Stella O'Malley, Trans Kids: It's Time To Talk

[drum123]

Apologies if there is already a thread about this. Channel 4, 10.00 tonight. 'Stella O'Malley considers the huge rise in numbers of young people embarking on gender transition, through the prism of the gender identity issues she experienced when she was a child.' According to The Times no TRA groups were prepared to contribute to this . Stella feels this may be because she was a tomboy as a young girl, (even insisting she was a boy until she hit puberty), and is now a confident, mature woman who believes that nowadays she would be pressured to go down the transition route. Sounds like it will be worth watching.

A question was asked earlier about why the TS against Self ID crew were not getting in touch with MPs, etc. I feel sure many of us are. I have been in touch with David Davis's office twice, before the recent debate. Not the only one, I'm sure.

And there is a group of like minded people, of whom I am one, who have blogged against all this. But we are a small number, we "post op/ legally transitioned/ been there, done it"group.

I think that " progressive " people like to be seen as progressive, without necessarily understanding the issues all that much. I have found that tolerant, broad minded, well educated people tend to assume that us raddled old-style transsexual people will be all for it. Till now, perhaps.

It came as a surprise to such as my Labour Women's Group that we are saying " hold hard a minute, not happy, lets think this through".

We are just not having all this, basically.

Not sure either of them are particularly influential out there presently but I certainly got the impression from what Stephen Whittle posted when he was on here earlier this year that we would disagree over self ID. I hope respectfully.

Lass you might be interested in watching this CBBC program which features Stephen Whittle. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

It was screened in 2014 and this version has had 66,998 views

'"I Am Leo"

A question was asked earlier about why the TS against Self ID crew were not getting in touch with MPs, etc. I feel sure many of us are. I have been in touch with David Davis's office twice, before the recent debate. Not the only one, I'm sure.

David Davies seems unique amongst MPs of having not only a clear understanding of both the dangers to safeguarding and women's rights and actively raising the issues.

The other MPs who have been unto now briefed and persuaded by TRA individuals and organisations and spoke at the debate would be the ones I would suggest 'T S against self id crew' contact as well as local MPs.

There seems more to be gained there, especially those MPs who are reluctant and resistant to listen to women who are not trans.

ROwantrees;
I've done a fair bit of that. Results are there none. :-)

There's increasing amounts to raise with MPs though, not least the points raised by Stella O'Malley's program, the articles in the Mail on Sunday by the teacher who has whistleblown and Bob Withers (psychotherapist)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3426753-Tomorrows-Mail-on-Sunday-Front-Page
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6402003/Well-look-rush-change-childrens-sex-one-darkest-chapters-medicine.html

Lisa Muggeridge for example described a positive meeting with MP this week.

Re Stephen Whittle's perspective on those in the transgender community who oppose self id, he responded to the group of transsexuals who wrote a letter in the Guardian critical of the process:
May 2018
whittlings.blogspot.co.uk

(extract)
"Why on earth then would the Guardian choose to publish a reactionary and inflammatory letter, under this heading, when in fact the letter's authors want to take away core human rights that the trans community won in 2002 at the European Court of Human Rights.
The proposal suggested in the letter, which was written by a a tiny group of 'transsexual' women (their word, not mine) who support an even tinier minority of feminist women, would roll back key elements of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. "

link to the letter:
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights

S.W is a sharp chap, and I can't see why he characterises our objections as he does. because what he says of our intentions is not true, as I understand it. Could it be that he misunderstands our objections, and assumes that we are coming from somewhere less well informed and more reactionary than is the case?

This happened back in May Kay one would hope that this had been discussed with him or within the transgender community by now.

There was a lot of discussion about the letter and the response here at the time.

And.. ( meant to add this, and didn't) his criticism of our use of the term "transsexual" may be telling. The term " transsexual " is becoming MORE used, not less, and by professionals in the field, because of the need to recognise that different " trans" groups have very different needs and characteristics. Perhaps, Prof Whittle, who has done much for the transgender world, and is not in good health, is not in touch with current "currents" in this complicated ocean?

