When you stand for nothing

[BovaryX]

TimeLady has posted an excellent article by Janice Turner in The Times which analyzes the extensive influence wielded by a secretive lobby group who are unknown to most of the public. This lobby has embedded itself into influential institutions and its radical policies are promoted by politicians. It deliberately avoids media scrutiny or public debate. The emphasis on secrecy is an acknowledgment that if its agenda was widely known, there would be legitimate, valid resistance. Key pieces of its agenda are on the manifesto of the Lib Dems. John McDonnell yesterday also confirmed Labour’s commitment to self ID. Why are politicians in two major parties signing up to the demands of a lobby group whose aims are so unpopular with the public, secrecy is their modus operandi? Why are politicians who want to run the country espousing an ideology whose proponents are unable to coherently defend it when questioned? And have instead tried to criminalize any debate? Part of the answer is fear of a Twitter mob descending wielding fictional claims of ‘hate speech’ as a bludgeon. But the other answer? A total absence of principles. This lobby’s influence is an existential threat to freedom of speech, freedom of thought and democracy. Enlightenment values. The politicians pandering to this?

When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything

Excellent post BovaryX. This seems like a mountain to climb, when even institutions like Marks and Spencers cheerfully invite men in to share changing facilities with women having their bras fitted and sports organisations give away women's sport to self identifying men. BUT, we are at least getting to the stage where people are calling out the trans bullying and people are becoming aware and asking questions about what has happened.

Uncompromising,
I think that both Maya and Harry’s case have forced the media to pay attention and recognize the chilling threat to freedom. Most people know nothing about this. I was one of them until recently. But that’s not surprising because secrecy is a deliberate tactic.

BovaryX,

This might be of interest as a bit of background if you are relatively new to all this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change

Press for Change had been operating under the radar for years, culminating in successfully getting the GRA passed in 2004, largely unnoticed by the public or press. You will see they have form re. the 'legislation by stealth' approach.

My suspicion is those involved were (are?) the ones pulling Stonewall's strings back in 2015 when the T was added to the LGB

TimeLady,
Thank you for these links, you have been invaluable in helping me try to decipher this, especially because I am unfamiliar with the leading lights in this lobby group. The ‘legislation by stealth’ aspect is an affront to democracy. And most people don’t know about it at all.

Just come across this

''Sex Changes'? Paradigm Shifts in 'Sex' and 'Gender' Following the Gender Recognition Act?'

by Stephen Whittle and Lewis Turner
Manchester Metropolitan University

Published: 31 Jan 2007

Haven't waded through it yet, but this bit caught my eye

The Act has already introduced two crucial changes. Firstly, the sex/gender distinction is demobilised with both terms in the wording of the act. Indeed, in the sex/gender distinction, female usually refers to sex, the sexed body, and woman usually refers to gender; the cultural meaning of female sex. In the terms of the Act the referents change round; gender refers to female and sex refers to woman. This suggests that the terms are interchangeable. Secondly, in the wording of the Act, gender precedes sex. Normatively in the sex gender distinction sex precedes gender; gender is culture written onto the sexed body. In the terms of the Gender Recognition Act, one's gender precedes one's sex. One's acquired gender becomes the sex in which one is recognised in law.

Remember, Whittle was brought in as the official advisor to the select committee in 2015.

Normatively in the sex gender distinction sex precedes gender; gender is culture written onto the sexed body. In the terms of the Gender Recognition Act, one's gender precedes one's sex. One's acquired gender becomes the sex in which one is recognised in law

Thank you for this. It really is like something out of 1984. The deliberate manipulation of language in order to invert external reality and remove the ability to describe it. Replacing the word sex, with its unambiguously clear biological meaning is strategic, deliberate. As to ‘demobilizing’ the distinction between sex and gender, interesting use of martial imagery. They are waging a war on language, freedom of speech, academia, women, democracy. It’s quite incredible.

A secret lobby group - how very New World Order.

Time to get those tin foil hats adjusted.

Er, lobbying in secret is an explicit, acknowledged tactic. Why? Because of the profound unpopularity of their aims. I suggest you read the link. The media might have been asleep through much of this, but the virulent attack on freedom of speech seen in Maya and Harry’s case has woken lots of people up. Sorry.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

Forgot the link to the Whittle article

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

TimeLady, thank you for that link, really appreciate it. I have just read the document and it’s most illuminating. One of the striking things about it is the deliberate, calculated intent to obliterate the unambiguous definition of biological sex. Interesting that it cites prohibitive cost to NHS as reason to abandon medical documentation as criteria. That same rationale is being cited in The Times article posted this morning. The playlist is explicit.

That Spectator piece is a sinister revelation. I dont think anyone can read that and not think peodophillia is a large motivatior behind all this.

