Campaigners for gender recognition law should avoid media

[Macareaux]

Worrying

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/campaigners-for-gender-recognition-law-should-avoid-media/5102234.article

Hmmm good point about light/visibility. But after reading this I still have my doubts: www.scarymommy.com/parent-of-transgender-child/ Also...what about early abolitionists or the Underground Railroad? The Nazi Resistance Movement? Mixed-race couples under Jim Crow? Women’s rights campaigners in Saudi? There are lots of historical examples where over-politicising issues and exposing them too much to the media spotlight or the public gaze would have put people in danger or increased discrimination.

Interesting username, Trump2016! Hello, fellow Mumsnetter.

Would you mind explaining what you found persuasive or engaging about the "Scary Mommy" blog?
Perhaps you could summarise its main points, assuming there are points buried somewhere deep within the piece you linked. I confess I got bored after the third paragraph of meandering inanity.

I will leave it to others to engage with your bold proposition that the push to sterilise autistic and GNC kids is in some important ways just like early abolitionism or the Underground Railroad, because it makes me see spots. But credit where it's due, tha't's a new one on me.

Okay, but first you show me where exactly I compared sterilization of autistic kids to the Underground Railroad!?

No, I don't think I will explain that to you. If you spend a little bit of time reading on here, which is generally considered a polite thing to do before you start posting on a forum, you shouldn't have any difficulty understanding exactly what you've been advocating for.

Hmm, I don't remember any of the organisations listed by trump2016 quietly getting an inside track on 'training' all and sundry including police forces.

Not to get too involved in the odd comparisons implied by Trump2016, but early abolitionists campaigned vigorously and publicly for the abolition of slavery. People who reached safety through the Underground Railroad spoke and wrote about the evils of slavery, and detailed the oppression they had suffered as slaves. Opponents of Nazism tried to publicise the evils of the regime. Women in Saudi Arabia have been severely punished for publicly disobeying restrictive laws - publicly, because they’re trying to get publicity, despite the huge personal costs they have to pay.

When a political movement trying to achieve astonishingly radical change deliberately tries to avoid light being shone on its philosophy and objectives, there’s a reason for that, and it’s not a good one. Really not possible to explain it away.

Okay, some genuine debate! I fully agree with Knewmee. Shining a light on evil and atrocity should always be the objective. However, secrecy is sometimes needed and has been relied on in the past to minimise the risks to individual activists and to avoid stoking hatred in already tense social and political contexts. In the examples you provide the publicity takes place largely outside of the hostile context (in the North under slavery and in the West for Saudi activists and Nazi resisters). Publicity in the local context is dangerous and is avoided. I know I won’t convince you on the righteousness of trans activism but I do appreciate a genuine conversation.

Why don’t you try to convince us of the righteousness of TRAs? Or do you think you will struggle to come up with an argument as to why the distraction of women’s rights is a good thing?

*destruction

Why is it ‘righteous’ to allow any man who wishes to get follow a 13 year old girl into a communal changing room, strip off in front of her and be ready to report a ‘hate crime’ if she refuses to change in front of him?

Why is it ‘righteous’ to falsely present suicide statistics to blackmail people into sterilising young children with experimental drugs (where they don’t even bother to write up the results)?

Why is it ‘righteous’ to threaten any organisations hosting talks on women’s rights so they cancel events?

Why is it ‘righteous’ to call women names and threaten violence against them?

I read that blog post and am not quite sure of what the purpose of it is in this conversation? Mom worries about child who begins to ID as trans, child begins self-harming, mom takes child to gender therapy, child stops self harming. Child is almost 10 as of that post.

But we're talking about stealthy (and purposeful) institutional capture/lawmaking, so I'm not joining the dots.

I think the political and legal context in the US is very different. Trans rights genuinely ARE under attack by President Trump. (Still after three years get a shiver of how odd it is to type that name and title). I wouldn't want to see any trans person in the UK denied the right to work in any setting, subject to usual laws and exclusions that apply to everyone. And President Trump is so appalling, such an active danger to everything that is good about the US, I can see that any action that isn't seen as unequivocally pro-trans could feel like being insufficiently anti-Trump. We are lucky not to have quite such a divisive figure over here - Johnson is nowhere in comparison. And here, the conflict in the political left has been much more evident.

