Letter in the Times - Plea To The Trans Lobby from group of transsexuals

[PimmsnLemonade]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/times-letters-reasons-for-private-schools-oxbridge-success-sqjb6kkgt

The loud and shouty protesting TRAs are a smokescreen while the real TRA work goes on behind doors as it always has.

It is extraordinary the way that TRA control the narrative around all of the political parties.
It seeems to to be a massive DARVO

The Westminster Social Policy Forum 'Next Steps for Trans Equality' June 2018 demonstrated the levels of influence.

Very senior placed representatives discussed many of the issues discussed here including media, schools, prisons, health, policy & legislation etc

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

Relevent to the current expose of Mermaids charity by The Sunday Times, is that when Dr Polly Carmichael (NHS GIDS) made her speech, many of the active TwitterTRA were hostile and critical. This included representatives from some trans rights charities & organisations including TELI, Mermaids etc

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

Also, I'm worried about the normalisation of male people in previously female only spaces, because it stops women and girls being able to define their boundaries.

It's important to realise that activism takes many forms, and it isn't just threats of violence that are dangerous.

Shami Chakrabarti has key and significant influence within the Labour party, especially it seems at leadership level.

She was on the Question Time Panel when Paris Lees was afforded so much power and influence. Fully affirmative stating 'transwomen are women'
(I think this was just after #ManFriday had burst through the media silence & no debate)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3195645-BBC-Question-Time-Paris-Lees

Liberty have got it seriously wrong before in prioritising adults' rights-based approach over safeguarding and child protection conflicts.
BBC 2014 article
'How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?'

"The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

It's part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt - the Paedophile Information Exchange - is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman.

The Daily Mail has revisited the story of PIE to ask how much Harman and her husband the MP Jack Dromey knew about the group during their time working at the National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty, in the late 1970s. PIE was affiliated to the NCCL from the late 1970s to early 1980s.

Many of the revelations are not in fact new. The story's return to the front pages demonstrates the shock people feel about how a group with "paedophile" in its name could operate so openly for so long.

PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for "children's sexuality". It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners". The real aim was to normalise sex with children.

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says." (continues)

If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net
Matthew Parris, columnist

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

It's important to realise that activism takes many forms, and it isn't just threats of violence that are dangerous.

Absolutely.
Whilst the overt attacks on Professor Rosa Freedman are easy to condemn, she is also being attacked and slurred by senior academics who are trans rights activists such as Prof Sally Hines (Leeds University)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3433528-sally-hines-accuses-professor-rosa-freedman-of-being-mean-on-twitter

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3443107-Shocking-bullying-of-gender-critical-law-professor-Rosa-Freedman

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3452863-Sally-Hines-is-writing-female-out-of-feminism-Im-terrified

So too there has been bullying, attempts at intimidation and silencing of Prof Kathleen Stock and other women in academia speaking up.

Professor Stock was targetted by the CEO of an anti-bullying charity Liam Hackett (Ditch the Label).
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3289890-great-piece-by-academic-kathleen-stock-mentions-mn?pg=8

That his 'trans-rights activism' involves targetting and atempting to silence individual women, women's groups and female-centred social media platforms discussing the law, women's rights and child protection concerns is very concerning.

Important to remember Liam Hackett also used his influence & social media platform to try to bully a breast screening department into changing its women-only in the waiting room for scans policy.

Male-pattern controlling behaviour, entitlement & misogyny:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3299191-A-new-member-of-the-Leftie-Misogynists-club

It's important to realise that activism takes many forms, and it isn't just threats of violence that are dangerous.

re attacks on academics by trans rights activists:
Times article Spetember 2018, Lucy Bannerman
'Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics'
(extract)
"A transgender lecturer orchestrated a smear campaign against academics across the UK in which universities were described as dangerous and accused of “hate crime” if they refused to accept activists’ views that biological males can be women, it can be revealed.

Natacha Kennedy, a researcher at Goldsmiths University of London who is also understood to work there under the name Mark Hellen, faces accusations of a “ludicrous” assault on academic freedom after she invited thousands of members of a closed Facebook group to draw up and circulate a list shaming academics who disagreed with campaigners’ theories on gender.

