Times leader: The Gender Trap

[Burru]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-risks-of-gender-self-identification-the-gender-trap-bmb3r00vn?shareToken=3eb564c267dc646c823cbcadc74c2462

👏👏👏

Wow!
I dispute this though “ There is no question that trans people are some of the most vulnerable and discriminated against in our society.“ all those the stonewall trans umbrella?

I thought the same Gibbons. It is very disputable.

It is disputable. I have no idea how vulnerable they may be but the question here is about discrimination, specifically legal discrimination. The Trans rights lobby is based on the notion that not being able to self identify gender is a denial of human rights. Furthermore, they say this is so fundamentally true that they will not even debate it. The last part makes it difficult but we need to counter that argument and not get sidetracked into other issues. When they do come out and fight they get shredded, see Jo Swinson yesterday.

Goodness. Biology rules!

I am not sure maintaining the status quo is going to help protect vulnerable young people from going down a path that can lead to radical surgery ( and become lifelong patients), however. For that, the medical profession, educational establishment, social services etc, need to wake up to what is happening. People who don't conform to the stereotypes belonging to their sex need to be accepted as they are, not "corrected".

There is also this article today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-accused-of-censoring-academics-over-gender-issues-tt2qhgr9z?shareToken=2c987b0751c73b157275f2cf802b142f

Well, they've got a lot wrong, but at least they are reporting openly and bluntly.

The 'discrimination' aspect just needs sunlight. If talking about it is discriminatory, then the public needs to know.

Articles like this are becoming far more commonplace. Unheard of a year ago.

It just needs open debate. The fact that a cross dressing fetish comes under the umbrella, the fact that many transwomen want and like their penis and are heterosexual.

Talking about it is key. Talking about it to people who support it is vital.

Fantastic

From the second article

The effect, he argues, is that the university’s policies and training are drawn up “on terms dictated by Stonewall”, which “treats any dissenting views as transphobic”.

Excellent.

All tying in with Maya and Harry's cases.

Agreed that the "most vulnerable" part is nonsense, but other than that can we stop and take a moment to celebrate what's been achieved? Can you imagine an article like this a year ago?

Here is a link to the letter about universities and Stonewall:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-call-for-reform-of-the-funding-of-social-care-rd7sxx7f0?shareToken=4daa8fef85ba517c0ab2718019daa419

Is that the wring link?

Academics accused a leading gay rights charity of suppressing academic freedom by encouraging a “censorious” approach to gender identity In a letter to The Times more than 20 professors, researchers and lecturers say that many British universities have adopted policies on transgender issues from a template drawn up by Stonewall that does not allow criticism from academics who take a different view. The stance goes well beyond legal requirements of equality law

Thank you for the link. The Times article once again makes explicit that this lobby and its dominant position in academia is an existential threat to freedom of speech and thought. This is being achieved through no platforming and intimidation. This authoritarianism cannot be allowed to suffocate academics who are brave enough to dissent.

Great article.

Regarding the 'most vulnerable' - I read that and thought that this phrase also needs challenging publicly when it is raised. I wouldn't consider a 6 foot 13 stone Transwoman to be more vulnerable than the majority of adult human females in any given situation. In what way are they the most vulnerable?

Wow - what's really great about articles like this is that they allow people to talk openly.

Personally I don't want to get into a dispute over words like 'vulnerable'. The issue for me is that being vulnerable doesn't mean you can change sex.

The most vulnerable trans person I know is a female adolescent. She is vulnerable to this ideology, certainly, whereby as a young female she is vulnerable to medicalising her struggles with growing up into 'being male'. So far 'only' social transition and I hope desperately that it stays that way.

Thank you to the Times for nailing its colours so firmly to the mast, especially on the definition of woman.

And well done for standing up for those of your journalists who have been abused for this. The Times is a proper newspaper.

The academic censorship story is also in The Mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7774511/Academics-accuse-gay-rights-charity-Stonewall-censoring-debate-gender-identity.html

There was a really clever and interesting young American transwoman who was bullied off the internet who made a point about that, which was that one of the most dangerous aspects of this ideology is that it groups the most vulnerable (young, homosexual) together with the most potentially dangerous (older, physically stronger, more social status, fetish driven) and pretends that they're the same, or even that it's the former that's a threat to the latter. That individual said that they'd never known a young gay transwoman who hadn't been sexually harassed to the point of deep discomfort as a result of participating in groups for trans people as a whole. Young transmen often report the same.

Permanent I agree that it could be taken to mean 'vulnerable to suggestion and medicalisation' (in fact I wrote and then deleted similar before posting) but I don't think that most people outside of the debate would view it that way. I hope that the person you know finds her way through without physical harm. I would like to see it challenged because it leads into the 'be kind' narrative and appeals to female socialisation - I started at 'live and let live' like the majority of GC people I know.

I don't like some of what has been written but I do like the bluntness and openness of the article. Who wrote it? Or has that been hidden to avoid abuse?

Jo Swinson has (unintentionally) brought this issue right out into the sunlight and highlighted its absurdity in a way that we could only dream of a year ago. It's a huge relief to hear it being discussed.

And it's been a long time since I heard the threat phrase 'wrong side of history.'

ProdigalKitten, I'd be interested if you could post the link please.

And well done for standing up for those of your journalists who have been abused for this. The Times is a proper newspaper.

Well said. It is quite outrageous that this lobby has been allowed to obliterate biological sex and wage a war on freedom of speech while the supine media have trotted obediently along for the ride. The Times and The Spectator are fighting on the side of freedom.

Personally I don't want to get into a dispute over words like 'vulnerable'. The issue for me is that being vulnerable doesn't mean you can change sex.

I agree flo. It shouldn't be a criterion.

But it's worth addressing, in my opinion. Because it does sway a lot of people.

And I agree with the previous poster that the vulnerability of the original transsexual group is being hijacked by late transitioning men with a fetish.

None of them are women, obviously.

But if people are imagining the former group as the entire cohort, they need to be enlightened.

I think everything that person wrote has been taken down unfortunately. TRAs got them sacked from their job (working for an agency that helped actually vulnerable trans people!) and pretty much forced them to erase their whole internet presence.