Ending this madness but 'saving face'

[pombear]

I'm not good at starting threads so forgive me for the following clunkiness:

Given that the discussion is growing, thanks to the unswerving voices over the last few years, amplified by Mumsnet and other sources.

The sunlight is starting to be shone on disquieting practices, disturbing narratives, biased lobbying.

There are so many organisations who have been coerced into adopting policies, practices, changing their procedures and behaviours following 'training' and worrying that they are 'behind history' and wanting to avoid 'transphobia'.

More and more, the discussion here and in other places is shining a light on this coercion to highlight concerns and risks to women and children's safety, dignity, privacy and ability to define themselves.

Many contributors here, and the lurkers, are part of many of these types of organisations, and more and more are stating their concerns.

It seems there is a crossroads for organisations. With a couple of options:

1. wait until the inevitable scandal, once many individuals have already been harmed (though I suspect that the harm is already being done) and say 'we didn't realise'.

2. do something now, but risk, as an organisation, the wrath of the activist and 'scared-to-be-phobic' movement.

But no organisation wants to look stupid. No organisation wants to be the one 'to go first'. Most want so 'save face' and appear that they weren't part of a scandal.

How do we avoid getting to a moment, as we have over other issues, where everyone looks back on institutional errors and says 'how did this happen'?

So how do we support and enable these organisations, NHS England, schools, workplaces, etc, etc, to roll back whilst still 'saving face' before the inevitable scandal?

I don't have the answer. I expect some people to tell me 'the organisations just have to do the right thing, regardless of saving face'.

But often people need help to roll back from the cliff they're standing on, whilst still saving face.

I don't have an answer. Which is why I've started this thread.

interesting
maybe publish very public warnings?
suppose someone had written to a national newspaper (and been publlished) saying saville is a dangerous predator, we are publicly warning you, the BBC, of this, take action now or face that you will be held accountable

We need somehow to take the power away from the the word transphobe
and get to the point where people see the word for the cop out it is aren't afraid of being called this word, which basically, lets face it, is a rather lazy insult
It is so frequently tossed at anyone, whether Health care provider, teacher, concerned parent, in fact, anyone who dares to question, that it is already losing it's power and ability to silence people.

That's the direction things should take.

people need to be scared of being sued....that's what I have seen in the NHS I'm afraid

We need to keep encouraging individuals to speak up (she says! I'm too scared to). The more people who stand up and are brave enough to say 'the emperor has no clothes', the more people will see it.

Like the other day the group on fb for gay men - their boundaries were very clearly asserted saying 'this group is not for dysphoric women.' People just speaking sense and telling it like it is help redraw the boundaries and gives other people courage to speak out too.

Excellent thread.

''While we are happy to offer support to dysphoric individuals as far as we can, that cannot override safeguarding and support for other vulnerable groups.''

All their power lies in 5 little letters.

phobe.

It's about time we took the sting out of it. Maybe we could start using it ourselves. Flood every conversation with phobe.
The word will turn into a joke.

Until we do that, nothing will change.
We will voice concerns and they will hurl the transphobic insult at us.
People are so scared of that word.
But, It's Only A Word.

Interesting. I'm being a bit of a rubbish thread-starter, as I'm going to bed right now, but thanks to contributors so far. Food for thought!

Take away transphobe, they'll take away homophobe. Does being called a racist have the same sting or do some people not care?
When it becomes just another argument you disagree with, and not something unpleasant in and of itself (racism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny) then everything becomes relative. Freeze peach and all that.
Newt is right. Hit them in the pocket. Why is sex segregation "doomed"? Because the organisations who live in that world are either large publically accountable entities like the NHS (susceptible to political lobbying, public opinion and those with an agenda self-selecting for equality roles) or small, poorly funded bodies like refuges or rape counselling services that can easily be litigated into bankruptcy.
It works for them, whilst the Equalities Act still exists we should do likewise. We could probably raise more money than them too.

It's Women saying "No" to men, again, isn't it?
How to say "No" to men, with the least amount of damage to women and children. A sad state of affairs.

It’s time for public discussion and public warning, like newt says, making it clear that ‘we didn’t realise’ isn’t going to cut it in the digital age.

Organisations need to consider that 2) is the least bad option reputationally and, more importantly, the correct option ethically; when you’re wrong, you’re wrong and no good will come of pretending otherwise.