The online forum, seen by The Times, also revealed that members plotted to accuse non-compliant professors of hate crime to try to have them ousted from their jobs. Reading, Sussex, Bristol, Warwick and Oxford universities were among those deemed to have “unsafe” departments because they employed academics who had publicly disputed the belief that “transwomen are women” or questioned the potential impact of proposed changes to gender laws on women and children.

Ms Kennedy said that the list was necessary so students could avoid accepting a place on a “dangerous” course.

Aimee Challenor, the former Green Party candidate who used her father as her election agent even though he was facing charges of raping and torturing a ten-year-old girl, for which he was later jailed, was among those who responded to Ms Kennedy’s post of August 14 to the Trans Rights UK Facebook group, with suggestions of who to blacklist. All the named academics were women.

Members of the group claimed that the philosophy department of the University of Sussex was “clearly an unsafe environment” because of the presence of Kathleen Stock, a professor who has argued against redefining the category of woman and lesbian to include men.

“File a hate crime report against her, and then the chairman and vice-chair,” advised one. “Drag them over the f*ing coals.” (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-goldsmiths-lecturer-natacha-kennedy-behind-smear-campaign-against-academics-f2zqbl222?shareToken=c2e850050d0c9913ecbcbbb9b0e9ccfb

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3359116-The-Times-smear-campaign-by-trans-lecturer-at-Goldsmiths

The loud and shouty protesting TRAs are a smokescreen while the real TRA work goes on behind doors as it always has. We know what Whittle and Burns and Press for Change did, we know how they operate and we'd be mad to ignore history and be blindsided by wolves in sheep's clothing who try and make alliances.

TG and TS rights conflict with women's rights. We cannot be allies.

This. I think there is some room for common cause with some TS people on some things.

But, as outlined over and over again in this thread, TS people have been front and centre in the movement to remove women's rights. The shouty TGs are, really, just their useful idiots. And this thread itself has shown that even some of the signatories of this letter don't give a flying fuck about women.

If we want the useful idiots to stop threatening violence on behalf of the puppeteers, we have to stop the puppeteers. And a large number of those are TS.

It is extraordinary the way that TRA control the narrative around all of the political parties.
It seeems to to be a massive DARVO

'How a narcissist uses DARVO & how to Protect yourself'

"A narcissistic HCP [High Conflict Person] typically engages in a lot of all-or-nothing thinking, unmanaged emotions, and extreme behavior. This often takes the form of constant insults, putting themselves up by putting others down, identifying themselves as winners and everyone else as losers, and repeatedly demanding admiration from those around them."
www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201802/are-you-target-blame-narcissist

www.yourtango.com/experts/judith_tutin/5-ways-spot-when-narcissist-ues-darvo-make-himself-the-victim-in-relationships

But, as outlined over and over again in this thread, TS people have been front and centre in the movement to remove women's rights.

I accept that some TS have but I also believe there are those who have chosen to label themselves as TS to afford themselves credibility. I have yet to meet a genuine TS person that seeks to remove womens rights although I'm sure they do exist. I question anyone who says they are TS yet campaigns for the TG umbrella, demedicalisation and self ID. I went through hell with medical assessments but Im glad I did and it was certainly necessary.

By definition the vast majority of TS people simply seek a quiet life and to fade into the background and so you never hear from them. The only reason I have chosen at times to get involved is because the proposed changes put my own safety at risk in the future.

That said I think we have reached a point where even the GD diagnosis is losing its meaning. There are those getting diagnosed now that almost certainly wouldn't have been 20 years ago. My diagnosis is a dual diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood and Transexualism..... I claim the TS label because I have TS as a formal diagnosis of TS. That however is not necessary to call yourself TS.

The only reason I have chosen at times to get involved is because the proposed changes put my own safety at risk in the future

Yes, your focus is clear.
It is reasonable and unstandable to be concerned for one's own safety.

Engaging in what has and is contributing to the current situation is likely more productive.

FWR is not responsible.

I question anyone who says they are TS yet campaigns for the TG umbrella, demedicalisation and self ID

Stephen Whittle?
Christine Burns?

Sarah Brown (STonewall & Lib Dems)

these transsexual trans-rights activists have and are playing a central role

links have been provided on many occasions on this and other threads.

ignoring this and continuing to re-state is not really conducive to civilised discussion about serious matters.

