Impact of transgender organisations - who is behind them and how have they become so influential?

[theendisnotnigh]

Looking at the Times article about the government telling the UN that the phrase pregnant people should be used instead of pregnant women . Where has the government got their mandate from from to make these massive changes?
When is some investigative journalist going to take a look behind the scenes at who these massively influential transgender groups are? (Gendered Intelligence, GIRES etc).
How have this tiny percentage of the population had such a significant response? The groups are feted by government, the Dept for Education, the NHS fund and actively promote them.
We know that they have used tactics of threats and intimidation to very successfully silence democratic debate and discussion. We know that they have gained access to politicians (Maris Miller etc) in ways that other political groups can't do. So who are they? Are they funded by the Drugs companies (who have much to gain from the lifelong medication of transgender children to adults).
We know that they are active in schools, local authorities, workplaces. What are their qualifications for changing schools? Do their staff going into schools have DBS checks? Do they work directly with children and young people? Why are the DfE , NHS promoting political activist groups to train educators and health professionals - normally schools are very careful about giving political interest groups direct access in this way?

I think we need to be asking questions of the government about what checks and balances they have made before recommending these groups and why they are getting such preferential treatment? What other massive social change in history has taken place behind closed doors and with active government involvement?

Pansies

Re. the sharia post (2nd in thread) from DJBaggysmallpox. It seems like an uncharacteristically inflammatory contribution from a longstanding poster with a very similar user name.

Criticising Soros is fine. Go ahead. Talking of ‘deeply sinister and fucking powerful’ forces and then bringing in Soros? Not so much.

Or what justawoman said

George Soros has devoted millions of dollars to the trans course. He has changed LGB organisations to become the Trans Alliance.

www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/george-soros-the-money-behind-the-transgender-move/

From what I have read his agenda is social change, not because he has a specific agenda, but because he genuinely believes in it.

Jennifer Pritzker also is a huge finder. He is trans.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/4thwavenow.com/2016/07/11/follow-the-money-trans-billionaire-makes-new-1-million-grant-to-chicago-pediatric-transition-clinic/amp/
I agree. And I think people are realising more, that there is a militant aspect to this and people will deliberately push boundaries.

This was a talk at which Bex Stinson was invited to speak. (She is the one from Stonewall who refused to speak at the gender critical feminist talk resulting in the speakers corner debacle).

www.hrla.org.uk/event/progress-and-challenges-in-advancing-equality-for-trans-people-in-the-uk/?instance_id=27

Gender critical feminists attended, but were not listened to. They have said that the ideology is extremely well funded, highly focused and organised. In education, health, and government. They have people lobbying in every single department.

Chillingly, the term 'strategic litigation' was used by the pro trans lobby.

This is no longer about any kind of inclusivity, niceness or tolerance. It's a deliberate attempt to effect social change, which will be highly detrimental to women.

If I had to make a guess, I would say strategic litigation means forcing issues, left right and centre. To cement and prove the law and make precedents happen.

So where people might be on the fence about a mild transwoman who passes, using female resources, but not so much with a 6 foot four man in a beard, acting stroppy and making no effort, 'strategic litigation' would make mincemeat of their objections. Of any objections in fact.

Like other posters, a single strategic goal doesn’t leap out for me. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Transwomen are, definitely, in the minority. But since this push to present transwomen as exactly like any other man, but just saying they are a woman, the fact they are in the minority is becoming less important.

If transitioning requires nothing, no change in behaviour, presentation or allegiance to the opposite sex, then it’s really not a difficult thing to do. It has little negative result.

We already know that the murder and suicide statistics are not true. But they are a powerful leverage in terms of making people do what you want.

The policy of changing language is in place. All the bloody ducks are in a row, ready. Presents as a man, claims special treatment on the basis he is a woman. If you complain that he is nothing like a woman, he will then use different rhetoric to explain how presenting as a woman has nothing to do with superficial things like clothes and is reinforcing gender stereotypes.

That with the fact that a different rhetoric will tell you that a woman is not a biological entity and you have a man, being just a normal man, but 10 times more powerful than any other man, and all women.

I'm not keen on conspiracy theories, I reckon the 'perfect storm' idea is probably right but I wouldn't be surprised if drug companies aren't pushing the narrative somewhat as this is a great source of income for them.

Actually, one poster who has only made one post on this thread mentioned Soros. But hey ho.

Come on, pansies. Join the discussion. What do you think?

"Soros! We have alt-right bingo. Honestly, just say ‘Jews’ if you’re saying Soros. It’s hardly a code word any more"

Oh please. I suppose you would've said the same if someone had made a thread about abusers in Hollywood up until recently.

Given how many "conspiracy theories" come true these days it's always wise to keep an open mind. Let's not forget the MP abuse, the Asian grooming scandal, Jimmy Saville and much more aside were also written off as "conspiracy theories" spouted by people wearing "tin foil hats" These things were spoken about by "nutters" for decades.

I don't know the reasons for the trans lobbies reach, but I'm also baffled at times. As a comparison the amount of people on the Autistic spectrum is just as high if not higher but nobody seems to care about them so much. No fight to make the world more Autistic friendly (most shop layouts and classroom layouts are horrendous for them) and little awareness of the merciless bullying they face at school and in the workplace.

