Stephen Whittle’s blog on Genderquake - with a detailed briefing for panelists

[flowersonthepiano]

Stephen Whittle’s blog on Genderquake with a briefing for panelists including the following gems:

“male and female are biological categories which were defined when science was not properly aware of the complexities of the ‘natural’ body”

“‘Self-identification’ doesn’t mean anyone can get legal gender recognition, but it would mean trans people no longer have to be diagnosed as having a mental illness.”

How is that good for people with such high rates of suicide ideation who need care?

“Unfortunately, the Rules don’t allow trans prisoners to be placed in a prison of their preferred gender role until they have obtained legal gender recognition.”

“The UK has an excellent child and adolescent Gender Identity Clinic as part of a larger mental health trust – but it is only one for the entire nation of 66 million people.

Whilst the Clinic provides an excellent service,
· it cannot cope with the numbers seeking help, and
· there is no doubt that it has increasingly drawn flak from some feminist women who object to the idea of affording children any support in their preferred gender identity.
PFC REPEATEDLY states that

• children do not receive cross-gender hormones and
• no child has ever been given gender reassignment surgery,
but the Feminist attacks have been sufficiently vocal to make clinicians very nervous about the provision of the service.”

blatantly neglects to mention puberty blockers...

Note the frequent references to “Press for Change (PFC)” which is described as “the UK trans lobby group”. A week or so ago newspaper editors were hauled before a parliamentary committee and grilled for suggesting that there is even such thing as trans lobby group. Suggesting that stating there is a trans lobby was labelled bigoted/hate speech.

Stephen Whittle is a very influential person. The views above are being inculcated into our society. It’s clear they recognize the influence that feminist protests have had in stalling the proposed changes to the GRA and making clinicians think how they handle children who arrive in their consulting rooms.

You are doing a great job! It wouldn’t surprise me if Stephen Whittle had a hand in recent efforts to silence the MumsNet FWR boards, but then I am getting a bit tin-foil hatty these days....

Bah. I tried to write:

an unregulated press that occasionally behaves badly

I knew what you meant :)

I thought you would have .

Yup, I'm inclined to think that without a genuinely free press and free speech we are all totally screwed. It has unfortunate consequences in terms of spreading genuine hate speech and intrusions into people's privacy - but for hate speech, I'm inclined to think the old adage about sunlight being the best disinfectant is the right one. Allow people to say stuff, but free speech should also give a right to rebuttal to explain why it's wrong and hateful.

Unless Goldacre has actively refused, I wouldn’t assume refusal.

You can search "bengoldacre trans" on twitter to see that several women have raised the issue with him there to ask him to cover it. He can hardly be unaware of it, considering his position. He is making a choice not to get involved.

I think Brian Cox is awesome but he stays out of this too, even though his wife has been targetted for some nasty shit by TAs.

ChattyLion
Sense about Science looks like a good organisation to approach.

Bowlofbabelfish
I don't disagree that raising public awareness through the tabloids is vital. But I also think we need to raise awareness among the scientific community specifically and put the scientific case for the gender critical position. TRAs keep telling us we're out of date scientifically and we need to demonstrate that we are not. Much as it pains me to have argue the case for the bleedin' obvious, i.e., that humans are sexually dimorphic, it appears that is what is required.

I liked this tweet by @Feminisyheretic.

Excellent cartoon :D

'Harmony Sparkle' lololol

Fermat i’m not a dr or lawyer but I understand that it’s an individual judgement by a dr on a child under 16 weighing their ability to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment. It’s about capacity to consent. The dr also need to take into account whether it’s in the best interests of the child to have the proposed treatment let’s say puberty blockers.
If the medical profession and everyone else are being fed misleading facts about puberty blockers and misleading facts about suicide risks I am worried that would have a misleading influence and bearing on both what the young persons assessment of the risks is and the drs assessment of their capacity and best interests, if capacity is judged on ability around weighing and retaining facts about risks and benefits. Hope that makes sense but hopefully a medical doctor or lawyer will come along soon to clarify.

Some parents and their gender dysphoric children are persuaded that if the child transitions they will be so much happier that their mental health problems will go away and the risk of self-harm will also go away. The argument is that much of the mental illness is caused by having to live in the wrong body.

Now, if that were true, it would be a pretty strong argument. Going through surgery, losing fertility and all the rest would be worth it because at least the child would be alive and happy.

However, there isn't strong evidence that that's the outcome, is there?

I think it's really important that people make life-changing decisions on the basis of good evidence, well explained by somebody who isn't already biased in one way or the other. I don't have confidence that Mermaids, Stonewall, GIRES and others of the same stamp are giving that sort of advice.

Exactly. Ben Goldacres work is great - as is David Colquhoun’s and Sense about science. They’ve happily taken on every single quack or poor practitioner out there, regardless of size. For them to be wary of throwing their hats into the ring on this issue (if they are aware of it, and I’m not sure if they are) shows the sheer power of the TRA lobby. Their tactics are like the Scientology harassment methods, only with added Twitter. The sheer volume of personal attack they’d face? I’m not sure I’d want to deal with that tbh

The thing that frustrates me most about so many of the issues raised on this board, much of what is being presented as being about 'trans'. BG and DC could work outside of the debates and critique the science. They don't need to engage in the language issues, space issues or rights issues - they could just look at the science being touted about sex.

With regard to physical treatment, the professionals involved are clear that there is insufficient evidence and they are feeling their way, so there is not that much to expose in relation to this other than if they can evidence that treatments are based on dodgy ideas about sex.

