We’re Still Here Conference 8th September: A report from the inside

[TheHarpySings]

Hi all

First off, I’m a regular poster, have been here for years under various usernames, it I’m posting here on a name change as I don’t want this traced to me.

On 8th September there was a conference held in London a Bloomsbury Baptist Church which was called We’re Still Here, which featured a variety of panels and workshops and was attended by many prominent people in the pro-GRA reform camp.

I decided to attend to find out what was being said as it was clear that they did not want anyone to attend that wasn’t a TRA or an ally.

What follows are my notes from the day. But first a few notes on attendance:

There were probably 80-100 people in attendance. Overwhelmingly white. Mainly older transwomen. A couple of transmen. Some Mermaids delegates. Some fellow travellers/ allies. And me.

Okay. So here’s my notes

1. Health Panel: Chair was Dr Ben Vincent of GIRES.

Part of the discussion on this panel was around GPs reluctance to prescribe “bridging hormones”. GPs are reluctant/afraid to prescribe them for liability reasons. Apparently a brand of T-Gel was withdrawn and GPs are reluctant to switch brands.

There was then a bit of chatter about whether a person’s sex was relevant for healthcare stats.

Then there was discussion about trans children. Dr Vincent was very scathing about GIDS-said there was disgusting and unethical practices. BV spoke about dispelling the myths about desistance and the myths of ROGD- BV called this “concern trolling, malicious and ethically bankrupt”. BV would like a review of the whole system.

Then Dr Vincent said that they’d received a review copy of “Born in your own body” edited by Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore. BV is reviewing it for some Royal College and said “I will tear it a new arsehole”

Also (and they didn't want this tweeted) BV is also planning a book called Terf Wars which will be a “rigorous takedown of terf arguments” which is getting serialised as articled in some peer reviewed journal- I’m sorry but I couldn’t catch which one.

Dr Stuart Lorimer, of the Tavistock and Portman who was also a panellist- said that ROGD is “evidence free”.

There was a great deal of discussion as to the health risks for transwomen taking certain brands of hormones- one person said they knew three other people who’d died taking them, and they’d nearly died as well.

• imitations - implications

And you really expect people to debate their rights with people who’d love nothing more to remove those rights? Send us back into the closet? Do you debate with racists? No you don’t, so why would you expect trans people to debate with those that hate us?

Finally you admit that it is your lot that does not want to debate.
Thank you.

Of course you debate with racists. It was letting the absolute buffoon that is Nick Griffin onto Question Time that ended his political ‘career’.

who’d love nothing more to remove those rights?

What rights are we attempting to remove? It’s women’s rights that are being removed here.

What rights are we attempting to remove? It’s women’s rights that are being removed here.

DARVO alert.

Only trans people with a GRC currently have the right to an altered birth certificate. The rest of us are stuck with the historical record version.

If ‘trans rights are human rights’ either we all get the ability to alter our birth records (I would love to take the asshat of a man that supposedly fathered me off of mine) or we remove the current legal falsehood entirely.

OK, oopster, so you don't want to debate. Why complain about WPUK etc not being willing to debate you then? They are willing, it's you who're not.

No wonder TRAs are always in such a bad mood, the cognitive dissonance must result in awful headaches.

And you really expect people to debate their rights with people who’d love nothing more to remove those rights? Send us back into the closet? Do you debate with racists? No you don’t, so why would you expect trans people to debate with those that hate us?

Feminist consciousness raising frightens the shit out of you, dear, doesn't it?

Seriously? Venice Allen? Have you seen her videos? She’s not interested in debate, she just likes making mocking videos, silly songs, how can you debate anything with people like that?

And you really expect people to debate their rights with people who’d love nothing more to remove those rights? Send us back into the closet? Do you debate with racists? No you don’t, so why would you expect trans people to debate with those that hate us?

Can you just stop, for one second, and think before you speak?

You can't moan that you're not being included in the debate, and then claim the debate is wrong and shouldn't be happening.

The debate is happening, whether you like it or not. If you want to participate, please do. If you don't think the debate should be happening, then you are going to have an awful lot more people disagreeing with you than just those who want to debate the GRA.

The government are consulting. They are expecting women to hold public meetings.

If you don't like that, take it up with them.

Stonewall have included cross dressing fetishists under the banner transgender. They have widened the definition to encompass almost everyone. If you don't like that, take it up with them, not the women who are pointing it out.

But please, bring some logic and coherent argument, to this thread, at the very least.

