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?

but all I’m saying is ‘anti-trans = feminist’ doesn’t add up and neither does ‘pro-trans = anti-women’.

Of course it doesn’t.

Personally, I prefer to try to think through the aspects and outcomes of contemporary transgender activism that worry me than to think ‘transgender = bad’. (And I certainly don’t think transgender people = bad).

So I’m not comfortable with the reification of gender both within the political debate (and more widely). I think this is deeply regressive and problematic. And I think there are a lot of interests aligning to further reify gender stereotypes.

And I’m particularly uncomfortable with the notion that young children can be classified as ‘transgender’ based on what they want to play with or wear. That’s problematic enough on its own (insofar as it shits down the possibilities outside of gender stereotypes for everyone) without the medicalisation that has crept into the debate. I am very deeply uncomfortable with this and I think it is incredibly dangerous in lots of different ways.

The whole thing is baffling. When you think how resistant people are to European immigrants in their communities, people who look like them and send their children to the same school, and how hard it is to change people’s attitudes about what a contribution immigrants can make, the mind boggles at how people seem to be accepting of wholesale change to the census, to healthcare, to mixed sex wards etc

Accepted, pansies.

I agree with you: it certainly doesn't add up that 'pro-trans = anti-women' and 'anti-trans = feminist'. But that is precisely what many trans campaigners are trying to state. That assertion didn't originate within feminism. It's to do with the slippery use of language that transactivists are cultivating, with constantly changing meanings.

For example: it is anti-women to state that 'trans women are women', exactly the same as biological women. And it's anti-women to state that they should be able to access all the spaces currently set aside for biological women.
But to say that trans women aren't the same as biological women, for both social and physical reasons, and that they therefore should not have access to those spaces, is not 'anti-trans' by direct extension. The two don't directly correlate, but trans activists would have us believe that they do. The same slipperiness can be observed with the word 'violence'.

ArbitraryName
Totally agree with your concerns about children.
I am old enough to remember the antics of the PIE (paedophile information exchange) who remarkably successfully infiltrated the left - especially in London way back. I lost a (small) number of friends at the time. Pie promoted the 'tolerant' ideology that children were sexual beings and were entitled to express this and if they chose to engage in sexual relationships (sometimes with adults) that was their right.
At the time there was a lot activity around children's rights, school kids liberation (think pupil strikes in schools) and this vile group piggy-backed their ideas alongside these movements. Fortunately they were unsuccessful but a significant number of people actually went along with this at the time and were hoodwinked by the 'children's rights' aspect of this.
How often are we hearing about a child's right to 'self define' and have prompt and uncritical access to support, drugs etc.

I also expect the general public has no idea about what changing to Gender Identity entails

Many of the supporters don't know what they're really supporting. The ideology is based on making sure words which have had plain meanings for ever don't have any meaning any more. The real world consequences are unknown.

It is just amazing. It's not hard to see why people feel there must be some groups or individuals making all of this happen as part of a devious plan.

Who is fuelling this? Late transitioning AGP cross dressing men, who work in IT and have time on their hands (because they are not looking after the kids) to stoat about on the internet; and a vested interest in selling a very sanitised narrative where they have the starring role as the victim of their wives oppression.

Although that might just be my experience.

That and a mum who paid for her child to have a sex change in (I think it was) Thailand, for their 16th birthday, and need other parents to do the same, to validate this as progressive rather than massively worrying.

In fact, the most infuriating thing about the general tenor of public debate on this is that I (and I think most of the people on this thread) are very keen that people of both sexes should be able to wear what they want, have whatever hobbies they like, work towards and be successful in the jobs they choose and so on without experiencing discrimination or harrassment. If people want to open up the possibilities for being and doing for whatever sex they are, then I’m totally supportive.

But too often it’s about closing down possibilities rather than opening them up.

How often are we hearing about a child's right to 'self define' and have prompt and uncritical access to support, drugs etc.

Yes. I agree. This is a really troubling mobilisation of the children’s rights narrative. And it’s conflations like this that can make aspects of the discourse more successful. Even more so when many parents are so very deeply attached to ‘gender’ in relation to their children.

What is also strange is the way giving trans people rights leading to the erosion of rights for women and particularly lesbians is ignored.

Enabling gay marriage does not erode anyone else’s rights.

The lack of thought is staggering.

Anlaf thanks for trawling through the MN archives and reporting back.

I'm also surprised to see that the issue has been discussed here for so long. And ashamed of myself for not listening sooner.

A lot of the responses to the successes of the Trans movement seem to be redolent of those responses to the gains made by women's rights campaigners of yore. Anti-feminists, too, felt threatened and reacted badly to the prospect of change impacting on their position in society.

I can't say I'm particularly exercised about the successes/failures of this particular lobby. It does seem disproportionally prominent for such a minority interest social movement, but the same could be said for most other minority lobbies. I see this more to do with a Government that wants to be seen as progressive and inclusive, while implementing fiscal policies that are anything but. Plus, this kind of thing is cheap law-making, and there's no money left for any meaningful legislation, so the likes of Maria Millar can be seen to be doing 'something'.

The current obsession with 'gender' (particularly in place of sex), seems to me to be the logical conclusion of years of some feminist discourse that has focused on sex as a social construct and of the irrelevance of physical, biological sex. It seems to me that second-wave feminism has shot itself in the foot. You reap what you sow.

Now is really the time to move on. Rather than resisting what seem to be inevitable changes, activists' energy might be better spent working with other rights lobbies, rather than against. Otherwise, this is a useful distraction for the powers that be; keeping people fighting amongst themselves while they get on with the important business of trashing the economy.