At this point, the question for organisations is not ‘Do we want to go first?’, but rather ‘Do we want to be seen to go second, third or fourth?’.

UpstartCrow’s suggestion draws a clear line in the sand without getting tangled in admissions of poor judgement to date, or attempts at face saving. It’s understated, but speaks clearly both to those with concerns and to various boundary pushers.

I think a key point here is that the vast majority of ordinary adults have not woken up to this.

We need to get it out there that it can affect your kids. Then schools and hospitals will start experiencing increased pushback from parents. We need to get to that critical mass.

When it becomes just another argument you disagree with, and not something unpleasant in and of itself (racism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny) then everything becomes relative. Freeze peach and all that

Those words: misogyny, homophobia, child protection, in particular shoul be used more often.

So often a carefully worded argument is put forward and then someone screams ‘transphobe’ and the fear of being labelled overrides everything else.

Make the position clear and get in first and loud - this is misogynistic, homophobic and presents a danger to the rights of women and children.

Everyone in power is ignoring the fact that there are other rights at stake and seem only to be reacting to the ‘transphobic’ whistle. So we need to whistle as well. Danger to children, where it is an issue, makes it clear that an unthinking support of all the demands of the transgender lobby leaves an institution in danger of doing damage to a great number of people.

Make them say that the rights of women and children are less important if that’s the position they are taking. Usually, I think, this is not a conscious position it’s just that all thinking is short circuited by fear of being labelled transphobic. So give them other labels to worry about - misogynistic, homophobic, unfair, uncaring of the rights of women and girls, dangerous to vulnerable children.

We have the advantage that we have actual rational, coherent, fact based arguments to back our whistles- but in the current climate whistles are what influence decision makers.

Yes to reducing the power of "transphobic". It has so little credibility as it's sprayed around in response to anything - questions, concerns, seeking clarification, scientific fact etc. When a Libdem officer can call those discussing the rights of child murderer Ian Huntley to be in a women's prison "transphobic bigots" you know how meaningless it is.

Has anyone noticed that the much shouted #nodebate is hardly ever used now. Why? Because the relentless linking of this with the tactics of oppression (threats and violence against women, masked men, systematic attempts to shut down meetings, silencing women) has meant they've had to stop.

We now need to ensure that the same level of scrutiny happens to children and safeguarding. There is a clear evidence trail of inappropriate behaviour towards schools that is targeting children. Examples include;
Organisations demanding single sex toilets in defiance of the law
The deliberate undermining of safeguarding principles
Misuse of suicide statistics when training staff (and likely children)
Deliberate promotion of parental alienation tactics subverting the principle of 'working in partnership' with parents
Using social media to hound schools into complying with demands.

All of the above has clear evidence trails. It's all unethical and professionally dangerous. Schools must held to account where they promote and use any of this stuff and be made aware that they will be held accountable for the damaging consequences.

Paper trails will be an important part of this. Save all your correspondence on the subject with organisations. Nobody can say they weren’t warned.

Follow up doggedly with your schools etc pressing safeguarding as something that cannot be compromised on.

I agree it needs a critical mass of public discussion. So as much publicity as possible.

Insurers - insurers need to know and understand what they are underwriting. Organisations need to know that they may be invalidating their insurance.

I’m horrified by the thought that it’s going to take a serious assault or death/s to really expose this. But looking back, all our safeguarding files and structures have arisen in this way.

This is a really important thread, OP - thank you. I remember years ago, when I had to make a complaint about behaviour at my child’s school, a teacher told me to make sure I used the word “safeguarding”.

I think that one thing that might make schools, hospitals, girl guides etc more scared than being thought transphobic is the thought that their policies might lead to a major safeguarding breach. Admittedly the example of girl guides isn’t encouraging but I think that’s the way to go. The problem at the moment is that organisations are taking advice from lobby groups that are lying to them about their obligations under the law. We need to expose that.

A starting point/ point to build on is that of woman’s concerns about self Id being reasonable.
A second (face saving) move could be to undertake impact assessments to explore how policy/practice is effecting all those with protected characteristics. This would allow them to look at gender reassignment and sex and to look to support both.
It really isn’t hard to produce a clear, coherent and ‘inclusive of all’ narrative that, whilst enraging activists, will appear balanced and thoughtful to the rest of the world!

