Why has the trans lobby been so successful?

[feesh]

. Have been following the discussions on here over the last few months.

I never really identified with feminism before, so it’s been quite eye opening.

The thing I don’t understand is why the trans campaign has been SO successful. We have barely acheived gay rights, yet the trans lobby has had massive gains in only a few short months of campaigning. They have had victories that other campaigns can only dream of.

Part of the reason for me dwelling on this is that I’ve been working in conservation and environmental management for years and we have barely made any headway into changing hearts and minds, yet the realities of what we are facing with environmental destruction are even scarier than the erosion of women’s rights, but nobody ever seems to get outraged about it (apart from the plastics issue, about which I think the tide is finally turning).

Who is behind the trans lobby? Where does all this power and money come from?

It's blindingly obvious that schools cannot teach girls that consent is paramount, their boundaries are their own to define and they have a right to bodily privacy, while simultaneously telling them none of this counts as soon as anyone says the word trans.

It's just bullshit.

with regards access to girls' loos in schools, a recent case when a school extended access for a young person identifying as a trans girl is discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3209839-The-Police-making-policy-for-schools

the OP wrote,
"The transgender police officer Lena Denham, used their own organisation 'Transpire' to launch a public social media campaign against the school until they backed down. I'd call that a conflict of interest. I'd be asking whether their behaviour constituted misconduct in a public office? I'd be looking at why this police force is allowing an officer to mix their personal lifestyle choices with their role in law enforcement? I am asking who is safeguarding the rights of girls to privacy, dignity and safety in that school?"

Agreed Lance and Lang, agreed.

It is actually a human rights violation to not permit girls to change/toilet with dignity and privacy.

@SarahAr I'm getting tired of people being told to "take a look at Ireland" re trans legislation. For a start our GRA has exemptions for sex crimes and prisons unlike the proposed UK act. Secondly, Ireland is tiny and it's barely been three years. And thirdly, our GRA was pushed through with no discussion or debate, piggybacking on the gay marriage referendum of the same year. Submissions were invited to a review of the GRA early this year, because transactivists want to extend its provisions to under 18s and allow the State to overrule parental authority in this matter.

Critical voices have been shut down, no platformed with the usual cries of "terf" and bigot. The debate is about 5 years behind the UK and transactivism has achieved a strong foothold in feminist groups, causes and student bodies.

So stop telling people to "look at Ireland" unless you know what you're talking about.

Recent thread- Stephen Whittle's briefing notes for GenderQuake debate:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists

On a current thread a poster described (I think) Fairplay for Women's website as being 'notoriously transphobic' and spreading propaganda.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3246755-Transphobia-or-truths?pg=14

The website described:
fairplayforwomen.com

Some time ago, as part of my degree, we studied linguistic techniques used in propaganda so I was curious to reacquaint myself.

The following is from a very basic guide but, I think interesting:

Propaganda Techniques

people.howstuffworks.com/propaganda1.htm

"A commonly used technique is name-calling, which takes its cue from playground behavior. Often, this technique is utilized to divert attention when someone is trying to avoid answering a question or providing hard facts.

The bandwagon technique encourages the viewer or listener to join the crowd by aligning with the most popular, successful side of an issue

Glittering generalities are very common in political propaganda. Glittering generalities combine words that have positive connotations with a concept that is particularly beloved.

Card stacking is the presentation of only the details, statistics and other information that impacts public opinion positively. In other words, the bad stuff is left out entirely.

The plain folks technique is designed to get ordinary citizens to identify with a political candidate or other figure that they otherwise may have nothing in common with.

Propaganda based on fear is designed to scare people into choosing sides.

The transfer technique is more subliminal (operating on a subconscious rather than conscious level) than the other techniques we've discussed. Using this method, a group or person attempts to align themselves with a beloved symbol in an effort to transfer the status of the symbol to the cause they represent.