*The only reason I have chosen at times to get involved is because the proposed changes put my own safety at risk in the future

Yes, your focus is clear.*

The reality is I think for all of us that until an issue affects us personally we try not to get involved. Some people like conflict and could start a row in a mirror but for many of us we simply want a quiet life.

I appreciate many will disagree but I believe that part of the reason the GRA and parts of the Equality Act went through without much objection was the fact no one could see the effect it would have.

Cant
Have you read the posts above yours?
The discussion had moved to recognising the various range & forms of dangerous intimidation and tactics towards women.

Ignoring this can seem increasingly like de-railing /preventing discussion.

The only reason I have chosen at times to get involved is because the proposed changes put my own safety at risk in the future.

And yet again, you return the thread to you.

We are trying to get the thread back to topic, which is about how to counter intimidation of and threats against women and girls.

Why have you spent the entire thread obstructing this discussion? Why can you not allow women to talk to each other about the best way forward in this without attempting to make them centre you?

The reality is I think for all of us that until an issue affects us personally we try not to get involved.

Absolutely not true.

There are some people whose concern is solely for themselves of course.

Cant - if you can't understand why I ask this question, you are demonstrating why you are part of the problem. I don't know how we could explain this to you more clearly. We've tried a dozen or more times now. It's clear you can't hear us. Until you can, you will remain part of the problem.

I realise this is unpleasant to hear. It is, nonetheless, the truth.

*The reality is I think for all of us that until an issue affects us personally we try not to get involved

What a crappy thing to believe. Surely we should all do our best to make things better for those less fortunate or more vulnerable than ourselves?*

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying.

There are thousands upon thousands of issues where things need to be addressed and changed and nobody can know about or understand all of them. It doesn't mean I don't care - far from it.

I realise this is unpleasant to hear. It is, nonetheless, the truth.

Truth is not an absolute. Your truth and my truth are not the same thing. We have different upbringings, different perspectives etc..

? Why can you not allow women to talk to each other about the best way forward in this without attempting to make them centre you

Noone is centering themselves at all. Many have said on MN that the input of TS people is welcome.

Now when you don't like something I say you tell me I shouldn't be on this forum.

Cant
Please stop derailing this important discussion about how women are prevented from speaking, intimidated, threatened and abused by trans rights activists.

Please stop derailing this important discussion about how women are prevented from speaking, intimidated, threatened and abused by trans rights activists.

I responded to a point made about how TS people were at the forefront of trans activism which is very much what the discussion was about.

My point was about the increasing meaningless of the TS label as time moves on and that TS people do still stand apart from TG.

Can't
Please stop.
You are preventing women from discussing the ways that women have been and are being silenced on this thread.

Truth is not an absolute. Your truth and my truth are not the same thing. We have different upbringings, different perspectives etc..

You can't hear me.

QED.

We wish to talk about the thread topic, which is intimidation and threats of violence against women and girls and how to deal with it. Please stop obstructing us. It's not about you.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro Tue 18-Dec-18 04:41:25 comment this morning is getting lost. (previous page)

re-posting
"Of course it's good to highlight and condemn extreme behaviour. It's never right to attempt to stop people meeting and talking by intimidation and violence.

The problem with only focusing on these examples is that it is extreme behaviour by a few people who do not hold any direct power or influence.

When people in the media, policians and policy makers, using less extreme language and no platforming, paint women as bigots for wanting sex segregation, it is dangerous, because these people can remove sex segregation and safeguarding policies.

I'm far more concerned that Shami Chakrabart said
"How can I put it - I am not the sex police. I don't want to police the borders between these segregated sexes and I'm not going to say to any refugee or migrant to my sex that you don't belong over here. And you know what, if you lock the house too tightly, you might just die in the fire. And what I want is not to be more segregated but to be less so, and I want us, in the end, to all be human."

than I am that some random 18 year old wearing a scarf over their face and holding a placard.

Also, I'm worried about the normalisation of male people in previously female only spaces, because it stops women and girls being able to define their boundaries.

It's important to realise that activism takes many forms, and it isn't just threats of violence that are dangerous."