Paper trails will be an important part of this. Save all your correspondence on the subject with organisations. Nobody can say they weren’t warned.

I have emails to a political party, a high street chain, a school and the BBC.

Somewhere to collate redacted complaints would be helpful, an online document?

They can't pretend at a later date that they didn't know when the pendulum moves.

Maybe also watch out for individuals too, the GG CEO is moving to Action for children?

Using words to draw parallels with the things that go against so-called British Values.

At the moment, the ideology spreads because it appeals to values like toleration, freedom, acceptance, integration, love thy neighbour, equality blah blah.

But there are other words.

-Extremist/gender extremism (instead of TRAs or trans lobby);
-'grooming' of parents, carers and service providers with 'project fear'

• the 'radicalisation' of students and LBG organisations into extremism
• A cavalier attitude to a Thalidomide catastrophe in waiting
• examples of persecution and intolerance of non-conformity or dissent.

And so on.

The promotion of Gender extremism is the antithesis of the values that we, as a country/school/community/public-body/organisation/individual, purport to hold.

We might have to draw pictures to make it clear.

Yes to reducing the power of "transphobic". It has so little credibility as it's sprayed around in response to anything - questions, concerns, seeking clarification, scientific fact etc.

Solve this problem and you will get more people talking.

We need to use the word a lot. Overuse it and overuse it.
It's impact will be soon jbecome diminished . People will roll their eyes when they hear it.

As it stands "transphobe" has more power than "misogynist". "Racist" has more power than "islamophobe" and the latter already gets eyes rolling, rightly or wrongly.
I think the practical suggestions so far are excellent. Bowl's suggestion to get insurers involved is an even quicker way of hitting them in the pocket than suing.
-Extremist/gender extremism (instead of TRAs or trans lobby);
-'grooming' of parents, carers and service providers with 'project fear'
- the 'radicalisation' of students and LBG organisations into extremism
- A cavalier attitude to a Thalidomide catastrophe in waiting
- examples of persecution and intolerance of non-conformity or dissent.
And these are spot on, Pam
The Thalidomide angle is a good one. Kids on life-long hormones are an NHS nightmare. Some concerns around what their children may suffer in terms of birth defects, concerns about fertility, finally leading to the conclusion that in most cases the individual ends up sterile. People don't know this. Like they don't know 80% of TW are TW by their own admission only and have not taken any hormones or had any surgery. People don't know that. That 70-90% of GNC kids grow up fine (and gay). Nobody knows these facts. That even for deeply gender dysphoric people, the suicide rate (the ultimate emotional blackmail in any argument) remains the same post-surgery. Again, people assume the surgery is a "fix" and the patient is "cured" but this couldn't be further from the truth. From my point of view, the happiest trans people are straight male autogynephiles, and most other people under the massive trans umbrella are pretty unhappy.
I think that's what enrages me the most. They aren't even happy. We've come all this way and being out and gay/lesbian is not as difficult as it was - and instead of moulding "man" or "woman" to fit themselves, dressing, acting, loving and fucking how they want, trans people* throw us all under the bus, tear up any existing notions and try to start from scratch with a whole new vocabulary.

• I do think actual transsexuals exist, and I support them wholeheartedly. Their numbers are tiny and the ones I have met are individuals who have found peace in themselves. This was in the time of heavy "gatekeeping", incidentally

I do think actual transsexuals exist, and I support them wholeheartedly. Their numbers are tiny and the ones I have met are individuals who have found peace in themselves. This was in the time of heavy "gatekeeping", incidentally

Not 'incidental' at all, really - on another thread @homefromthehills has written a very interesting post relevant to this which, if the policy makers would read and understand might help them to get (back) to a more rational position.

Yeah, it's a bit off topic so apologies, but the gatekeeping is the bit that ensures a happy outcome. Sitting an individual down, explaining that sex can't be changed, that fertility is gone, that surgery is basically irreversible, that passing is not guaranteed, that the dating pool is massively reduced, that there are other health concerns attached to the transition, counselling for the whole family, including children and spouse of adult transitioners - all that would help guarantee thay transitioning is a one-off, one-way thing. A journey with a designated destination. Numbers would be very low, as they were previously. That to me is caring. Rushing any child who is a bit different through a meat grinder is not caring. Allowing fetishistic men the same rights and space as the transsexuals described above is not caring. Trampling all over women is not caring. Allowing anything TRAs want because they've pulled the suicide emotional blackmail is not caring (it's gullibility). Gatekeeping is due diligence work.