I think it's a bit more simple. No conspiracy theory, just a combination of the patriarchy, men's fetishes and an anti feminist backlash.
Men can virtue signal how progressive they are by backing trans rights, in a way that means there is no actual threat to the status quo or their position of privilege. If their mate Martin suddenly becomes Martine, it is no skin off their nose and changes things not a jot. In fact it makes their lot better because any anti trans bias means the threat Martin poses to their position is reduced.
Men get a socially acceptable way to put uppity feminists back in their box (TERF! Bigot!)
And for a good-ish proportion of men, they get to act out their fetish in public in a way that wasnt acceptable some years ago. Whether that's cross dressing, AGP, boundary violation or voyeurism.

Not sure what more you need than that. The patriarchy gets lots of benefits and no costs, why wouldn't they push it?

I was just thinking that too. Also the celebrities raising their children gender neutral but announcing is baffling. Who cares!?

Some really interesting points and having asked the question, perhaps the 'perfect storm ' is a major factor?
However, a movement that has used aggressive silencing, no platforming and threats of violence techniques cannot be surprised when people ask questions as to their legitimacy.
I believe that it's totally legitimate to ask who is behind these organisations and where is their power coming from

George Soros is Jewish?

Google the words "soros" and "conspiracy". Once you do you'll see that blaming Soros without solid evidence linking actions and sinister motivations puts you in the same camp as people who are actual Nazis. (For once this doesn't invoke Godwin.)

I'm firmly in the gender critical camp but I can see what Pansiesandredrosesandmarigolds is saying. It's to warn against looking for conspiracy theories, and they provide examples of posts that are straying into tinfoil territory. They're making a fair point.

Everyone keeps talking about the patriarchy but most of the trans groups seem to be run by women and women seem to be their biggest advocates. Stonewall went Trans crazy when the current lesbian leader came in. It was much more focused on LGB in the past.

I wrote Google the words "soros" and "conspiracy" but should also have said that if you do this you might be careful about clicking any of the links you find, especially if you google from work.

Interesting and important thread. Joining the dots regarding the synthetic human genome one of Boris J's 10 point Brexit plan, which he publicised just before May's Florence speech is

We will be able to accelerate our work on gene therapy – an infant science, now taking its first faltering steps, whose potential is gigantic.

I read that there is a powerful organisation pushing to be financed and that they are somehow relevant and related to the Brexit campaign. I'll try to dig out that information but Boris stated the above about gene therapy. There is, however, more to it than 'therapy'.

on the parental rights over children’s medical treatment issue: you can’t conflate young people being legally available to access drugs or hormones with what I understand have permanent physical effects (i’m not a doctor) with the aim of holding off puberty or starting to trans, without parental consent or knowledge... with girls or young women being legally able to be prescribed contraception or being legally able to access an abortion (without parental knowledge or consent).

Being pregnant to term and going through birth is always more physically dangerous than an abortion at a relatively early stage.

Even an abortion at a later gestational stage is never more dangerous than pregnancy and birth is. Which is clearly the only other choice open to a young girl or woman if they get pregnant.

So the safest option for the young persons’ physical health is to prescribe contraception, so they hopefully avoid pregnancy altogether, if they are going to have sex and they won’t involve their parents in the contraception discussion.

The contraception and abortion analogy is a really different set of issues as to whether a young person under 16 should be legally able to accept prescription drugs and hormones for trans purposes without parental knowledge or consent.

I don’t understand. George Soros does contribute to the trans ideology financially. He does.

I'm part jewish and I never knew Soros is meant to be jewish. Is he religious?
Nevertheless, I don't think jews are god's chosen people that are above criticism. I don't think anyone is above criticism.
It's a shame that how people make their money and where they invest it is ignored because they are jewish or a minority or gifted or special and untouchable.

BTW I'm not a fan of defining people by their given 'nationality' or assigned 'religion'.

I do despair when asking questions about who funds / finances influential organisations starts being described as 'tinfoil territory putting as in the 'same camp as Nazis'.
In many decades of feminism I've never had that comparison made! But, it's very effective at making me feel I should just be quiet.

I think that Beachcomber's comment that this is the first 'civil rights' movement to be run by the people who are already in charge (rich, able-bodied, white, heterosexual men) is the best explanation for why the trans movement has progressed so far, so fast.

As for Soros, maybe he's just a megalomaniac. Perhaps he does things that have a huge impact on society just because he can.

Also born into a Jewish family here and don't understand why we're not allowed to criticise Soros just because he's Jewish 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sorry - ignore the above, it was a bit 'me me me '

Keep the discussion going - it's fascinating!

Thanks justawoman.

I'm definitely in the perfect storm camp.

Having said that, I do think that there is a conspiracy (just not a very secret one) AKA The Patriarchy.

Transgenderism might as well call itself Nu Patriarchy.

Jennifer Pritzker is the worlds richest transwomen.

He specifically funds clinics for transgender children.

Another new push is to lump gender nonconforming children in with trans. Medicalising gender nonconforming children is entirely unnecessary. But there is a deliberate conflation now.

Pritzker has a military background, is a late transitioning male, and has father several children. The typical profile of an autogynephile.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/4thwavenow.com/2016/07/11/follow-the-money-trans-billionaire-makes-new-1-million-grant-to-chicago-pediatric-transition-clinic/amp/

Never knew Soros was Jewish either. I don’t read conspiracy theories on he internet so all I knew about him was that he was an ultra wealthy investor who occasionally made controversial remarks about which direction the markets are going.