ROwantrees;
I know about the letter; I signed it, using the name I use on Mumsnet. It got me turfed out a couple of websites. :-) I'd sign again tomorrow.

There was a lot of discussion about the letter and the response here at the time.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3240366-Letter-in-The-Guardian-from-Transexuals-saying-self-ID-not-the-answer

I know Kay I was just re-reading the thread.

As I said though it was 6 months ago.

Perhaps, Prof Whittle, who has done much for the transgender world, and is not in good health, is not in touch with current "currents" in this complicated ocean?

Mabe you don't follow what's happening very closely?
Stephen Whittle has been very much involved.

He has contributed to Guardian articles. In one he made a very irresponsible comment predicting a 'flurry of suicides'.

It was criticised here (because Safeguarding) and eventually SW said he recognised the basis for the concerns, the importance of Samaritans guidance when discussing suicide and requested an ammendment to the article.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?watched=1&msgid=81873561#81873561

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

I do follow things, avidly.

We've all got a lot of time for Stephen Whittle, but he does say from time to time that he is stepping back, and his serious health issues are given as the reason.

Perhaps he is like Mary Warnock, who thought for many years that her report had the last word and final verdict on the future of special schools, and did not realise for 20 years how out of touch she had become, and that she had been in large part wrong? Did SW see all this coming, and the huge numbers?

Is there no way to be a butch, straight, woman anymore?

I don't think it's easy at all any more. Butch lesbians get shortshrift in society. Probably a porn element too. In sense8 (net flix or amazon, can't remember) the butch lesbians are clearly not 'good' - but that's because they're apparently not approving of the 'lesbian' relationship between the TW main character and her pretty, gender conforming female character. The directors transitioned I believe.

Kay and lass and as always R0, thank you for your posts, I'm reading with great interest. I hope many are reading and lurking. Esp those with any links to parliament or safeguarding and medical policy. And thanks again to Stella.

KayM2 Given the thread, I think SW's involvement in the CBBC program, his response to the TS letter & his irresponsible comment about suicides are pertinent.

You'll likely find other places better able to answer your questions about how Stephen Whittle may be feeling.

He does tweet
twitter.com/stephenwhittle

As I've just said on the Trans Windows thread. I've only watched half of this so far, and as a Trans Widow, it actually made me feel grateful that my ex turned into a frothing TRA. It made it much easier to leave than if he'd been earnestly gender critical.

If he'd have been understanding, would I have felt I had to stay and be miserable?

I think this is a really important point.

I know about the letter; I signed it, using the name I use on Mumsnet.

But not the name you were using on Mumsnet before it was published, Kay. Please be fair and open about it.

Before that letter was published in the Guardian, you had been posting on FWR as Ceinwen, a trans ally woman and not a transsexual. You only became Kay on here once that letter had been praised. Some of us were quite unhappy at the deception, as I'm sure you'll recall. And one of us - not me - was very upset to discover that you were the person mocking them on a trans forum with another member of that forum who also used to post on FWR.

Pages 8-12 of the thread R0 linked to above are informative for anyone who wasn't here at the time.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3240366-Letter-in-The-Guardian-from-Transexuals-saying-self-ID-not-the-answer?pg=8

I'll repeat here what I said:

Here, I appreciate that someone has signed a letter that indicates transsexual persons agree with me on self-ID - and so I say so.

Here, I also unappreciate that the same someone has been posting on the forum presenting themselves as a woman ally of trans people but now tells me that they've actually been a trans person all along - and so I say so.

For good or for ill, I also have a particular beef with people who make emotive appeals to female socialisation on feminist messageboards and, when I see that playing out, draw attention to it. I realise that it makes some people feel uncomfortable and I also realise that I can be a bit of a hardliner about it so many here might agree when it's particularly egregious but also disagree other times and think I put too high a priority on it.

