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.

Aaand back to the original question, which I do not consider a 'worrying premise'.

I was referring to the 'madness' with which many organisations have been swept along in either making, or thinking about making, operational policy that erodes the boundaries that have been long-established to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of females, rather than considering trans as a separate issue.

It's happening practically:

• eg: Swim England's policy, Girl Guides, Top Shop, YHA, Labour's 'all-women' shortlists, NHS websites with incorrect information about the outcomes of transition(too many more to list here)

Theoretically
-eg Penny Mordaunt's starting point of 'transwomen are women'

• eg Maria Miller listening only to a limited pool of advice that included not only someone who headed up a questionable organisation (Action for Trans Health) but also who, if the latest news true, is likely to be questionable in their motives for eroding sex-based boundaries.

And no, screenshotting lurkers, me questioning the motives of a person campaigning for transrights, centred in informing government, who may also enjoy posting about exposing their penis in public areas, their support for school-aged fantasies, and images of a child cartoon character being raped does, does not mean I'm a little buttoned-up and don't appreciate nudity like the Swedes. And neither does it mean I think all people who identify as trans are like this person.

It means exactly as I started this thread off.

Sex-based spaces were created for a reason.

History suggests people with alterior motives will align themselves to agendas that will help them achieve their goals.

In the rush to avoid 'transphobia', organisations seem to have forgotten the established, learned by experience, need to protect women and children, separately from trans needs.

Are they going to be able to roll back from making even more decisions that do this?

are there any comparable instances where organisations have made fundamental changes to their approach without some sort of serious event to precipitate it?

It always seems to take something like Victoria Climbie, Saville, the Rochdale scandal before big changes are made.

I'm concerned about how they can roll back without swinging wildly to the other extreme.
The individuals making the decisions don't seem to be able to step back and take an overall view. They don't seem to be aware of the various groups that these decisions will affect, and they don't seem able to see potential consequences.

By now responsible people can see the unintended consequences of poorly written law in both the GRA and the EA.
It is my hope that the first thing they will do is get the groomers under the guise of training out of the schools.
Secondly get the fraudulent Equality Act policy documents replaced with accurate lists of protected categories.
Thirdly put an end to facilitating fraud by ending deed poll name and sex changes on official identification papers.

We're not going to take anything seriously from Everyday Feminism because it's a laughable website. We all know what gaslighting is thanks.

UpstartCrow, that has been a significant concern of quite a few people who can see how inept these people in positions of authority are. They see no real issue with ignoring women's vocal concerns, I don't think it should be assumed they will switch from that to a balanced and sensible position instead of just knee jerking elsewhere.

This topic is not about your choice of conversation, therefore to attempt to steamroller it into your design, and then use screenshots of it to prove that the women here don't fall into line and argue with a derailment will probably fly with the credulous, but the readers of FWR, lurkers and posters alike, can see exactly what your game is.

This.

By now responsible people can see the unintended consequences of poorly written law in both the GRA and the EA.

This is something that’s struck me since I first saw the GRA - it’s badly written. I’ll admit I only ever looked at it from the science POV at the time but even then I thought ‘well that’s daft...’

It makes me wonder about the whole process. I’d assumed that if you make new law it gets rigorously reviewed by actual law experts to see if it sets up / could potentially cause conflicts anywhere within the existing body of law. (I’d also assumed things would be critiqued by subject matter experts as well but I’m well aware no one listens to scientists..)

Does this happen? Does stuff that is proposed get reviewed before it goes on the books? Or am I just really naive here (genuine question, Ok to say yes, aware I’m a scientist not a lawyer!)

The individuals making the decisions don't seem to be able to step back and take an overall view. They don't seem to be aware of the various groups that these decisions will affect, and they don't seem able to see potential consequences.

Very true.

I’d assumed that if you make new law it gets rigorously reviewed by actual law experts to see if it sets up / could potentially cause conflicts anywhere within the existing body of law

Unfortunately the bunch of self serving amateurs in Parliament are the "experts".

I’d assumed that if you make new law it gets rigorously reviewed by actual law experts to see if it sets up / could potentially cause conflicts anywhere within the existing body of law.

Me too.
I also used to think that to be a politician you had to have a background in politics and law! Imagine how stupid I feel.

This has been a reallly thought-provoking thread. I’ve nicked some of it to post on Twitter: here.

It always seems to take something like Victoria Climbie, Saville, the Rochdale scandal before big changes are made.

Every single safeguarding procedure we have has been instituted in the wake of a scandal and to the shame of negligent institutions and authorities. This is why the rolling back of any of them is such a serious matter.

