Who is the driving force behind the Trans agenda?

[StandingOvulation]

Long time lurker becoming braver in FC.

I'd like to know where all the money and power is coming from driving this juggernaut. I've read through many many threads, but not really worked it out.

Also I also would like to know how the change from transsexual (always thought were very few men, very benign) to the transgender tour de force of today.

Obviously I know the ultimate aim of the TRA - obliteration of woman.

Please be basic with me, I'm nowhere near as well read as the intellectuals I see in here.

Tia

I'd imagine it's difficult to get an accurate number deepwater.

I think I read somewhere else that it was 10% of men who were cross dressers - that seemed high to me, but is 3% any more likely I dunno.

I'm not Statto unfortunately...(niche 90s reference there)

The Beaumont Society:

"Originally founded in 1966, the society originally started as a UK Chapter of the secret American organisation “Full Personality Expression” (FPE). In 2010 The Beaumont Society became a registered charity. (No. 1135548). "

"We are the largest and longest established transgender support group in the UK, and have developed a support network which has been at the forefront of the transgender, transvestite, transsexual and cross-dressing community since 1966!

We believe that transgendered people have the right to dignity. The internet often displays transgendered people as sexual objects – the Beaumont Society aims to dispel this myth and is not available for sexual liaisons !"

www.beaumontsociety.org.uk/

Re FPE
Wiki extract:
"In 1960 Virginia Prince began another publication, also called Transvestia, that discussed transgender concerns. In 1962, she founded the Hose and Heels Club for cross-dressers, which soon changed its name to Phi Pi Epsilon, a name designed to evoke Greek-letter sororities and to play on the initials FPE, the acronym for Prince's philosophy of "Full Personality Expression". Prince believed that the binary gender system harmed both men and women by keeping them from their full human potential, and she considered cross-dressing to be one means of fixing this"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_transgender_people_in_the_United_States

I read recently that a large proportion (the majority?) of familial child sex abuse was opportunistic. I'll see if I can find a link.
It suggests higher numbers of men might be persuaded to be paedophiles if the opportunity to offend presented itself.
Not conflating paedophilia with homosexuality - but again previous studies were around the 1% mark for the number of gay males but in actuality the percentage is higher. AIDS campaigners and healthcare organisations coined the coy title "MSM" (men who have sex with men) for males who didn't identify as gay but who have sex (often risky, very often casual and anonymous) with other men. So the percentage of men who would have sex with other men is higher than the self reported percentages for gay and bi men combined.
Even with Tinder on the scene and the prevalence of hookup culture men shagging men are far ahead of women (and straight men). Men who have AGP can find a genuine sexual fanclub on hookup sites, they can have sexual liaisons with other men who seem excited by their "female" selves (but who might just want another warm human nearby to suck/wank off/fuck etc.,) Perhaps the female attire etc gives a man mental permission to do gay things? Several cultures see gay men as inferior because they are assumed to be receptive in sex, perhaps "tops" and "trans chasers" can reconcile their straight life with their illicit sex life more easily. Likewise perhaps the physical disguise allows the AGP to let go and enjoy sexual freedom, compartmentalising the sexual attraction as being part of the persona of the new trans identity. I'm met many many AGPs who refer to their female persona as.if it was a different person, going to far as to reintroduce themselves to people they already know.
Female sexuality is so totally different to the male in terms of anonymous sex that women are conspicuous by their absence on pure hookup sites (when Ashley Madison was exposed the number of fake female profiles outnumbered the real ones by about 9:1). So these men take solace in each other, like in prisons. The main thing that has changed is that it's easier to find each other (internet) and hate crime laws are in place so they are less likely to be subject to (ironically) gay bashing.
The vast majority of these men aren't homosexual, and given the opportunity to live out their paraphilia full time AND still express desire for women they will claim to be lesbians.
Blanchard split the trans women into two: homosexual transsexuals and AGPs. The HSTS men have been outnumbered by the AGP men who have no interest in being medicalised. I'm guessing the teenage girls in binders are largely female HSTS.
I think the increase in transgenderism is due to availability and lack of censure. Men used porn back when it had to be asked for under the counter. They use vastly more now, and major porn site have billions of users daily. Has the visual response been overstimulated in men? No, but endless variety of free stimuli are now available. Are more men actually gay? No, but gay sex is only a click away and women will generally not have sex with a stranger at the drop of a hat (for many reasons not least personal safety!) Are more men trans? I don't think so - what would prove it is if the overall numbers of HSTS remained constant whilst the number of AGPs increased.