Chiochan,
I agree. It really is sinister. Target youth groups. Bypass the media. Avoid public debate. Piggyback radical policies onto uncontroversial legislation. And try to criminalize discussion or dissent. It’s an existential threat to democracy freedom and much of this assault is linguistic. TimeLady’s excellent link is a fascinating read on the background of this ideology

I read about Stephen Whittle's background once - here, I think. www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/17/socialcare.highereducationprofile

[Whittle's father] was a representative of the old Britain, the old Manchester. "He was very much of the view that girls were girls and women were women," says Whittle. "I remember being on a holiday when I was about 13 and he hit my mother because she came out of the caravan wearing slacks and refused to change back into a dress."

By that time, the family were beginning to prosper, moving to middle-class Withington from the council estate of Wythenshawe. Whittle Sr, having fallen into a vat of dye at a chemical depot, was offered the choice of compensation or a desk job. He took the desk job and, despite being barely literate, discovered a hidden talent for technical drawing. Eventually he became manager of the plant, while his wife became a medical secretary at the Christie hospital. The middle of five children, Whittle envied his brothers ...

This is all so reminiscent of all the articles published in recent years about very young children struggling with gender dysphoria. Their socially conservative families/communities expect them to comply with gender stereotypes that the children aren't comfortable with. The children are told/shown that this means there is something badly wrong with them and life becomes very tough. Child tries to find a way through this and concludes if they had been born the opposite sex all would be well because that set of stereotypes would be much easier to live with and there would be opportunities that child's own sex doesn't seem to get.

How did we move to a position where people who feel like this are told that they are right and need lifelong hormone treatment and extensive surgery, rather than therapy and support to campaign to end gender stereotyping? I just don't get it.

I just don't get it

TimeLady’s link is really helpful in explaining the ideology. But the explanation as to how is because of the tactics used to advance the agenda. One example, apparently the members of the GRA committee were unhappy about passing this without requiring medical certification. The argument used to swerve this was prohibitive cost to NHS. The identical argument has been deployed in the Irish case posted today

What's happened to common sense and critical thinking in politicians in the last few years? The obvious counter to the assertion that the NHS can't afford all the GRC work is to say yes, but what about the cost to the NHS of the hormones, surgery and follow up work? Where's the evidence that people who've had that amount of medical intervention can live healthy lives with no medical treatment in the longer term?

Also, stats on how frequent transition is, at what age, how much medical treatment each group has etc etc should have been compiled and in the process the MPs might perhaps have started to wonder why children and teenagers are being pushed down a medical path, while middle-aged males who choose to transition often have very little medical treatment and middle-aged females who choose to transition are vanishingly rare.

have started to wonder why children and teenagers are being pushed down a medical path, while middle-aged males who choose to transition often have very little medical treatment and middle-aged females who choose to transition are vanishingly rare

GaspOde,
The NHS reference was about the 2004 GRA act. The 3200 per cent increase in young girls presenting for transition is a reflection of the environment which the GRA has created. You are absolutely correct about the bizarre demographic comprising young girls and middle aged men. It raises all kinds of issues which should be open for discussion and analysis. As to common sense? One of the tactics of this lobby group is to criminalize discussion. They believe if you control the language, you can bend reality to your fantasy. This is a fight for the right to say two plus two equals four.

Yes, I agree.

The Times reported yesterday donations to the LinDems from company who produces puberty blockers: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/puberty-blocker-drug-firm-donated-cash-to-lib-dems-cf3x77nh3

Follow the money. Always.

Interesting... Coverage is getting louder and clearer!

Legal action launched in row between National Theatre and lesbian group
Legal action is being launched in a dispute between the National Theatre and a group of lesbian claimants.

Read in The Telegraph: apple.news/AKeE8niMPS5itILJINxr8oA

Background info on Whittle, which perhaps explains why they were chosen as the select committee's special advisor.

www.boell.de/en/2016/07/20/yogyakarta-principles-provide-guidance-and-are-constant-reference-point

Unfortunately, not an unbiased one.

Yup. Jennifer Pritzker, for example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Pritzker

4thwavenow.com/tag/tawani-foundation/ 4thWaveNow article by Michael Biggs on following the money.

In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’

Ah so that's why Ireland has fine further down the genderism path than Britain. Nothing to do with popular opinion. Quite the opposite, it seems.

*...gone further.

Follow the money indeed.

This is a "A LEGAL GENDER RECOGNITION ISSUE BRIEF" produced by the Open Society, titled "Licence to be yourself: trans children and youth"

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/a958c063-2b80-4173-b5b4-3811eab51919/lgr_trans-children-youth-20151120.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6rrSf4aXmAhXK4IUKHTpfD6YQFjACegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0PCb_WoVPEnkFaMJXID6tj" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/a958c063-2b80-4173-b5b4-3811eab51919/lgr_trans-children-youth-20151120.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6rrSf4aXmAhXK4IUKHTpfD6YQFjACegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0PCb_WoVPEnkFaMJXID6tj

And who funds the Open Society? International meddler in chief, George Soros.

Now you can begin to see why politicians, corporates and charities have been led up this particular garden path. All this 'evidence' presented from sources which they don't have the confidence or resources to criticise.