Every single safeguarding procedure we have has been instituted in the wake of a scandal and to the shame of negligent institutions and authorities. This is why the rolling back of any of them is such a serious matter

yes. I haven't really thought about it properly before, but some of those safeguarding practices were literally bought with blood.

people who want to roll them back want to erase the legacy of things like Victoria Climbie's murder.

If you're campaigning for the relaxation of safeguarding proceedures, or going along with it, look at the picture of the beautiful eight year old girl in that wikipedia link and then have a really good think about what you're choosing to do with your life.

some of those safeguarding practices were literally bought with blood

They all were bought with blood and suffering. The current DBS procedures were instituted after the Soham murders.

Whenever someone trans appears on a thread to educate us poor silly wimmins, my reaction is pretty much identical to Angela Merkel here...

The current DBS procedures were instituted after the Soham murders.

YY. It's worth bearing that in mind I think.

Me too, BeUpStanding, me too.

This might be a useful article from Canada. It's by a man who is an atheist setting out his reasons why no one should be compelled to believe transgender ideology. www.newcenter.ca/news/oger-ndp

Every single safeguarding procedure we have has been instituted in the wake of a scandal and to the shame of negligent institutions and authorities. This is why the rolling back of any of them is such a serious matter.

There are times I wish there was a like button here. This is one.

I wish I could say I'm optimistic for the UK, but I'm not. It's coming. There is no reason to believe you won't follow in the footsteps of the US and Canada and trash all safeguarding and gatekeeping on this issue.

Here's where I'm at: In the state where I live and practice, access to spaces, facilities, and services is fully based on one's personal gender identity, effectively "self-ID." A conversion therapy bill was passed that mandates the only approach for gender dysphoria is for providers and therapists to affirm stated gender identity. No watchful waiting. And, adolescents over the age of 14 are legally allowed to make their own decisions (with complete confidentiality) regarding mental health, sexuality, or substance use/abuse.

Enter Planned Parenthood and private, for-profit gender clinics. Popping up everywhere and promising a no-questions-asked treatment approach. (Check out this ad that popped up on my browser last month.) It's just that simple--call, make an appointment, start cross-sex hormone therapy.

Yes, this will end badly. Many lives will be devastated, families torn apart, and some may never recover. Women will lose hard-fought protections, spaces, scholarships, and our collective voice. Children and women will be victimized, their lives forever altered as well. Transsexuals who, for years, have just wanted to live and coexist under the radar will also find themselves on the losing end once a cultural backlash begins. Heartbreaking.

Until this train crashes, though, I don't think it stops.

There is no public discourse. We have no Women's Place or We Need to Talk. We have...silence. To speak out is to potentially destroy a reputation, lose a job, even face threats of physical harm. I can't risk it. At least not now. I do what I can with relationships and conversations, and it's clear that every day, more people are starting to wake up, but we all feel equally powerless.

I used to think that abortion or the environment or nuclear proliferation might be the issue of our time. Now, I suspect the redefinition of our very biology may just be the defining note in history about us.

Gender affirming hormone care

Great article Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g.

Perhaps we should start using the word ‘Femphobe’. I.e fear of real women.

I like this idea.
From now on, people, especially men, who try to silence women and won't listen to our very valid fears and concerns will be known as

Femphobic

Has quite a ring to it.

GeorgeFayne,
that is truly shocking!

^In the state where I live and practice, access to spaces, facilities, and services is fully based on one's personal gender identity, effectively "self-ID." A conversion therapy bill was passed that mandates the only approach for gender dysphoria is for providers and therapists to affirm stated gender identity. No watchful waiting. And, adolescents over the age of 14 are legally allowed to make their own decisions (with complete confidentiality) regarding mental health, sexuality, or substance use/abuse.

Enter Planned Parenthood and private, for-profit gender clinics. Popping up everywhere and promising a no-questions-asked treatment approach. (Check out this ad that popped up on my browser last month.) It's just that simple--call, make an appointment, start cross-sex hormone therapy.

Like you say, it's the major issue of our time and the main casualties are the children.

Yes, this will end badly. Many lives will be devastated, families torn apart, and some may never recover. Women will lose hard-fought protections, spaces, scholarships, and our collective voice. Children and women will be victimized, their lives forever altered as well. Transsexuals who, for years, have just wanted to live and coexist under the radar will also find themselves on the losing end once a cultural backlash begins. Heartbreaking.
Until this train crashes, though, I don't think it stops.

There is no public discourse. We have no Women's Place or We Need to Talk. We have...silence. To speak out is to potentially destroy a reputation, lose a job, even face threats of physical harm. I can't risk it. At least not now. I do what I can with relationships and conversations, and it's clear that every day, more people are starting to wake up, but we all feel equally powerless.

I used to think that abortion or the environment or nuclear proliferation might be the issue of our time. Now, I suspect the redefinition of our very biology may just be the defining note in history about us.