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'.

See, I thought men had nipples so they could be played with...

(Consistently lowering the tone, that's me!)

Seriously though, can we admit that there's a significant correlation between having genderfeels and mental illness now? Because if that's the case it's relevant to every single thing that we're discussing in terms of access to single sex spaces, legal changes, language, etc.

Mental illness should not be treated by forcing society as a whole to adopt the viewpoint of the person who's suffering from it.

I think there are several strands which have combined. I think a lot of these are opportunistic rather than the prime drive. I’m still not entirely sure what I think has started and is pushing this, or even if it’s a single cause, or of it’s simply a meetingnod several strands of weird shit that’s happening to our culture

MRA and alt right - both these are, as mentioned above, pushing back against the perceived loss of power of white men. Alt right attack on race lines and MRAs and TRAs on sex and gender lines.

Societal control - as the world becomes more educated, more secular you need something else to control people. I think governments have realised that you don't need to send the jackboots in if you just keep people docile via debt, TV, internet and just enough physical comfort. So consumer goods are cheap. Crap food and booze is cheap. Numb yourself with that and don’t think too much about the loss of worker rights, or how expensive land is, or how a few percent of the population are asset stripping and benefitting from your existence.

Where it starts to get into tinfoil territory is when you start thinking about what’s being done and who might benefit from it. If it was simply a matter of free expression and openness, then we’d be seeing a push to remove gender stereotypes, protect everyone and allow free expression. And indeed there are plenty of transpeople who are in this vein (i can’t remember who on the other thread but she was talking about pronouns and how she didn’t want to be making other people afraid.)
But this is not what we are seeing. We are seeing an almost totalitarian push to control thought and language. To demonise those who speak facts. To make people deny biological reality. To strip away women’s rights. To demedicalise adults while medicalising children as young as possible. To confuse people’s view of sexuality (this is a deeply homophobic ideology.) to control the narrative in children by targeting schools. To erase gay children. To place trans children outside of safeguarding. To strip away safeguarding.

Basically it's that Overton window. How far can this be pushed? How much will people take before they revolt? How can you control a population by language and fear? What is truly beyond the pale and can we change that?

I’m a scientist and a cynic, and it worries me that I dont find some of the opinions above tinfoil Hatty at all. I truly think something very, very unpleasant is happening. I do t think we can quite see it yet, but when it’s locked its grip on us we will. And we may have lost the will, the language and the laws to fight it.

I can well believe that whereas not so long ago fetishes and kinks were kept under wraps, now that porn is regarded as relatively mainstream, it is being seen as a green light for many to bring their philias out into the public sphere.

If Bunce can get away with taking his fetish to work and be feted in the city for doing so, what's to stop all the others? That's certainly what it feels like.

Hello, middle-aged man here. First posting and god I really hope this is not a prime example of mansplaining...I have started to learn about the TRA and GRA etc via Glinner. I have finally understood the difference between gender and sex and genuinely now see patriarchy where I formerly only saw normality. I have started contributing to WPUK and I am still trying to take it in and reconcile with my previous direct experience over the past 40 years of having a small number of post-op male and female trans friends.

I just wanted to say I am seeing a lot of brave women and some men being pummelled for the temerity of putting forward their arguments about the danger of self-ID and I see the misogyny of supposed equality organisations.

I know many here probably feel the Left has completely abandoned them but when I see people approvingly quoting articles by members of the hard right I worry. Those people will throw feminism under the bus as soon as they think it's served it purpose in this particular battle. For instance The Federalist website (linked to by an earlier posting) is basically a milder version of Breitbart. Look at the front page and you will see a slew of articles defending Brett Kavanaugh, applauding Trump, decrying the legalisation of abortion in Ireland etc, etc.

My enemy's enemy is not my friend.

The Federalist website (linked to by an earlier posting) is basically a milder version of Breitbart.

The article was by Jennifer Bilek, who is not a member of the alt right. Do you consider it somehow contaminated by association, or what's your point?

I wonder do men* need some sort of taboo element in sex. It seems they are always pushing the boundaries. Is transgression necessary for them?
*usual disclaimers apply.

The article itself was interesting but look at the vast majority of articles on the website.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

I get a train into Central London for work on a regular basis and am often outnumbered by men in a particular area or carriage.

