Ooh step back, India Willoughby is going to penetrate the Mumsnet debate

[ALittleBitOfButter]

Just saw on twitter that IW says will do radio interview about Mumsnet. Sorry can't link as on phone.

AAK: Regardless of whether I jump or I'm pushed out, I'm troubled by just how tightly this is currently being policed.

That is what is concerning me also.
I use the term transgender identified males and so I am concerned that I am being told that I have to appease abusive males by using whatever words they wish to hear to describe both them and myself.
I am going to go on twitter and have a rage meltdown in the privacy of my own home.

They rant and rant because we are everything they can never be and so want to be. Quite funny really.

Bewilderness.

Datun

I was sure you'd be right, in that respecting pronouns would be mentioned in all the supplementary guidance issued by government. But I've checked Guide for Voluntary Service Providers, Guidance for Employers and Technical Guidance for Public Sector Equality Duty and the word pronoun is never mentioned.

I suspect schools guidance, written by Mermaids perchance, may say different.

[coffee] and to you also my friend.

To add to the point on compelled speech, I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology. You rightly cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.

Agreed.

The reason guidelines and then policies have been put into place without consultation or thought is because that was an intentional ploy by trans activists. I can't remember which one it was (toni d'orsay maybe? Or the US TA that cuffed themselves to a gate in women's military gear - I've forgotten their name, but I think it may have been them) way back when said that by changing the rules around trans kids they could essentially slip all of the ideology in without people objecting as they would be invested in the idea of helping innocent but suicidal children. It was deliberate and they weren't shy about saying so on Tumblr or wherever. And one of the UK TAs - Jane Fae maybe? - admitted (proudly like they were super clever) that the reason they have got so much ideology into orgs and legislation is through the back door.

It has taken a lot of deliberately hidden and sneaky activism and entryism to get us to this point. It feels overwhelming but I think if we can retrace and make public this activism we can knock the whole thing down.

Chaining self to gate of White House = Autumn Sandeen.

India might be anti self ID but women are not allowed to have an opinion or discuss it.

Well no woman except India herself. Or

Maybe she doesn’t count herself as a woman

Oh and more for you all

To add to the point on compelled speech, I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology. You rightly cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.

Absolutely.

Thank you AAK, yes Autumn Sandeen, not sure if it was them that mentioned the ploy about "trans kids" though, I wish I could remember the words they used. This was before transing kids got popular, google is no help now when there is so much of it :/

Your right to swing your...bible?copy of Gender Trouble? ends where it meets my face.

Rosenberg - a couple of years ago I read an article talking about getting self Id through in Malta, and the interviewer asked the question, how are these laws getting passed in these countries with such little fuss - and the response was: 'quietly'

There are people who know exactly what they are doing here and being very clever about it.

It was Autumn Sandeen! Miranda wrote about it:
"kids do, in the words of Autumn Sandeen, remove the mystery of, and desexualise the trans experience"
mirandayardley.com/en/suffer-the-children-how-children-became-the-collateral-damage-of-transgender-ideology/

Autumn Sandeen in 2010:
I’ve always said there are two groups that are going to make change in transgender legislation and the “gender identity and expression” related language in legislation. It’s going to be trans youth because they take, you know, they demystify it and take the sex right out of the trans experience. ... And then, transgender veterans."

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/transgender-children-the-transgender-taboo-is-a-threat-to-academic-freedom/

Disturbingly - exactly. I think the UK TA said something like how they (TAs) had achieved so much by working hard behind the scenes. Gathering these comments by leading TAs alongside showing the changes that have been made without public knowledge or consultation could go a long way to opening people's eyes.

Thank you crome! Gallus probably has all of this on gendertrender but she has covered so much over the years I find it hard to locate specific incidents. Best blog on the Internet imo.

Is the idea that a substantial number of the TRAs threatening women on social media have military training meant to be reassuring? It is not reassuring.

Don't forget that the person who was on Radio4 Today program with Lucy Masood described themself as 'a woman with trans experience'. At the time, it threw Lucy (I had a similar reaction) and she responded to this 'I'm not even sure what that means'. Lucy's response was taken out of context in (I think from memory) both an Independent article as well as Pink News... the Independent article even attached a link to the program that cut off the comment that Lucy reacted to!

Its noticeable that in every interview self id is argued to be ok because its gone through in Malta, Ireland, Argentina... surely this is very similar to how the person interviewed about the Boston Marathon self id had happened... based on a minor decision in one place, precident is set?

JuliaHB has called IW out on it:

.@IndiaWilloughby hi India, on my @talkRADIO show this morning you claimed Mumsnet users were posting transphobic comments on the site. I can’t find any. Please can you tweet or DM the links to the comments which you found offensive? Thanks.

Sorry if it’s been posted before.

cromeyellow0
The Equality law protects people from being called a pronoun that doesn't reflect their transitioned status

This is not true, as BetsyM00 stated above.

Technically what BetsyM00 said is correct as a statement. But that law also makes it explicitly clear, including for gender reassignment, that people should not behave in the workplace in a way that is:

(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

in deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

This is true for any of the protected characteristics. Why would you not want it applied to all? In most real life cases referring to someone as the opposite gender to which they (feel) they are presenting as would be taken to be clear harassment.

The UK TA 'behind the scenes' person may have been Natacha Kennedy. Still not able to track the comment down.

"I feel like I am being psychology abused and controlled from afar -from some not present- by being forced to use someone else's preferred pronouns when it is biologically not true to me...Why are my religion, philosophy, preferences and mental well-being not thought of as equal to others?"

I grew up in a violent home with unspoken rules about not telling the awful, obvious truth about the bruises and limping on post-beating days. Transgender activists demanding I lie on the threat of severe punishment for not prioritizing their fantasies over my truths feels like my childhood abusers forcing my complicity in their crimes.

Gaslighting causes psychological harm.

This isn't a workplace for people who post and it is debateable whether pronouns or acknowledging sex violates dignity or is humiliating, at least amy more so than I feel that being compelled to say 'a man is a woman if he says so' violates my own dignity and is a humiliating experience for me as a person of the female sex (also a protected charactaristic). Has this been tested in court and what are the details of that please?