Susie Green on Radio Kent any minute now

[WeWantJustice]

She's going to talk crap.

If anyone has time to phone in and contradict her, please do.

Sophie Cook was on repeating the same discredited suicide statistics earlier on.

0800 756 1111.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005s1qh/broadcasts/upcoming

Thank you

I listened to this. Mostly it was about people being comfortable to come out as it was no longer a stigma. Like being gay.

A question as to why it was mostly young girls, and would older people come out and even up the stats was totally side-stepped and left.

However, Stephanie Arai Davies came on at about ten to nine and did a really good bit as to why girls are affected, how much is not known about this, the onslaught of information in schools, etc.

She also explained really well as to why being transgender is not the same as being gay .

She explained guidance being given that prevents parents being involved in schools decisions to treat a child as transgender.

She got a lot in and is well worth listening to. I am afraid they put her on too late after the other two speakers though. They did cover the Guardian story of girls being increasingly unhappy during the paper review. This helps join the dots.

Classic BBC balance there. Complain.

BBC are doing this more now that they're getting complaints - technically offering an opposing voice but on the back page and pushed for time. They aren't allowed, under their own fairness and impartiality policies. We can still complain.

Basically Sophie Hook kept going on about it being a' 'life threatening condition' and continuously talked about suicide. Two aspects about this:

If it is a life threatening condition leading to suicide then why haven't the statistics in the past shown this to be true.

I wasn't sure what sex Sophie was talking about. Young girls was often mentioned. Young girls as in girls or as in trans girls - boys who want to be girls? Or young girls as in trans boys - girls who want to be boys?

Sophie was unclear and frankly whipping up hysteria.

Susie Green also mentioned Section 28, in disguise. She also mentioned 'celebrities', got to get those celebrities in! Mention of international guidelines and international studies with no plausible link to the current trend. Only 1% of the population was also mentioned (why this added gravitas to the argument was not evident). Parents were to blame ultimately because they may well say 'No way!' It was clear that Susie doesn't have a gay child.

Stephanie A Davis was the last to speak and clearly stated it was not the same as Section 28 or the gay community. Also mentioned the most important point that adult trans people are seeking self id whilst at the same time promoting conflicting and contradictory advice for children to go on medication such as puberty blockers.

In all it really was nothing anyone on these boards hasn't heard before. Stephanie was the voice of reason though.

The female presenter really woke up (not in the "woke" sense, actually the opposite) when Davies-Arai said about children being trans at school but this information being withheld from the parents. However, if I recall correctly, it wasn't made clear whether there were instances of this that could be provided as examples or whether this was what schools were being instructed to do by the Mermaids etc sponsored guidance. I think this part of the argument is useful but needs tightening up.

Mermaids have a history of getting the police involved though. So probably a wise move on Stephanie Davies-Arai's part. (apologies for the misspelling of her surname in last post)

Stephanie pointing out that we are putting these girls onto a medical pathway, and so it's not like being gay at all, was very well made.

I think that will have opened a few eyes.

Good work Stephanie!

Mmm. I missed this, but I'll see if I can listen again.

I'm in Kent, and this seems to have largely passed my children's schools by, so far. My DS2's school had a diversity day last year - but for an older age group than him, so I'm not sure what it involved.

I don't really want Mermaids & co getting a foothold here, as they have in W Yorks, Brighton etc. From what I've heard, it's all about the 'T' and ignores the LGB. I don't want that Foxy Owly book anywhere near my children.

I couldn't believe what Anna, the presenter said. Something about having a trans next door neighbour, hey, it's normal.

Normal.

To have gender dysphoria major surgery and be on lifelong medication.

Now I now we've abandoned the definition of the word woman, though I'm not sure what we've abandoned it for - no-one has yet managed to re-define it without a circular definition or a list of sexist stereotypes that obviously don't define women - but have we also abandoned the meaning of the word normal in the Brave New World in which we now find ourselves?

What does normal mean now? It used to mean what the majority did, how the majority was.

By no stretch of the imagination can being trans, be described as normal. If there comes a time when 51% of the population identify as trans, then it could reasonably be declared normal. But now?

WTF did she mean? Can anyone shed any light? Was she just mindlessly virtue-signalling, or is there some meaning there that I'm missing?