Knusper, I don't think you (we) need to be ashamed, as it's a process for so many people.

In the past few years, I became dimly aware that 'LGB' had become 'LGBT'. I reckoned the 'T' stood for 'transsexuals', which I understood to be a number of vulnerable people with a MH condition that makes them feel their bodies are wrong, and who feel they need surgery and hormones just to be able to live with themselves. Of course those people shouldn't be abused and discriminated against. I'm bisexual myself and suffered that kind of treatment in the past, as have many of my friends. So I'm passionately against it for personal reasons as well.

Then I noticed, a couple of years ago, that some posters on MN seemed to be against 'equality for trans people'. It was on my radar but, again, I only registered it dimly - partly because I used to feel intimidated by the Feminism/Women's Rights board as on my brief visits everyone there seemed so much cleverer and better informed than me. So I didn't come on the topic much. For some reason, I didn't pause to wonder why all these articulate, well-informed, often left-leaning women, passionate advocates of social equality, had abruptly turned into raving bigots on this issue alone. For that, I am ashamed.

I blithely ignored or hid threads, for a very long time. It was only when discussions started about the BBC documentary, under a year ago, that I saw yet more 'anti-trans ranting' on MN and rather wearily decided to watch the documentary to see what the fuss was about. I was astounded by what I saw. Afterwards, I actually took the time to listen to what these women were saying, and it was a revelation. I can't believe I sat back on my liberal laurels for so long. Congratulating myself on being tolerant. Demonising those who had actually given the issue proper thought.

It's just as well I had eventually listened, because two months later my 15 yr old announced that she, too, was transgender. My family is in a terrible place just now, but I have the information that I needed. I dread to think what would have happened without it.

Different
I had almost exactly the same experience of learning about transgender issues, all of it concerned with MN

Mumsnet has peaktransed many of us

for you and your daughter

The current obsession with 'gender' (particularly in place of sex), seems to me to be the logical conclusion of years of some feminist discourse that has focused on sex as a social construct and of the irrelevance of physical, biological sex

Which feminist discourse are you referring to? I've seen sex (biological) and gender (social construct) clearly treated separately by second wavers in discussions

Damned those uppity second wavers insisting on things like bodily autonomy, the right not to be raped etc.

Babycham1979
It's that same old message isn't it - women should just put up and shut up.
Patriarchy writ large ....

Different
Hope that you're all getting sensitive and helpful support.

I thought that gender as a social construct, as distinguished from biological sex as a physical reality, was one of the tenets of second-wave feminism. That's basically the opposite of what trans activists are asserting, so I'm not sure where you're coming from, Babycham. Your terminology is very muddled, although it's clear you think that feminists have got what they deserved.

Whilst your concern for 'other causes' is laudable, I'd invite you to consider which groups of women in our society are most likely to find themselves in prison... need refuge from domestic violence... require public spaces through lack of private facilities... need the support of ringfenced initiatives for access to education and employment. Which groups, in other words, would suffer most from a general erosion of women's rights and spaces. Trans activists would tell me that, without intersectionality, my feminism is bullshit. But, as Briechon has attested above, they only mean an intersectionality that benefits their own cause.

Now can people see how normalised this has become? We are talking about, among other things, sterilising gay children.
And there is at least one poster here saying 'its coming, get over it'.

We can watch a child get sterilised on a TV show! Wheres the outrage for that?

theend, we are getting no support, as I'm too frightened by the current model of unquestioning affirmation to seek any. My dd hates me, backed up a chorus of voices on Tumblr tell her that I am abusive and should die. But I deliberately try to keep that out of these discussions, because I go to bits when I think about it and I need to be absolutely clear of the arguments in my own mind.

Exactly. What other causes are feminists supposed to be fighting for. Other than those of women?

Which has no definition.

So according to the trans-ideology, if I’m fighting for women’s rights, I’m fighting for rights of both women and men.

Pointless.

If that was the case, wouldn't this degree of momentum have happened before, with gay rights?

differenteverytime that was indeed part of what drove change. Stonewall, for example, was essentially bankrolled by rich young gay white men who worked in finance. There were as many closeted gay Tory men as there were lefties.

differenteverytime

My heart thuds a little faster on reading your posts.

I’m assuming you’re aware of the websites for parents (not mermaids) like transgendertrend etc and Lily Maynard?

Be assured, very many women have woken up. And there is a lot going on to raise the profile of this problem.

Yet again, I find myself beyond words. Just know that you are supported by (most of) the women here.

Differenteverytime

I am so sorry to hear that. I'm sure you know this already but, just in case, these are good online support for gender critical parents.

4thwavenow.com/

www.transgendertrend.com/

I do think that this is a more manifestation of 'teenage rebellion' which would be fine if the long term consequences were not so dreadful young people. That is in no way meant to minimise the awfulness of what you are going through and your fears for your daughter, just to reflect that where we can stand by our children and roll with these things, many teenagers do come out the other side. (not very well expressed but I know this can happen from reading the stories from other parents on here)

Thank you, Datun. I do know about those websites. I know about them because MN permits these discussions where so many forums do not. Also because posters such as yourself and many others come here, time and time again, to patiently explain the issues and point to the information and resources that are available. I was wrong to say that we have no support entirely - I should have said that we only have none in RL

Archery, thank you for pointing that out. I didn't know the history of Stonewall, beyond the fact that trans activists are now claiming that the movement was trans-driven, rather than gay-driven, from the earliest days.