Turph, having gone through that gaterkeeping I completely agree with what you say.

It is why I am fighting hard to retain the last semblance of assessment that exists.

In reality the gatekeeping should be extended back to how it was, not scrapped - as I suspect most TS people would tell the government. We know how it worked.

It is so obvious from this side of the fence that the shift from proper psychological assessment and a strict policy of if there is any doubt/then you are out - when it came to supporting transition or not - seems cruel but worked.

It kept numbers down to about 200 cases a year UK wide (not thousands of kids alone as we are seeing now and rising year on year - about as obvious a warning sign of sociological contagion as you can imagine).

It allowed doctors to predict with amazing accuracy how many transsexuals existed in the UK (5000) in 2004 and so how many would access a GRC today (4990 right now).

That does not happen if they do not understand what they are doing and the sudden arrival of half a million others is a further big neon sign saying social contagion. Not - oops we miscalculated a little bit.

The vast numbers of other people out there today wanting rights are not TS and are coming from some place else. Lots of some places else by the looks of it. That needs proper study not shoving under the mat and quietly getting rid of ANY study.

Many of this newly demanding multitude will be from the 90% who did not get through the gatekeeping in the past.

This was set up to judge who really HAD to transition to be able to live a productive life versus who just wanted to do it in hope it might make them feel better.

Today these seem to be regarded as interchangeable but it should be obvious they are totally different. Otherwise what was the point of having that filter process in the past. Which resulted in a 98% success rate for satisfaction post GRS - one of the best of any NHS surgical procedure in history.

Most of those turned away by the gatekeeping often had many other psychological problems going on in their lives as well as or masquerading as being trans and who also often flip flopped between wanting to transition and not. From one day to the next sometimes. Possibly what today might be called gender fluid.

It is so worrying that government seem unaware of this and do not see that in the period of strict gatekeeping with numbers limited to those who HAD to transition and excluding the ' just feel like doing it' majority this filtered out the inappropriate cases - most of whom never did transition even years later. Again a big hint that says things were working.

They were presumably not really trans enough and got married and had kids and got over it and found a way to try to be happy that was better suited to their needs.

Letting all of those who in the past thought they wanted to transition to actually transition would have been a disaster then and today is a sure fire way of doing several scary things.

Letting through many people who will make a mistake but might not be able to admit that they have or who go too far in transition and it is too late when they realise .

Instead of solving anything they will then be worse off and the looming catastrophe of thousands of kids many of whom might have no way back after blockers is where the above situation is headed. An inevitable and entirely avoidable tragedy.

It also will create a sub set of people who never see analysts but are riddled with psychological traumas they never got fixed.

They will think that 'changing sex' (which they will not have been schooled to realise is impossible by the psychological gatekeeping - but instead brainwashed into believing via 'transwomen ARE women' mantras really happens) will cure their problems when in many cases it may actually make things worse.

This will result in chaos as all of these people mix together in a conflicting mess of inappropriate treatment or non treatment as resources are withdrawn.

And women will be at the centre of these failed transitions by embittered people who realise too late that they were led to the edge of a cliff and told to jump with the promise of a fluffy mattress waiting to break their fall below and finding that all that was really there were jagged rocks.

homefromthehills, brilliant post
Letting through many people who will make a mistake but might not be able to admit that they have or who go too far in transition and it is too late when they realise
Gatekeeping almost gives those people who are stuck on a pathway they can't turn away from a way out. In terms of MTF in particular, the rush to transition early is based on younger boys passing better. There's no female equivalent, a younger girl wouldn't necessarily look more male! Testosterone does a good job of virilisation in adult women, even when it isn't wanted (baldness and clitoral enlargement in female bodybuilders for example). In the case of the boys, my personal opinion is that AGPs believe the existence of more "passing" transwomen somehow validates them. So the youth are medicalised unnecessarily.

We complain.

Complain, complain, complain, threaten to sue, boycott etc etc

Then they at least have the ability to say "we'd really like to make this place gender neutral but gosh darn it we've had so many complaints from those mean feminist that we're going to just have to compromise by providing a 3rd space for transpeople. It's not our fault, those mean feminists made us"

Not all of them will, but as long as they can pass blame onto us it gives them the option