@Birdsfoottrefoil I agree that all the things you describe are objectionable. But focusing on the two most problematic, I.e. the men sharing bathrooms with young girls and the manipulation of suicide statistics to compel medical intervention. In relation to the former, while I would absolutely agree that in general men commit atrocious sexual crimes against women and girls, I query whether it is really the case that the proportion of crimes committed by trans women are in proportion to the fear about this in the media and among the general public? To me it seems disproportionate when compared to the general data in sexual violence, domestic violence etc. In relation to the second point, I would fully agree that forced medical procedures against the best interests of the child is a horrible idea. But I’m not sure that this is really what’s happening and only the most extreme trans activists are calling for medical procedures for minors. The real demand is for more accessible self ID (a civil procedure) for young people. @PermanentTemporary it’s really interesting to reflect on US/UK differences. Can anyone educate me about UK? What happened in UK to cause this level of animosity between TRAs and GAs? Where did this all begin? I am here to learn.

@lydiamajora yes the blog is not connected to the discussion on lobbying/ advocacy. I was just trying to start a conversation. But about stealth lobbying/institutional capture, let’s discuss. It’s what corporations do all the time. It’s what the wealthy do to protect their interests. Why not human rights advocates also? Would you object to GAs using this strategy in Latin America to promote reform of domestic violence laws? Is your objection to the strategy or to the cause (TR)?

Trump in my first example an assault has already taken place; a man exposing himself to a young girl. He doesn’t need to lay a hand on her. If he did this on the street it would be a crime. As well as her safety, her dignity and privacy have also been removed as have her boundaries. But perhaps I should be glad you can at least see her vulnerability to rape and further sexual assault in this situation? You will also note in that example I didn’t mention transwomen: self id laws means ANY man, whether they identify as trans or not, can walk into the female changing room knowing they cannot be challenged and they cannot be asked to leave.

Transwomen commit crimes at the same rate as other men. In the UK half of transwomen prisoners are in prison for sexual offences.

The call for medical procedures for gender-nonconforming minors is very much ‘mainstream’.

This thread has always been really important as it uncovered some of the tactics being employed to push through the TRA agenda:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

well thanks to our visitor for keeping this bumped. the law gazette article is very interesting

lots of comments underneath castigating the writer for intending to provoke misunderstandings of trans people

3 of the 6 paragraphs are direct quotes from the report, so it's hard to see how he's mischaracterising it

The real demand is for more accessible self ID (a civil procedure) for young people.

No it isn't. Most transactivists believe that puberty blockers should be given to "trans" children young enough to stop them going through their natural puberty. That's what all the opposition to the concept of ROGD and the suicide blackmail is about.

It's debatable whether young children have the capacity to consent to the irreversible effect of puberty blockers immediately followed by opposite sex hormones.

I know I won’t convince you on the righteousness of trans activism

Maybe that's because it's nothing of the sort?

I'm immensely proud of feminists in the UK. It is mainly through their bravery and efforts that a lot of the TRA tactics have been exposed in the media here.

Me too.

only the most extreme trans activists are calling for medical procedures for minors.

Like the head of Mermaids...

Young people already can effectively self-ID - goodbye girls sports, girls organisations (Girl Guides), girls changing rooms and loos in schools.

This is not a righteous thing, if you care one whit about the rights of girls.

Well, I must confess I am not a TRA, but I am a human rights activist. And I am trying to understand both sides of this argument. I do think some of the fears expressed on this thread, while not complete fantasy, are significantly overblown. Can anyone tell me: what are you prepared to concede to TRAs? For example, looking at that report. What are the arguments you would broadly agree with? Is it primarily the tactics of the TRAs you find objectionable? Or is it the whole idea of transsexualism? Is the extension of the advocacy focus to under 18s? Just trying to understand.