It is mostly polite, besuited chaps who are reading their phones or listening to music on headphones. But every so often there is a man, often an older man, who seems to resent my presence - baleful glances. They resent me taking up a seat, being there in rush hour, working...something?

I think a lot of it is to do with women gaining ground and some men resenting that.

Sorry, I changed my user name immediately after my first posting, so this is not sock-puppetry.

If you're concerned that women are referring to too many articles from suspect publications then work on getting those publications that you do consider legit to cover this issue, rather than telling women not to refer to the little media coverage that currently exists.

Bowl I thnk that's a good point about porn. As I've mentioned before, I'm keen on fanfic. There's a kind of slogan on there (bit like TWAW) which goes "your kink is not my kink and that's okay." I've always been very dubious about that - some kinks are clearly NOT okay. I've been interested to watch a good friend of mine go from my position to a totally "anything goes" position, largely driven (she's American) by her reaction to Trump: if the people she sees lining up against extreme porn are right wing, then anything goes must be the correct position for a liberal to defend (even if she herself does not like extreme porn). (Kind of an inverse of 3mmy's point above).

It's taken me right back to an debate I had with my mum back in the past about drug decriminalization. I was a liberal who thought decrim would pull the rug out from under organised crime, and in any case what adults put into their own bodies was their business. My mum said "you're coming at this from a backdrop of being a university teacher whose nice middle class students dabble in drugs but could give them up as soon as a better offer came along; I'm coming at it from a backdrop of being a school teacher in sink inner city schools, where my kids have nothing in their lives, and once they're on drugs, there's nothing to pull them back from the brink."

I suspect that this tension - between on the one hand liberalism adopted from the best of motives, but a liberalism which ignores the role poverty and inequality play in constraining choice, and and on the other hand a moral framework which tries to inject moral judgement into debates about porn, sex, the drugs trade, but a moral framework which can all too easily be hijacked by the far right - this tension is a kind of smokescreen. It's a false dichotomy being pushed to distract us while we're all being played. But played by whom, and to what end?

Anyway, rambling a bit. But I think you're right. Not sure it's even an explicit conspiracy - just that sometimes there's a sort of zeitgeist which goes one way - towards rationality; or the other way - towards irrationalism and the darker side of human nature. The Enlightement spends a century pushing us in the right direction/ the Inquisition/Salem witch trials/McCarthyite paranoia spend decades or centuries pushing us in the opposite direction. I think we're entering one of these periodic historical eras of unreason.

My enemy's enemy is not my friend.

That is true. I don’t doubt for a second that the extreme right is anti feminist. As is the extreme left.

The right think women are private property and the left think they are public property.

We know that and we know that virtually NO party, movement or news outlet has women’s interests at heart. We are not aligning with any specific news outlet due to one article. Sometimes a good article is published in a surprising place. We don’t need to divide everyone into goodies and baddies and not listen to anything the baddies say. Women have, for millennia, been aware that no bugger has our back and that the entire political spectrum, left to right, wants us on our backs or in the kitchen. We don’t trust any of them.

Glad to have you on board!

Russia

sometimes there's a sort of zeitgeist which goes one way - towards rationality; or the other way - towards irrationalism and the darker side of human nature. The Enlightement spends a century pushing us in the right direction/ the Inquisition/Salem witch trials/McCarthyite paranoia spend decades or centuries pushing us in the opposite direction. I think we're entering one of these periodic historical eras of unreason.

Yes. I agree - maybe there isn’t a single driving force it’s ‘just’ a series of threads. Identity politics, white male backlash, austerity, environmental degradation, porn (oh god, porn.,, I mean where do we even start with how utterly awful modern porn is?)
Historically what brings people together again is an external threat big enough to threaten existence. So unless Aliens, the andromeda strain or a nice war pitch up, I think we’re a bit doomed. We are currently living in peaceful times on a global/historical perspective. Perhaps humans aren’t civilised enough to appreciate that. The last big social improvement was post war. That’s been fairly swiftly contained and is starting to be reversed.

