Liberal Democrats: ‘why are transphobes protesting? Because they are thick’

[QuoadUltra]

In case anyone was hoping that the LibDems might offer some political sanity in turbulent times, don’t bother.

Their LGBT thread on why ‘transphobes’ - women with concerns - are ‘a bit thick’: Thread Here

We could do with a sensible third party in British politics. Too bad the Lib Dems keep ruling themselves out.

Aaaah... someone linked to Roger Hanlon and his sneaker males. My second favourite ever squid-and-cuttlefish scientist.

Happy sigh.

"a genuine wonder that anyone can answer a question about gametes with ‘BUT DSDs!’"

Seriously, have a look what it was in reply to. You are currently disagreeing with Bowlofbabelfish, not me. If they are right that DSDs are not part of normal development, then ask them if there is a third gamete. If there is, then ask the question of me too. If not, then argue with them about them about it.

I’m only looking if it’s cake. We’ve SEEN THESE PAPERS AND DEBUNKED THEM already - on other threads.

The medical consensus is against you I'm afraid it really isn’t. This is my field. Development, genetics, I’ve got an ‘ology.

Now is it cake or not? You never bring cake to these little chats, and cake is so nice.

The argument, in essence, seems to be that transgender people are intersex. (As well as any other characteristic they like the look of in a jackdaw type style.)

If I were part of the intersex community I would be getting ready to resist this as much as possible. Just look what the occupation of the LGB space has done for L people or the occupation of the transsexual space has done for transsexuals.

At this point
Trans people aren't part of the "normal human sex binary"
I got the popcorn

Or should that be

Seriously, have a look what it was in reply to. You are currently disagreeing with Bowlofbabelfish

Um I said that. So I’m disagreeing with myself? You definitely need cake. And a nice sit down. And you don’t know an awful lot about biology - I’m sorry to be rude but you’re showing that up.

Passes the to Bowl with a side of

for Bowl. It's a pineapple upside down cake in honour of the valiant performance of her duty in combating the Humpty Dumptyism hereabouts.

If I were part of the intersex community I would be getting ready to resist this as much as possible.

Damn right. Colonisation and destruction. No ta. Intersex people have a very specific set of legal, ethical and medical issues they’re fighting, and have been treated pretty badly. Go pin your silly pseudoscience somewhere else, TRAs.

It’s interesting they want this scientific validation though isn’t it? And so muchbof it is contradictory. They (and I don’t count the genuine transsexuals in my they, I mean the AGP lot) insist it’s not a mental illness, but they also insist there are brain differences and use scans that show possible differences that are identical to those seen in other mental illnesses as ‘proof.

They want Gender Dysphoria demedicalised, so there’s no gatekeeping, without any understanding that it’s ONLY the fact GID is considered a mental illness that allows for public health treatment.

It’s like they’re casting wildly around for some sort of scientific proof of their ideology but don’t understand that if that proof exists it can be used as a definitive test.

I am very amused that we have moved from "biology is against you" to "medical science is against you"

wakame, taking the para you've quoted a couple of times, could you explain:

1. how intersex and transgenderism are medically linked or correlated? I'm not understanding the relevance of developmental disorders to transgenderism? Ideally with links
2. the reason that a mismatch between gender identity and physical development means gender should be used as the defining characteristic rather than physical characteristics? Lots of people say they have no gender identity. There are also many conditions that have a biological basis but a primarily psychological presentation (e.g. schizophrenia, anorexia, chronic depression). The usual treatment is psychiatric, not an insistence that that person's world view defines reality. Even though that person's world view has a biological basis.

@daimbars bd67Th are you able to link to the relevant web pages rather than Mumsnet threads?

The first link was to the thread where someone who had attended a briefing session from Be had written about what they'd heard. The second link was to Stonewall.

bd67th thanks and apologies - I had a general anaesthetic today and a bit fuzzy headed!

