'Get the L Out' Statement by the lesbian protesters at Pride London

[R0wantrees]

getthelout.wordpress.com/blog/

Why “Get The L Out” ?
July 5, 2018
Angela C. Wild
Who We Are

Get the L Out is a group of lesbian and feminist individuals and organisations, opposing the increasingly anti-lesbian and misogynistic LGBT movement and the erasure of lesbians

Why We Protest

We believe that lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and we encourage lesbians everywhere to leave the LGBT and form their own independent movement, as well as to be vocal and take action against the proposed changes to the GRA.

Get the L Out believes trans politics (with uncritical support from the LGBT movement) does the following:

Promotes the social transition of lesbians, encouraging them to present as straight men thus favouring the pretence of heterosexuality over lesbianism – this is nothing more than a form of conversion therapy.
Promotes the medical transition of lesbians and pushes harmful drugs (untested hormone blockers, Lupron etc.) as well as unnecessary medical practices on perfectly healthy bodies – these are a form of misogynist medical abuse against lesbians.
Promotes the rights of heterosexual males who “identify” as women and lesbians (despite most of them still retaining their male genitals) over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners. This new ‘queer’ LGBT politics thus coerces lesbians to accept the penis as a female organ and promotes heterosexual intercourse between male and female as a form of lesbian sex. This is simply a new facet to rape culture and compulsory heterosexuality." (continues)

I was there, I pointed this out as I also had a total hystectomy due to medical neccessity at a similar age to you Sophocles.

I know many younger women who are dealing with the consequences of this due to gyny cancer.

Even recognising the experiences and specific needs of this group of women is a relatively recent thing within both NHS and charities.

I believe it needs showing up though, not to cause additional distress but in the hope that more will challenge it.

I believe that censoring the comments only benefits those who make the claims. They will continue to do so and other people become desensitised or accepting of them.

The comments were outrageous and of course a lie.

(& the person who made the statements continues to post on the FWR boards, often cititing the 'privileges' of others here)

I’d really like cistern to explain what they mean by a chemical period.

I agree about not censoring any of this, R0wan. unlike our erstwhile friends with their fingers over the report button lest a woman accidentally let slip a slight unkindness, I want to hear what sheep, cistern and the rest think, regardless of the hurt and distress it causes me personally.

Because it’s not about my feelings. I don’t have the right not to have hurt feelings, and it’s thinking like that that’s got us into this atrocious middle in the first place.

Also, it saves me the bother of explaining the misogyny and homophobia, because it’s all laid right out there!

That's the closest you've ever got to cold fury, Rowan

Pratchet
No fury just resoluteness!

I was furious the first time I heard it said on Victoria Derbyshire, and upset that it went unchallenged.

Not least because Victoria Derbyshire has spoken openly about having breast cancer.

Women who are BRCA+ may elect to have hysterectomies.

There are links with Breast cancer and Ovarian cancer.

It was mind-blowing to me that she didn't make the link or demonstate awareness or empathy.

to all the women personally affected by this offensive drivel

VD bought the Kool Aid company and supply contract

Telling women their anatomy is irrelevant is patriarchal drivel.

Telling women their anatomy is irrelevant is patriarchal drivel

The other side to that, of course, is when it becomes relevant on men's terms, usually leading to statements like "women can't [x] because women have [y anatomy]".

Germaine Greer's lecture 'The Whole Woman' is very relevent:

www.youtube.com/watch?sns=fb&v=sVzYi4bRNwQ&app=desktop

Eresh "Stop goading SD. No one is impressed"

Is that directed at me? What did I do this time?

SuperDandy I found your comment below ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. Was it?

"I do so wish posters would not cite infertility, hysterectomy, missing genitals etc as in any way comparable or relevant to trans issues.

It's so massively inappropriate and horrible."

I've skipped to the sixth page and there's all this discussion about what hormones do to a working penis, and it's all irrelevant, because the vast, vast majority of transwomen don't transition at all. Most never did, even when being dysphoric was an essential component of being trans, and now that being trans and being dysphoric are almost entirely uncoupled, and the trans movement is full of males who are very open about their comfort with their own bodies, and open about the fact that they like using their penis to have sex, it's even more the case now

Where hormones matter, of course, is when they are pushed on children and young people, who haven't had a chance to discover whether they will ever be comfortable in their own bodies or not

Archery Annie - hope you don't mind me bolding this. This is what people who think we are transphobic don't even know

There is also an issue as to the long term consequeces of hormones.

There is much known and still more to establish about the possible side effects of taking HRT (& the R is significant) for women.

These studies have focussed on women, within a certain age range & for a limited period of time.