I sound like such a conspiracy theorist tonight! 🤦🏻‍♀️

This is interesting on the sort of money associated with dissemination of puberty blockers, especially if you could persuade insurers or socialised healthcare systems to fund them.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/136/6/1029.full.pdf

(Not my subject so can't speak for its accuracy)

My mum said "you're coming at this from a backdrop of being a university teacher whose nice middle class students dabble in drugs but could give them up as soon as a better offer came along; I'm coming at it from a backdrop of being a school teacher in sink inner city schools, where my kids have nothing in their lives, and once they're on drugs, there's nothing to pull them back from the brink."
And it relies on the entire worldwide supply chain agreeing to legalise drugs, so countries destroyed and destabilised by drug cartels legitimise the kingpins (oligarchs, anyone) and permanently destroy the social fabric and political life of those countries - to satisfy rich western liberals. Look at drug and people trafficking offences in Holland - still high. Look at the state of Mexico - complete lawlessness in huge swathes, almost a failed state.

a liberalism which ignores the role poverty and inequality play in constraining choice, and and on the other hand a moral framework which tries to inject moral judgement into debates about porn, sex, the drugs trade, but a moral framework which can all too easily be hijacked by the far right
Are you arguing against having a moral framework because it could be hijacked by the far right? Surely moral relativism is the crux of the issue?

Professor Michael Biggs' article (Oxford Sociology):
'The Open Society Foundations & the transgender movement'
(extract)
"The transgender movement has transformed cultural norms and social institutions at breathtaking speed. Most of us, becoming acquainted with the trans issue for the first time, are astonished to discover the extent of the gender revolution. The movement has accomplished in a few years what the movements for women’s and for gay and lesbian rights took many decades to achieve.

Part of the explanation is the amount of money behind transgenderism. The Gender Industrial Complex, as we may call it, has many components. Lucrative sponsorship comes from pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. Charities originally established to fight for homosexual rights (like Human Rights Campaign in the United States and Stonewall in Britain) wield large budgets. Last but not least, three American billionaires have bankrolled the transgender movement on a global scale: Jennifer Pritzker, whose activities were detailed in another blogpost, Jon Stryker, and George Soros.

This blogpost focuses on the Open Society Foundations (OSF), funded by Soros. This is not easy to discuss because he is vilified by right-wingers, whose criticism sometimes degenerates into anti-semitism (Williamson 2018). Therefore those of us who are liberal or progressive tend to react instinctively by dismissing any scrutiny of Soros out of hand. This is unjustified, as I will show by providing some facts about how OSF has funded the transgender movement..."(continues)

4thwavenow.com/2018/05/25/the-open-society-foundations-the-transgender-movement/

Michael Briggs has also written about free speech:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3257819-Michael-Biggs-Sociology-Dept-Oxford-Free-speech-at-Oxford-Do-women-have-the-right-to-meet-to-discuss-legislation

Turph - interesting points.

And it relies on the entire worldwide supply chain agreeing to legalise drugs, so countries destroyed and destabilised by drug cartels legitimise the kingpins (oligarchs, anyone) and permanently destroy the social fabric and political life of those countries - to satisfy rich western liberals. Yes, precisely. I had a fascinating conversation with a Keynsian economist once (yes, there are a few still out there in the wild) saying "well, of course Reagan and Thatcher didn't actually turn the US and UK into free market economies - they paid lip-service to libertarian free market economics while actually retaining a huge number of rules governing proper behaviour within the marketplace. But they did unleash a huge libertarian experiment - on Russia, post collapse of the USSR. And it turns out that unfettered libertarianism just leaves organised crime free to do whatever the fuck it wants."

Are you arguing against having a moral framework because it could be hijacked by the far right? Surely moral relativism is the crux of the issue? No (though I may have expressed myself badly). It is a good thing to have a moral framework, and moral relativism leads to an absolute shit storm. But the problem with pushing moral absolutes is that they can create a climate which can be hijacked by the far right. In the same way, liberalism has many strengths - its focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, free speech, leaving people alone to get on with their lives in peace and quiet. But it too can be hijacked by brain-dead wokies (the "so open minded their brains have fallen out" brigade) creating a climate which can be hijacked by, well, for want of a better word, anarchists. But not anarchists in the political philosophy sense, anarchists in the "smash everything up for the hell of it" sense.

On the neo-liberal experiment in Russia and Putin...

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/01/bill-browder-interview-i-found-way-take-on-putin-hes-really-sore

Guardian article on Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, organised crime in Russia, and why the Russian kleptocracy relies on being able to spend its cash abroad (hence why the Magnitsky Act hurts so badly).

But yes, the stuff Michael Briggs writes about is also important.

I've thought for a while that Steve Bannon is linked in to this. The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower talked about how he had conversations with Bannon about intersectional feminism.

I did a quick Google search and this Reddit post sums it up pretty well:
www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/85vlpg/cambridge_analytica_steve_bannon_and_liberal/