I agree flowers - although really the onus is on them to prove the scientific consensus wrong, not us to fail over ourselves to explain.

A campaign of awareness for scientific and medical professionals is a good thing. I imagine many are scared to put their head over the parapet, especially in academia.

relevant thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241837-Why-has-the-trans-lobby-been-so-successful

Absolutely in academia. But I worry that scientists and medics may be heading into the same climate. I have been told about lobbying (presented as training) that is being targeted at NHS and legal decision makers at the highest level and that as part of that the impression being given to the NHS that this law (to allow gender self ID) is definitely coming in. NHS practitioners have said that their Trust has told them it IS coming.

But the truth is no legal change has happened and is not conclusively going to happen. Yet Women are being actively harassed and bullied just for trying to have the public debate that should precede any fundamental legal change such as legal gender self ID.
You have to ask yourself why there would be such pressure against anyone merely speaking about the facts or evidence or political arguments around this?

Agree they could just ask normal sceptically minded questions about scientific and medical facts being presented and statistics about suicide risks etc

I have been told about lobbying (presented as training) that is being targeted at NHS and legal decision makers at the highest level and that as part of that the impression being given to the NHS that this law (to allow gender self ID) is definitely coming in. NHS practitioners have said that their Trust has told them it IS coming.

This is why the onus is not on TRAs to explain themselves. Although it's obvious to us that they're peddling untruths and half-truths, they have already got such a long way that we are forced to make the case for material reality - ludicrous as it may seem.

They've almost got what they want legally - self-ID feels all but inevitable and the wording on trans in the EA reinforces it's legitimcay scocially.

The sex exceptions in the equality act are next on the list.

Before you know it, sex is meaningless in law. Of course it won't be meaningless in material reality. Therein lies the problem.

The thing that always hits me like a bucket of iced water is if puberty blockers are essential and benign, if the (attempted) suicide rates are so high, if the radical treatments are likely to be beneficial in all sorts of ways, then trans activists should be pushing hard to get rigorous scientific studies of these matters going as a matter of urgency to provide a solid basis for the benefits that will come and the harms that will be avoided. This could then be used to lobby effectively for changes to be made in medical treatment and in the law.

That would be a priority surely? But hardly anyone in the trans activist community seems to be pushing for more to be learned in an objective scientific sense.

Recently, watching the way the media has been covering this issue, I'm coming to think that an regulated press that occasionally behaves badly is better than a regulated press that always behaves correctly. When we next meet I'm going to say to my mate that I was actually wrong when we argued

But the press is regulated, by wealthy private owners who don't care about facts and can push their own agenda.

What if the press was gvt regulated to only ever tell the truth? Would "transwomen are women" (eg) have gained as much traction?

What if the press was gvt regulated to only ever tell the truth? Would "transwomen are women" (eg) have gained as much traction?

Looking at the recent carry on in Parliament, if politicians had had the option to compel newspapers to tell the "truth"* then I think there's a fair chance self-ID would have already been incorporated into UK law.

• a very slippery concept

Ben Goldacres work is great - as is David Colquhoun’s and Sense about science. They’ve happily taken on every single quack or poor practitioner out there, regardless of size

I'm afraid that's not true. I hugely admire BG in some regards but he's a coward in others.

I have M.E. £5 million was spent on the crappest piece of science know as the PACE trial. It was a scandal. It was part funded (unusually) by the DWP. The M.E community has repeatedly, over years, asked BG to stand alongside us and point out the srious flaws in it because it has actively done patients harm in what it thinks of our illness (essentially it treats it as a form of hysteria).

It's been several years of him resolutely refusing to speak out. Why? Because his once supervisor and friend Simon Wesseley was heavily involved in PACE and supported it.

It's taken a respected American journalist, David Tuller, to take a public stand and criticise the study' failings. He is now making an impact after years of harm has been done.

BG could have made a huge difference to some very ill people. It would have been the ethical thing to do - the study was an expensive car crash. He has been spineless about it. It reflects v badly on him.

Based on that I'd say he won't speak up over the trans issues. It's too controversial. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

I agree with op.

The ball is in our court as far as science is concerned because if we don't do something a great scientific lie will be incorporated into legislation.

Babel are you prepared to put your head above the parapet? I am.

That would be a priority surely? But hardly anyone in the trans activist community seems to be pushing for more to be learned in an objective scientific sense.

Perhaps sometimes actively resisted?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3152066-Times-article-today-James-Caspian-and-Bath-Spa-University

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3129659-Update-from-James-Caspian-on-his-case-against-Bath-Spa-University-to-be-allowed-to-research-detransitioners

Heather Brunskell-Evans recent talk in Bristol:
www.facebook.com/TheJamJarBristol/videos/793672257494647/

Yeah, I know and having a scientific background I find it depressing. That goes hand in hand with the recent push along the lines that according to the "newest science", sex is so complicated as to be effectively meaningless as a concept. Which is largely based on using people with intersex conditions as gotchas.

The entire ideology is run through with gaslighting, bullying, and co-opting others' life-experiences.

Rowan

This post is fantastic:

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 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.

Name-calling - Terf

Bandwagon - Woke

Glittering generalities - inclusion, progressive, equality, privacy

Card stacking - read Whittle's textbook brief

Plain folks - I just need to pee

Fear- suicide, you want me dead

Transfer- rainbows

Make the opposing side look shabby- Greer is forgetful, heckling

Censorship - get that woman out of the building and her political party