HRT is prescribed with caution because of the balance between potential risk and potential benefit. This is relevent for many women who have had gyny cancer and surgical menopause. The decision is made following histology, MDT meetings and a great deal of consideration. The decision for many women is not to take the medication (which also has increased risks eg osteoporosis & cardiac issues)

The effects of taking testosterone illegally as a 'performance enhancing drug' are well established.

It would be naive not to consider the likelhood that cross-sex hormones may have additional side effects.

R0wantrees it's really not ambiguous, let alone deliberately so. I think it's truly awful and hugely upsetting to use those things used for point-scoring or comparison, and they have no place in this discussion as far as I can see.

Round and round the accusation comes that people who disagree with GC views do not condemn unacceptable actions, yet when I do exactly that you and Eresh go straight for goady and ambiguous.

You are reading things into my posting that are not there. There is no subtext, no hidden meanings, no euphemisms, no codes, no hint, no entrapment, no cunning use of an opposite position in sarcasm.

I've had my sincerity and integrity questioned so many times on this board for the offense of disagreeing with some aspects of the GC position, but this one really takes the biscuit.

It's hard to see how there can be meaningful or constructive discourse when regular participants read with such heavy prejudice and react with bias to that degree.

Once again, for the record, I am not a TRA or a bloke, no one sent me and no one pulls my strings. I question self ID as a proposal, and I abhor disrespectful language, needless cruelty and sweeping generalisations, whoever is saying it. If we could have footers on mn mine would be something like that, along with a reminder that it is in fact possible to be at neither one extreme nor the other.

Oh I thought you didn't realise what was being referred to?

It's so interesting how all your criticism and condemnation is of the gender critical side of the coin though. You are trying to pretend that it's equal to point out that women face our own issues when trans people complain about their lives, to when TRAs make deeply offensive, callous and cruel comments about women who have had hysterectomies. Completely wrong headed comparison and if you weren't so sure of your own woke self righteous world view I think you'd see that.

SuperDandy

I found it ambiguous in its wording. I read it a few times. Ambiguity means 'the quality of being open to more than one interpretation'.

The rest of your post contains accusations against me which I utterly refute.

Check my posting history.

Have a read back about what was discussed prior to your comment. I am one of the women directly and personally affected by the TRA comments and appropriation of hysterectomies and infertility.

I do so wish posters would not cite infertility, hysterectomy, missing genitals etc as in any way comparable or relevant to trans issues.

It's so massively inappropriate and horrible.

I also read it several times super and could not parse what the missing part of the second sentence is. You could read it as

"It's so massively inappropriate and horrible to trans people " (because it's triggering, exclusionary, less serious, a result of "cis privilege" or whatever - this is a view that gets some traction on the wilder end of the genderist debate).

OR

"It's so massively inappropriate and horrible to women affected by these issues " - in which case fine, that's a nice, supportive thing to say.

Trouble is, taking in context your posting history, people are liable to read it the first way. And I think you know that. Or if you don't, then maybe try explaining what you DO mean, rather than attacking people for reading your post the way it can quite clearly be read.

It's good that you think this is a shitty, shitty thing to do to women. I'm one of the women it's a shitty thing to do to, and I appreciate that. It's a bare minimum though. Really it is.

Eresh, you can insert the notion of equality in there I feel you want, but I didn't write it or think it or feel it.

There are plenty of people here picking out everything wrong with the non GC nasties, you surely don't need me to join in to add weight to the condemnation of shitty things TRAs say. I have repeatedly said I don't condone the nasty shit they spout. If I saw someone spouting nasty shit on here and no one challenging it then I'd weigh in.

On this occasion I did post to condemn the nasty shit that a non GC poster put up, and you've attacked me for being goady, so that went well didn't it.

R0wan I'm not sure what you think I'm accusing you of. I was speaking of regular participants plural, not you as an individual. Re ambiguity I'm quite clear I need the definition thanks, but can you elucidate your alternative interpretation of my meaning? I'm sorry it wasn't crystal clear but I'm not seeing the ambiguity of saying people should stop citing it because it's really horrible.

SuperDandy

Have a read of Sophocles post before yours.

It would seem she too found it ambiguous.

She is also similarly affected by these callous appropriations.

Perhaps there is a need for perspective here?

On this occasion I did post to condemn the nasty shit that a non GC poster put up, and you've attacked me for being goady, so that went well didn't it.

Well you have an excuse not to bother then. It's all my fault, sure.

I've just explained (and Rowan alluded to) in really quite simple terms why I felt what you posted was out of order and a false comparison, if you'd care to engage with the point of my post?

It’s LGBT Pride, so of course pushing in and stealing someone else’s place with an anti trans message was going to get a negative reaction.