Also, to save you the effort of reporting this post and then withdrawing your own response to it as you did earlier, I'll be reporting this myself immediately after posting. It may stay up, it may not, but you don't need to bother.

Thanks Lang

S.W is a sharp chap, and I can't see why he characterises our objections as he does. because what he says of our intentions is not true, as I understand it. Could it be that he misunderstands our objections, and assumes that we are coming from somewhere less well informed and more reactionary than is the case?

Whittle has come on here to discuss with us a couple of times. Most notably on a thread about the girl guides and their trans policy. His reply to concerns about girls having to share their sleeping and washing facilities with boys who identify as girls was for the GG leaders to have a supply of condoms to give out.

He spent more time telling us about the joys of his youthful sexual experiences than actually responding to our concerns. If SW is uninformed about this issue, it's because he chooses to be.

Langclegg
I was Kay M on Angels, and never made fun of radfems; I was increasingly criticised by many members for taking much the same line as I am taking here. Though as time has gone on I have become more convinced than ever that the likes of Debbie Hayton is right, so yes I have changed to some extent in how I expressed my ideas. I was then Kay M on Mumsnet for a while, but got some severe flack from people who saw me as a stoolpigeon, and a spy. I left for a while. I then came back, and told Mumsnet HQ that I was Kay M, but that that had happened, and was Ceinwen for a while ( I was brought up in Wales) …the flack I was getting died down, so I openly announced on Mumsnet that I was Kay M, and re-signed up as Kay M 2. I hate subterfuge, and what I had done was subterfuge.... though most people on Mumsnet use names other than their own.

I am not a spy, and not a liar by nature. I am a 71 year old post operative transsexual woman , with a GRC and so on. I have lived as " me" since 1999, and transitioned at Farnham Art College ( UCA). I live entirely " out"; my family are all on-board, and my surviving sister and my daughter are very happy that I have taken the line on self ID that I have.

I don't know what more I can say; I don't know why you are so hostile to people like me ,and others.

I can't recall any " mocking" that I may have done on Angels. I would hope that tehre is a misunderstanding, or that things posted by others are being ascribed to me. I know I got it in the neck for having " radfem friends", and am banned from it now. And also from the same website that chucked the splendid Debbie Hayton off. I know that someone on Mumsnet once said of Angels that " some sensible stuff posted by Kay M , and XXX". Why would I mock? What grounds would I have to mock? Why would I lie?

I have a ticket to the WPUK meeting in R in a week; if anyone on this thread is going, make up your own mind what I am like. I am the white curley headed pig faced thing with glasses and a palpable back condition.

Sorry, anyone wondering what that was about; I got it in the neck on this thread earlier.

Sorry, anyone wondering what that was about; I got it in the neck on this thread earlier.

Where?
Your endorsement of Dr Helen Webberley was challenged.

This shouldn't be a surprise especially in the context of this thread.

Kay Do please re-read LangCleg's post.

It seems you have misunderstood/ are misrepresenting what she has posted.

There was no encouragement from her or need for you to disclose further personal details.

ROw; it was a post made at @ 8.30 this evening.

Although, since you mention it, I did not set out to endorse Dr Webberley. Certainly not in terms she would approve of! I don't think people are "good" or " bad" I try to be positive, where possible, and said some positive things about her business, and her intentions being good, but among other things I seem to recall very much not approving of hormones for kids, and saying that only mature adult people who were willing to take their own chances should use her services; or somesuch.

Apparently, I am told, she is legging it to set up in Spain, same business. Will that work after Brexit?

You said I was endorsing her, but I was criticised by email for slagging her off. So.... I sit on fences a bit, and everyone thinks I am an arse. Nothing new then. :-)

Kay as I said previously this isn't about you.

The thread is discussing serious concerns identified in the Channel 4 program.

These are issues that may on FWR understand and have been discussing for some time.

Perhaps it would be good tohave a re-read of what has actually been posted? I find it helpful to do this and reflect.