch the video, plus a list of links will demonstrate the scale.
I've collected a few, mostly from the UK.

Some good food for thought there pencils I will have a ponder over the weekend. Is the list of salient points the front page?
DJ I think links to crimes is a good idea. There's loads posted on here already.

pencils aright chuck! Sorry I've been awol lately. I'm up and running now and will have a potter around on the wiki now...

DJ that Gender Critical Dad wiki is interesting. Good to see someone else doing something like this. I would say we look to be a lot further ahead and ours appears to shaping up to be more explanatory than his, which seems to be more of a list of links. However, it could be worth checking out these links and definitely worth checking his original blog so thanks.

I think you are right about the list of links to crimes and not just relying on the video. Do you have access to the wiki so you can add your list? I might be able to work out how to add you if not.

*Random thoughts -

• The actual list of salient points is going really slowly! I think there is a mix of factors - 1) it's such a vast topic to boil down, 2) we need to word things just right, 3) maybe there's a reluctance to be the one responsible for the final wording? (I'm feeling that a bit tbh).*

Wording is important you are right. I have been trying to do some tidying and linking of ideas but I know I don't quite get it right so I have been writing in red anything I'm not sure of with hope that someone may take pity on me and sort it out. Maybe I/we should chuck stuff on this thread and ask for thoughts?

We have hardly any pictures, do we need them?
not unless its relevant no. Was there anything specific you were thinking of?

Who is our audience? (if it's just a resource for us that's fine). If we want to share the wiki wider, are we ready? What needs doing before we share it?
I think for us at the mo but with an eye to maybe opening it up at a later date.

What does everyone think about the overall tone of the wiki? Is there anything anybody would like to change?
I am not as eloquent as some of the posters here so when I have been editing I tend towards simpler writing style. I think that may means its more accessible, especially if we do widen the audience. I think it was (quite rightly) a dumping ground (sorry but I can't think of a better word) and am happy to carry on and tidy along with others as stuff is "dumped" in there, but as a working document I think that's fine. It was just a list of links and cut and paste jobs just a few days ago so we are getting there.

I think its the best gender critical resource I've seen, it looks moderate and well researched. Its likely to appeal to people who are a bit nervous about the whole idea, but there's lots of good links and info as well. So its not just 'naice' but useless.
I'm hoping to put in a couple of hours of research tomorrow.

I bumped into the local Green Party candidate the other morning so I took the chance to explain why I couldn't vote for her.

We covered the Article 50 amendment, Maria Miller's bill, the truth about Tara Hudson, those prisoners in Yorkshire & lesbians being accused of transphobia by the likes of the Green transactivists.

Quite a lot of it obviously came as a surprise. But she understood, & she mentioned the "non-men" thing herself.

Having read threads like this was SO helpful because it meant I already had the information. So thank you everybody. And with all the canvassing going on this has to be the perfect time for us all to be explaining the issues to candidates.

I'm signing off now as the rose wine is getting to me and its time for bed soon! It takes a surprising amount of time to edit or even go through just one page so I'm glad it looks to others like we are getting somewhere.

Sounds great Empress! I only know what I know from others here so it feels good to help!

Gender Critical Dad got in touch a couple of weeks ago about the wiki. The one he started originated from a reddit thread but there was a lot of infighting and politics and it never got off the ground. He said he'd like to contribute to ours (which personally I think is fine), I suggested he pops onto this thread and says hello first (there is a MN poster called @GenderCriticalDad who I assume is the same one). I haven't heard from him since

BMacklin - Maybe I/we should chuck stuff on this thread and ask for thoughts?

I think that's a good idea. That way everybody can have a say, not just those who have signed up to the wiki.

as a working document

This is key I think. Maybe we need a disclaimer: 'This wiki is a resource, not a source. Please use it to find links to relevant documents, articles etc., please do not quote directly from it as it is a work in progress and the text is likely to change at short notice'

Pictures - I didn't have anything specific in mind, I was just thinking in terms of articles and web pages etc. the advice is always to include relevant images because it helps keep people's attention and breaks up the page nicely. But the wiki is not a piece of journalism so we don't have to do that if nobody is bothered

We could add a page with links to MTT crimes but I think we'd be replicating what is being done well elsewhere online already (e.g. the 'decide for yourself' videos and the violence database). I don't mind if someone wants to do that though.

The way the wiki is set up I'm currently the only admin. I thought it best to lock it down as tight as possible security-wise, at least to start with. I'm more than happy to make one or two of you admins though if that would be useful.

If anybody is umming and ahing about signing up, please do, it's as easy to post on the wiki as it is on MN (seriously, you can c&p straight from MN and it will preserve all your links) and then we can all find your brilliant, well-referenced arguments again

I think we need to think about the front page a bit and the overall structure of the wiki. In my mind, the front page would eventually have:

• A short intro - 1 paragraph

• A list of SHORT salient points - one or two sentences each, with simple links to other pages that have the evidence to back up the points.

• A list of links to all the other pages - these have disappeared, I'll have a go at putting them back.

• A list of links to people whose overall take on trans issues we agree with, just with a sentence or two about them.

No other paragraphs of text, these should be on other pages (IMO, obvs). What do other people think?