"bring some logic and coherent argument"

That might be my new username

I have been pondering ways in which sex could be written into law if gender does take over.

I think it'd involve a lot of unnecessary law and would be exceptionally comberson but entirely possible and justifiable.

Stuff like it's illegal not to declare the sex you were born when donating organic matter. Its easy to argue that its not an affront to your identity to do this, because identity is usually anonymous in research and donation of blood / organs or if its not, its because there is a valid reason not to. Plus taking part in such research is usually voluntary anyway.

I also think there's some rather clunky stuff you could do with sex offenses but it might work for the purposes that we need for data integrity and safeguarding.

It's not an approach I'm keen on by any means but it's something to keep in mind as it's possible and might just offer MPs a way out, and a chance to protect rights in general.

As I say it's less than ideal which is why I'm not going to go too much further with my thinking on it at this stage.

Women’s hearts do not survive transplantation into men’s bodies.

I find that both strangely poetic and a compelling reason for sex to remain the relevant determining factor.

*Keynote Speech: Dawn Butler MP: Shadow Women & Equalities

This speech was fucking cringe. She said she was an ally of LGBT but had got a lot of messages moaning at her for “betraying women”. “Despite the fact I AM a woman.”*

One of the observations made by a friend of mine last night was, 'in the current climate and the constant refrain of TWAW, coupled with Dawn Butlers seeming reluctance to engage in protecting women's rights, how can we be sure that this is biologically true?.

And you really expect people to debate their rights with people who’d love nothing more to remove those rights? Send us back into the closet? Do you debate with racists? No you don’t, so why would you expect trans people to debate with those that hate us?

Oopster maybe YOU can tell me: which rights do you think will be removed from you if the GRA isn't amended or is actually repealed?

You have the rights and protections granted by the EA2010 under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

Which other rights are you hoping to win or fearing to lose?

Do you debate with racists? No you don’t, so why would you expect trans people to debate with those that hate us?

When the rights of people of colour came in, there was a bloody big debate over it, which generally was called 'the civil rights movement'. In the end this persuaded the populas that rights were a good idea. Black people were forced to make the case against people who were actually lynching them.

The idea that you 'don't debate with racists' is a bit of a strawman argument for this reason.

The process of creating rights REQUIRES the approval and support of the public at large because rights form an intergal pillar of liberal democracy. Rights are the product of consensus.

TRAs are trying to bypass this 'ratification process' by the public by having 'no debate'. The fact we have a meeting which was closed to others, whereby a bunch of very influential people have essentially met to decide how they can hood wink, abuse and otherwise subvert the system to manipulate or bypass the democratic process is worrying. It demostrates a real contempt for the public and for society in general.

Personally I don’t want women’s rights campaigners to sit down and hold any debate.

For me that opportunity has long gone, the line has been crossed far to many times, I have no trust, faith or belief whatsoever in anyone that backs the self Id sold women out to many times.

WomensRights campaigners have well and truely proven themselves even whilst many turned their backs on us.

They have not used any causes to pigpack onto only to tear down, just to get ahead.

This is what women do, they stand up for the good even when it doesn’t concern them we will support.

All the bitching about who funding women’s rights, maybe TRAs should asked their spokes person where’s funding to help them as I get blocked asking that.

As seems lots of TRAs desperate for help, very sad reading really this twitter account. So where is Harrop, Stonewall, Mermaid or Pink or anyone else from this ‘community’ that apparently women hate

I find it interesting that women are berated for not allowing debate, when TRAs specifically say nodebate. When TRAs do as much as they can to stop women from even meeting to discuss the imminent change in the law. When TRAs try to intimidate women into silence. Noone seems to moan at TRAs about their nodebate stance. Yet because women specifically do not force TRAs to give their side of the argument (how would they do that?!) women are wrong for debating without TRAs, even though waiting for TRAs to actually give answers instead of just screaming bigot! give us your money and shut the fuck up, you would be waiting forever. Its just odd really.

Vixxxy - it's another demonstration of how abusive this all is.

Setting impossible to meet requirements is a classic abuser's move, to make the victim feel worthless, as nothing they do is good enough

You dont debate with racists/sexists/homophobes. Yes we do. For god's sake, this 'no debate' nonsense has got to stop. It is desperately unhelpful for both sides of the coin.

GC feminists have adopted the MLK approach of peaceful protest, democratic engagement and debate

TRAs have adopted the secretive, violent approach of the KKK

You dont debate with racists/sexists/homophobes

Question Time every Thursday?

