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?

I've wondered the same thing, OP.

It's been fascinating recently to read Carole Cadwallader's reports on the alliance of wealthy backers with links to Russia funding both the Trump and the Brexit campaigns.

It wouldn't surprise me if something equally sinister is happening with the trans campaign. It's quite obvious that a lot of transactivists aren't trans in any meaningful sense, they're just men's rights activists who want to strip back women's hard-won rights. How come they've suddenly got so much influence that at a time when the government has its hands full with Brexit it has time to devote to something like the gender recognition bill?

Another odd thing, I agree, is why everyone is turning a blind eye to a change in law that has massive implications for women's and children's rights. It's particularly weird when you write an email to your Tory MP outlining all your concerns and he emails back some bland platitudes about why it's important for trans people to have equal rights, while ignoring every single point you've raised. These are the Tories, ffs. What's wrong with them?

It reminds me a bit of how everyone was so bowled over by Camila Batmangelidjh that they ignored the obvious signs of what was going on at Kids Company. This is much bigger, of course. The other obvious analogy is Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Weinstein, all the rest of them where you look back and think: how can that have been allowed to happen?

I didn’t know Soros was Jewish either. I don’t care. It’s nothing to do with being Jewish.

It’s a derail.

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

That's actually what I'm inclined to think.

And for pansies and others: I am pretty sure most people on this thread have sympathy for the folks who feel like they are “ in the wrong body”. The individuals who lead miserable lives to the point they want to mutilate healthy organs warrant sympathy. That does not mean their rights override others no that they should be allowed to invade public discourse with violent rhetoric.

The other obvious analogy is Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Weinstein, all the rest of them where you look back and think: how can that have been allowed to happen?

YY. Let's give a man who there are lots of worrying rumours about a personal key to Broadmoor. What could possibly go wrong?

Ereshkigal

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

That's actually what I'm inclined to think.

Yes, I’m inclined to think that too. He has certainly donated a lot of money, but given how much he has, it’s actually a drop in the ocean.

I haven’t read much about him, but from what I can tell he is a fan of ‘causes’.

Pritzker is different. He has an agenda. And it’s to do with children.

Pritzker is different. He has an agenda. And it’s to do with children.

Yes, it's pretty obvious where his interests lie.

Not read entire thread but bemused by the Daily Mail link to London properties being sold/leased to middle eastern finance organisations. This country has been selling off its assets for years. Not sure why this arrangement should be slurred with the trans agenda.

Not read entire thread but bemused by the Daily Mail link to London properties being sold/leased to middle eastern finance organisations. This country has been selling off its assets for years. Not sure why this arrangement should be slurred with the trans agenda.

Not read entire thread but bemused by the Daily Mail link to London properties being sold/leased to middle eastern finance organisations. This country has been selling off its assets for years. Not sure why this arrangement should be slurred with the trans agenda.

Not read entire thread but bemused by the Daily Mail link to London properties being sold/leased to middle eastern finance organisations. This country has been selling off its assets for years. Not sure why this arrangement should be slurred with the trans agenda.

Sorry for multiples. Post on phone on train with dodgy netty.

I don’t think getting all conspiracy theory about it is very useful. It’s almost more reassuring to hope that there is some kind of hidden puppeteer pulling the strings than it is to consider it an outcome of lots of things appearing to line up in particular ways. A constellation of ideas is much more difficult to counteract because there is no villain to be unmasked.

So you have a whole range of (quite incompatible) things that appear to line up and, as a result, a whole range of people are pushing in the same direction and it appears a new ‘enlightened’ consensus has been reached (hence the popularity of the ‘wrong side of history’ trope). It is merely coincidental that (for example) contemporary campus identity politics aligns with religious fundamentalist homophobia in promoting gender transition as the answer to ‘problems’ (that are actually framed completely differently).

Pansies, I don't appreciate being quoted out of context. I agree with the 'perfect storm' theory, as the rest of my post, and my others on this thread, made perfectly clear.

The point about Soros is that he might be doing this because he's a strong supporter of liberal causes which also include trans rights. This might simply be that as a survivor of a genocide he feels passionately about supporting minorities who might be persecuted.

This isn't a derail. It's simple letting people know that without evidence that he's up to no good then blaming Soros as being part of a "trans conspiracy" means including a real weak spot in your arguments.

But I still think we'd be fools not to think about who might gain benefit from a stripping-back of women's rights, a reimagination of language and the medicalisation of a social issue. And yes - a shift in how we view the capacity and consent of children.

Okay, maybe nobody sat down in a smoke-filled room and plotted all this. But it's hardly tinfoil hat territory to assume that its effects will be fully understood, welcomed and exploited, with a good bung of money here and there from those in a position to help it along. Because if it wasn't, that would make it different from every other political or social movement in the world.

"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."

A great post from Datun, all of it.

I think it's the mentioning Soros = alleging Jewish conspiracy that is the derail

I didn’t say he was up to no good, I said he was financing the ideology. I agree with you that it’s because it’s a ‘cause’.

People are, quite rightly, baffled by how this has managed to gain such traction. Most people would agree that following the money will uncover some of the reasons.

Many, many people benefit from this. None of them are women.

And I agree with the idea of a perfect storm. But I would like to ‘grade the droplets’. Because, singularly, pharmaceutical companies, powerful AGP individuals, billionaires, progressives, and MRAs wouldn’t have got this far on their own individually.

So it’s quite useful, to drill down to each individual strand to try and see who has the most clout.

different: of course we should, because those agendas are also knitted into the whole thing.

So, yes, MRAs have much to gain from promoting certain aspects of the issue/framing it in particular ways. It aligns with their interests and agendas. The partial and strategic alignment with liberal feminism (etc) actually enables them to be much more effective in what they’re aiming to do.

I don’t think it’s been quite as fast as some in here seem to think

Slow to this but I spent some time in MN archives at the weekend. I was interested to see how people had come to the arguments - I only really started to follow this when Germaine G was no platformed in 2015 (I think), and at that point it seemed that (on MN) there were posters who had fully developed arguments.

2012 - 5 1/2 years ago(!): Rad fem conference no platformed for excluding trans people

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1481205-Radfem2012-banning-trans-people
What I found fascinating is how little the language/argument from Transactivitsts has changed, e.g. "Die Cis Scum", "die in a fire" were already being bandied about - and mumnetters already explaining the potential for loss of women's spaces and right to organise.

2013 - use of "woman" already policed on tumblr, cotton ceiling is a thing
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1805718-Am-I-wrong-to-feel-shouted-down-by-this

2009 - 12 year old boy returns to school as girl (plus reference to mermaids) www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a827679-Boy-of-12-returns-to-new-school-year-as-a

I guess the GRA passed back in 2004, so presumably there was activism leading up to that too.

Lots of women on these old threads saying (e.g.) "if they ever try to change the law I'll fight it with all my might", so I guess that's where we are now.

And, yes, I agree that it is important to tease out the various strands.

ArbitraryName Can you explain how trans rights would benefit Men's Rights Activists/Patriarchy and which goals it would help them achieve? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as I've never seen this link before.

I think for the Tories (hackmum mentioned writing to her Tory MP) there are two things at work: the first not wanting to be on the wrong side of history without thinking it through and assuming more inclusivity for trans is the right way forward PLUS a réalisation that this does not change the status quo if you are a white, middle class or higher, able bodied educated person (ie like themselves.)

And if you are a middle class Tory who has lots of cultural capital and access to friendly authority figures, what skin is it off your nose all this stuff about prison and rape crisis centres. They probably feel very cushioned from the sharp end of trans issues and consequences of trans activism.