Many other propaganda methods exist, but they subsist on the same basic principles as the ones listed above: Manipulate the message to portray an issue or person in the most favorable light possible, and when necessary, make the opposing side look shabby in comparison.

Many people believe that propaganda does more harm than its proponents would admit to. Some go so far as to claim that propaganda is a bedfellow of censorship because they both serve as tools for repression, confusion and suppression of information"

Of course it is important to acknowledge that the use of these makes no comment on the worthiness of the cause. They have been employed to great effect by many admirable people.

Guardian article which discusses some of the wider issues:
'Schools pulled into row over helping transgender children
As more teens come out as trans, experts clash over how schools should help'
(extract)

"Davies-Arai says she took an interest in the subject because as a child she had felt herself to be a boy, and she didn’t think it was a good idea to label children like her as transgender because she believes that in some cases, these feelings resolve naturally by the end of adolescence.

While the Allsorts advice states that “trans pupils or students should have access to the changing room that corresponds to their gender identity” and that in PE lessons, students “should be enabled to participate in the activity which corresponds to their gender identity if this is what they request”, Davies-Arai argues that shared changing rooms present difficulties for some girls. Few teenage girls will be willing to admit that they feel uncomfortable sharing a changing room with a biologically male student, she says.

She points out that the technical guidance on the Equality Act for schools suggests offering students “private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space” – the approach taken at Miles’s school.

Susie Green, CEO of the charity Mermaids, disagrees, saying the debate about single-sex toilets seems “engineered to whip up fear” and is equivalent to “arguing people of colour shouldn’t be allowed to use the same toilets as white people in case they make them dirty”.

Claire Birkenshaw, a transgender former headteacher, says the wide range of different advice creates confusion and conflict. “There needs to be clear statutory guidance for schools that incorporates the views of experts from education, the medical profession, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and trans people,” she says. “Rows about a vulnerable and marginalised group in education are not helpful.”

The EHRC is planning to issue guidance of its own next month, something Birkenshaw welcomes. “Schools want to support the transgender young person, but at the same time they’ll be reflecting on how other children may feel, on how staff are going to feel and parents.”

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/15/transgender-row-teachers-afraid-challenge-breast-binding

Object article:

'Yogyakarta Principles: International Threat to Women's Rights'

(extract)
"This article mainly summarises the key points made in a speech by Sheila Jeffreys (entitled “Enforcing Men's Sexual Rights in International Human Rights Law”) at Venice Allen's We Need To Talk event, 'Inconvenient Women', held in London on June 13th 2018. Read a full transcript here.

What are the Yogyakarta Principles?

The Yogyakarta Principles were first created at a meeting in Indonesia in 2007; in 2017, extra principles were added, known as the “Plus 10.” Signatories include prominent human rights campaigners, lawyers and functionaries.

This document provides a vitally needed charter of rights for gay men and lesbians.

“The Yogyakarta Principles as far as they concern lesbian and gay rights are much needed and it is very unfortunate that they are compromised and undermined by the creation of rights for mainly heterosexual men who crossdress and impersonate women.” (Jeffreys, 2018)

However, the positive components of the Yogyakarta Principles are hugely undermined by a section on 'gender identity'. The potential consequences of this 'gender identity' section have perhaps been overlooked by people who assume this section simply promotes the protection of so-called 'transgender' people from violence and discrimination. This is not the case, however. The 'gender identity' section poses a threat to the rights of all women.

The concept of 'gender identity' “endangers the very notion of women's rights as human rights.” (Jeffreys, 2018)" (continues)

www.objectnow.org/news/2018/7/27/yogyakarta-principles-international-threat-to-womens-rights

Threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269679-inconvenient-women-wntt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228002-Yogyakarta-principles

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284051-yogyakarta-principles-plus-10

The thing I don’t understand is why the trans campaign has been SO successful. We have barely acheived gay rights, yet the trans lobby has had massive gains in only a few short months of campaigning. They have had victories that other campaigns can only dream of.