Seriously? Venice Allen? Have you seen her videos? She’s not interested in debate, she just likes making mocking videos, silly songs, how can you debate anything with people like that?

Seriously, why don't you read what actuallay happened prior to Maria Maclaclan being assaulted at Speaker's Corner last year.

Interview in Feminist Current:
(extract)
"Julie Moss: Can you take us through what has happened over this past year with your group and the events you organized as part of “We Need to Talk”?

Venice Allan: The group started just over a year ago when I began organizing with a friend at the end of July 2017.

I was part of Momentum at the time, which is a sort of [Labour Leader] Jeremy Corbyn fan club. At the time, I didn’t think legislation allowing individuals to self-identify as the opposite sex would come to the UK, so I was shocked when I heard a speech by Corbyn in July, saying he fully supported British Prime Minister Theresa May’s intention to update the existing Gender Recognition Act. [The government was responding to the Transgender equality inquiry conducted by the Women and Equalities Committee, headed by Conservative MP Maria Miller.]

The report made 35 recommendations, including: allowing individuals to self-identify as the opposite sex, lowering the age restriction to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate to 16-years-old, making “non-binary” a legal category, and for “misgendering” to be categorized as discrimination.

He will just change his mind, I thought. He doesn’t understand, I thought.

So I posted an article from Fair Play for Women in a popular Jeremy Corbyn Facebook group, saying: “I’m a bit concerned. How can we stop predatory men from abusing the system?”

I still believed in “true trans” [the notion that some individuals truly are “born in the wrong body,” whereas some men might be simply “faking” being transgender, in order to access women’s spaces] at this point — the transsexual who isn’t a threat to women. In a couple of hours after posting this, I got 700 replies. People called me a bitch and a cunt. At that point I would never have expected that sort of language.

A friend and I organized a local Momentum meeting to talk about it. I booked the local library under the Momentum name but then Momentum refused to have anything to do with it. I was so naïve.

So we went ahead and did it ourselves. I wrote to about 20 trans activists, asking them to speak at the meeting. Eventually, two people from Stonewall agreed to come. Feminist and academic, Dr. Julia Long, and Miranda Yardley, a transsexual who is gender critical, were to argue against changes to the GRA, and the two people from Stonewall were to argue in favour. The emails I received from Stonewall said that they were really excited about the project.

The event was scheduled to take place on Wednesday, September 13th. The two Stonewall speakers pulled out on Sunday, three days before the talk was due, but we decided to go ahead with Julia and Miranda anyway. Goldsmiths’ University and LGBT Lewisham found out what the venue was on Tuesday and called us; we agreed to meet them on that day to resolve any issues. The issues could not be resolved so they phoned up the library, protesting, and at 9pm that evening the library contacted us to say they had undertaken a risk assessment and were cancelling.

We had not even one day’s notice. Luckily, a woman in one of my Facebook groups offered us a replacement venue at the University Women’s Club in Audley Square. We didn’t want the Club to get the same kind of harassment as the library, so we decided not to announce the venue and meet up beforehand. We saw Speaker’s Corner was nearby and we wanted to break into mainstream media and give a good story to journalists — Speaker’s Corner is symbolic. So we announced attendees would meet there and then go on to the venue.

Then you know what happened… The violence at Speaker’s Corner. I’m really frustrated by the way those events were reported in the press — that we were a group of radical feminists protesting against rights for transgendered people and that it was “a brawl” and a punch-up between two groups. We weren’t protesting, we were just meeting to have a talk. Trans activists showed up to protest. We put the address of the venue on little cards which we secretly handed out, but the trans activists assigned us minders to follow us and find out where we were going." (continues)

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/09/24/interview-irrepressible-venice-allan-fight-changes-uk-gender-recognition-act/

perhas your indignation might be better directed elsewhere?

There's so many different names and faces on both side of this trans agenda, that I didn't actually know Venice Allen or what they looked like. So i went and did an image search for Venice and nearly came out of my skin!

If this isn't the same person who is also know as Morgane Oger, a high profile Canadian transwoman, currently pushing the trans agenda in schools.....I'll eat my GC hat. Compare the pics, they even have the same hair parting and glasses.

Venice is Morgane Oger?

You better get eating then. For a start, Venice is a rather petite woman and Ogre is a great hulking male.

They both do wear glasses though, but I think it's you who needs them