I've just sat and read all 20 pages of this thread and wanted to make a few critical point about the whole case
- A trans person is on trial for transphobic harassment. The complainant is not trans.
These incredibly Militant trans parents need to be seen for what they are. Their child's identity is not coming from the child in a number of cases. It's been raised by the Tavistock and by several other individuals or groups about how the parents are projecting onto the children in various ways. Eg homophobic parents wanting to 'trans away the gay'. The term Munchausens by proxy has been mentioned in passing with reference to certain parents.
And this is where you need to stress what this case was really about. It's not the identity of the child. Helen Island has fame and attention from her child who she has plastered all over the internet and TV, and then has a memory loss moment when other people refer to her public persona and that of her child's. (I believe there is legal precident over privacy on this; you can’t claim your privacy has been breeched if you put stuff on the Internet which is publicly available and you gain media attention from and someone references that)
The whole case isn't about transphobia. It's about the idea of Helen's OWN identity being under attack. Even her twitter handle reflects his. Her identity is as a mother to a trans child. Without 'this special status' SHE is nothing and HER identity is erased. Not her child's. It's identity by proxy.
She is so emotionally invested in this it is impossible for her child to disassociate or separate.
Stephanie Davies-Arai mentioned in Miranda Yardley trial for Islan’s treatment of her on socmed. Again, Islan’s response: I may be vocal and have strong opinions in which case people are free to report me but it doesn’t warrant harassment. Judge found no evidence of harassment.
Helen has 'strong opinions' but other people are not allowed them. This is 'transphobia'. The identity of others - such as a trans woman named Miranda - is irrelevant. Cos this is about Helen and Helens ego. And Helens need to be right and important. Helen can not be questioned by others nor challenged by others. Is this a healthy response to others having an opinion? It raises some pretty big safeguarding and ethical questions relating to 'undue pressure'...
I can't help but feel rather sorry for Helen. She too must have been traumatised by the day and was supposedly in tears whilst giving evidence. To some extent I think she is also a victim of this crazy ideology and seeing some of the mind control that goes on online, it's easy to see why people fall for it. Sadly when the whole fantasy comes tumbling down there will be thousands like Helen who will need deprogramming.
I am more dubious about this. See above. Is Helen a victim here? Is it about her child's identity and right to privacy or is it about Helen herself? It's important. Helen is actively trying to push this on others. Is that for the benefit of the trans community (hint: if its going after a transsexual then I'm curious as to how you explain that one) or is it about protecting Helen and justifying her own actions?
These are important questions in assessing what's really going on here.
It seems to me that it comes back to Helen not anyone else every time.
At best it's a wilful denial to avoid facing up to other issues or to prevent deeper questioning. Avoidance behaviour. So what is being avoided?
In Helens case I don't think it's merely about separating herself from other possible alternatives in a full on doubling down on decisions she had self doubt or fears about making. Which I think is probably true of some trans parents. Helen wasn't just cheerleading.
This whole case is a demonstration of what motivates Helen and who she is. It's in the public interest to see it laid bare.
I mean, who the fuck tries to go after someone trans for transphobia when you aren't trans yourself! It was a trial of identity and whose identity definition trumped the other. It sort to make it impossible for Miranda to identify as trans on Miranda OWN terms and definitions. Miranda's right to self identify if you will. It was an affront to free speech and the expression of others. Its the act of an authoritarian way of thinking and acting.
Just how much of an authoritarian is Helen and how far does it go into Helens parenting? We must ask these questions to understand what has happened here and what the implications of those answers are.
This is important.
These are people who are training others to their way of thinking. And are influential and have status because of their children. Their children make the parents untouchable.
There should be klaxons going off everywhere as the result of this case. They will try and report the shit out of everything on the grounds that it is personal. It's not. The judge made the point, the case was in the public interest to know about. And as a public activist Helen is in the public eye and should be scrutinised for her personal behaviour, just as we might look at a politician whose personal life raises questions about their use of status and power and how their own relationships might reflect their morality and ethics or lack of.
Helen was influential at Mermaids. Her social media links mean she still is, even if she tries to distance herself. Her importance in the echo chamber that was mutually created by the organisation means they can not at this stage disassociate from the past and prsent - only the future.
I have far more, not less questions this evening than I did this morning.
Respect to Miranda. I hope you are having a very large and well deserved drink tonight.
I hope lots of journalists are busy cranking up Barbara tonight as they send the copy to their editors.