Because it reinforces the same sexist shit everyone already believed, and it reinforces the 'men first, women's opinion don't matter' attitude. Gay rights required change to core beliefs and social expectations.

I was trans-inclusive before i looked into it and became GC. I think it's because it's based on our fundamental sexism. Even if you don't believe that girls should play with dolls and boys should play with trucks, you still instinctively know which is a girls toy and which is a boys toy and you have to actively, consciously fight against the impulse to associate pink dolls with girls and blue trucks with boys. We're raised drowning in this sexist shit and none of us got away without a little bit of it sticking.

Then transgenderism comes along and instead of saying "Girls have girly brains and tendencies, they should play with girls toys" which you already know is wrong and something you should disagree with, it says "children who play with girls toys have girly tendencies and girly brains, we should treat them as girls." and it just seems right, somehow. Don't think about it too much because that's rude, you should believe people when they tell you about their subjective personal experiences. Besides, it already seems to mesh with the world you know so it doesn't really require further analysis. People who like pink dolls might be girls on the inside. Everyone can be what they want, sex doesn't determine everything about you. No problem, nothing to see here.

You know our brains have all these neat little tricks where you only actually visually register a small amount of what you think you see? You have a massive blind spot near the centre of your vision and shitty colour vision at the edges. Your brain just fills in the gaps with MORE OF THE SAME HERE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. I reckon that's what our logic centres do with the trans stuff. Until you look directly at it, you just assume that everything is how you expect it to be.

And then this same ideology just happens to require women to move over and make space for men, to put their feelings first. And it just seems like we should do that, for some reason that doesn't require further investigation, don't be a bitch. They're hurt, they need us, we should put ourselves aside to help them. And it lets men identify as women for the purpose of employment quotas, but don't we always say it's what's on the inside that counts? And so what if there are only 3% women in the job, it's not really a problem if there's men there who care about women. It just seems somehow correct, like it fits with what you already know. As long as you don't look right at it.

Great comment, Bloodmagic.

They hear things like feminists complaining about children being given hormones and think it's just Daily Mail type exaggerating because they assume that there are checks and safeguarding in place to prevent abuse of it.

This is so true! Definitely what I thought.

I feel excluded from the ‘trans lobby’. Am I transing wrong?

Haven’t had a membership card, been given a secret hand shake and my cheque from George Sorros seems to have been lost in the post.

This is so true! Definitely what I thought.

And the feeling of horror when you find out exactly what is happening is like a punch to the gut, isn't it?

About a thousand kids in the UK on puberty blockers via the NHS plus who knows how many via private clinics. And tens of thousands in the US and Canada.

Being treated for a medical condition, oh the humanity of it!

"Because they lie and because they weaponise social media.

See also: Brexit, Trump and every other fucking anti-democratic shit show that is going on at the moment."

This. Every time I read a trans activist tweet, I have to think of Trump. The outright lies. The accusing of the opposite side of things you do/say yourself. It's fucking scary how successful this tactic is.

I would add though the massive amount of victimization. I read one article by a woman whose conclusion was basically "how can you not support this marginalized group".

I'd say victimhood -claiming to be the most oppwessed-est ever minority- is one of the strongest similarities between the heterosexual white males of Trumpism and the heterosexual white males of Transgenderist activism.

This is a long article but well worth the read

medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

And this one

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

I came on here to recommend the medium article also - a superb piece of investigative journalism.

medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

But, yeah, the bottom line is they have lots of money.

Stonewall, for example, has increased its funding significantly since taking on the trans agenda.

Planned parenthood in the States is also spreading the trans message and being well funded.

Money from very wealthy people

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3328210-Follow-the-money-who-is-funding-the-US-transborg

From that thread this link: It's a long read like the guardian link below, possibly longer, but nonetheless fascinating.

medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

Also the rise in denialism fuels the 'cause'. In my view it's homophobia dressed up in rainbow colours.

www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth

Oh cross posts galore!

I think the medium link should go into the 'next page' when this reaches 125 messages.

It's worth a read.