Wakaman, I think you have a a wonderful career ahead of you as Chief Auditor for the Scientologists. You can use one of their special machines to audit people up to their max Thetan level, or whatever it is, in exchange for tons of cash, obviously.

www.amazon.com/Mark-Super-VII-Quantum-E-meter/dp/B00WTQ65ES?tag=mumsnetforum-21

I think it would suit you down to the ground, or up to the planet of Xenu, I may be getting the final destination wrong.

You just have to read Uncle Ron's book and you are in, or I vaguely remember John Travolta made a movie if that's easier.

Best of luck.

@QuentinSummers There are also many conditions that have a biological basis but a primarily psychological presentation (e.g. schizophrenia, anorexia, chronic depression). The usual treatment is psychiatric, not an insistence that that person's world view defines reality.

YY. I don't identity as depressed, I am diagnosed as depressed, and when my colour perception disappears during a relapse and much of the world goes grey-scale, that's not reality to be affirmed, it's a a cognitive distortion and a symptom.

The sheer arrogance of saying to someone who works in the field that the consensus of that field is against them. It’s narcissism writ large. It must be great to be so sure of your position that you openly tell the experts they’re wrong.

Of course it does make you look a little bit silly. As though your grip on reality is tenuous

waddle and langcleg ta for the cake. I’m afraid you’ll have to have the gin for me, as I am currently in a state of advanced pregnancy. I’d previously thought this was due to my female biology, when one of my x bearing gametes met one of my husband’s x or Y bearing ones, but apparently that kind of thing is fiction now. Could anyone who is a member of the scientific or medical consensus enlighten me as to how I find myself in this state I wonder..?

Bowl - don't be silly. That's because both your gametes identify as cis.

But the GRA has been around for years... so unless you are looking to repeal that and not have the law recognise transgender people as anything other then their biological sex then all this protesting about self ID is basically pointless.

We've been over this on many other threads, which I'm sure you've seen. You are talking gibberish. There is a legal fiction for most purposes that trans identified males (and only those ones with a GRC bit of paper from the Ministry of Truth ) are women. They have not actually changed sex.

We all know why TRAs are so keen to change the law here. No need for your disingenuous act.

And to be fair, entirely repealing the GRA is not a bad idea, it's not really needed any more as far as I can tell...

Ah jeez I had just made up my mind that I'd vote for anyone who'd vow to get us out of Brexit - despite their treachery post 2010. Can't now.

mirandayardley.com/en/this-is-an-all-out-political-war-the-gender-recognition-act-and-beyond/
Quote:
Let me be clear: this is not an inconsequential fight over niche or trivial ideas. We have gone way beyond the point where we are obliged to be compassionate to what we are being told is a ‘vulnerable minority’, a minority who refuse to openly and honestly account for their claims and their actions, and who respond to dissent with threats, bullying and censorship.

We are having our language, sexual autonomy and fundamental rights to freedom of thought, speech and expression taken away from us.

This is an all-out political war.

They are free to think I'm thick.

I'm not the one who can't define woman.

YYY!

That nature magazine article is presented as the new testament by trans people. It's quite an interesting phenomenon to watch.

Isn't it? Always that one or that Harvard student's blog post.

The medical consensus is against you I'm afraid.

shall I post the studies where they've controlled for sexual orientation? Not good news for any "male lesbians". It seems they don't have a ladybrain at all.

The medical consensus is against you I'm afraid.

It really, really isn't, no scientific consensus is. It would be great if there could be some scientific evidence to back up transgenderism but there isn't any that proves anything conclusively, and much that speaks against it.

Pages behind, you might all be on the cake by now, but what I didn't get time to write this morning is this:

The government have said in their response, We are committed to a respectful and evidence-based discussion

How disgraceful that this group, who purport to be speaking for a major political party, cannot also commit to that. By behaving so DISrespectfully and making so many misleading, evidence-free statements, they are in fact doing the exact opposite.

Respectful and evidence based discussion should be the absolute baseline for people representing political parties in this debate. Even the tories reckon they can manage that. LGBT+ Lib Dems are actively getting in the way.

I don't know whether this account is official or not. Either way they are using Lib Dem branding and purporting to speak for them. If Lib Dems want to retain any shred of credibility now, they need to sort this out.