Let’s talk about sex… and gender ideology

[Photosymphysis]

Dr Jessica Taylor discusses 7 key issues of sex and gender ideology.

victimfocus.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/lets-talk-about-sex-and-gender-ideology/

Thanks for the link, that is so lucid, rational and objective.

Great article - thanks for sharing

Absolutely excellent, thank you

Just came to say what a brilliant, brilliant piece this is. She is so clear and lucid and incisive. This is something everyone should read.

This is what I just posted on the other thread:
Very well put. Excellent on 'gender'.
I was with her until the section on grooming by transwomen, where she makes allegations that aren't substantiated and without even the suggestion that court cases are pending. There's a lot wrong with how some mature transwomen treat their families, and that's well documented, but the grooming allegation needs a lot more to back it up.

She works in the field. She's clear that she has personal knowledge of this. And she's also clear that the problem is not transwomen, but males in any group - she mentions the Pakistani cases where people were silent, for fear of being called racist, as a comparator.

My reason was that in both of those cases, the social workers were being limited as to what they could and couldn’t say or do. This was because they were being told by authorities that there were fears about being seen as ‘transphobic’ if they spoke about or reported on cases where transwomen had been grooming trans kids online.

It reminded me very much of the way we all gingerly tip toed around Pakistani sex offenders abusing children because the police claimed they didn’t want to be seen as ‘racist’.

Just like most Pakistani men are not sex offenders, most trans people are not sex offenders. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be talking about these cases. In fact, the only common denominator in sex offending and domestic abuse is male offenders. Biological sex is the underpinning factor. Maleness. That’s why we call it male violence.

Her comments are very clear that the risk isn't the trans element. The risk is the biological sex. And once you silence any suggestion that a group of males may pose a threat, despite being males, you open a huge gap in safeguarding. The fact you recoil from her raising this - a woman whose career is around safeguarding women and children from male violence, who is explicit that she has personal knowledge of two cases - rather tends to support that, I think.

I mean, either you think she's making it up, or it's right to raise this as a risk factor. I don't see any third option.

Again: as soon as any group can't be questioned in terms of motive, you have a loophole. And just because most of that group wouldn't dream of exploiting it, it doesn't mean none will. That's why we safeguard: not against the harmless but the harmful.

We're back to Lang Cleg's "sacred caste".

Her comments are very clear that the risk isn't the trans element. The risk is the biological sex. And once you silence any suggestion that a group of males may pose a threat, despite being males, you open a huge gap in safeguarding. The fact you recoil from her raising this - a woman whose career is around safeguarding women and children from male violence, who is explicit that she has personal knowledge of two cases - rather tends to support that, I think.

I mean, either you think she's making it up, or it's right to raise this as a risk factor. I don't see any third option.

You misunderstand me. I don't doubt that she has personal knowledge. (I trust her.) But she doesn't/can't substantiate it. There is nothing beyond believing her - and that counts for nothing for people who don't. No arrests, no court cases pending - let alone no convictions - that's not going to convince anyone not already convinced, is it?
Got to have better evidence than this if it's not going to look like a moral panic.

But the alternative is not speaking out at all, and that's worse, no?

She says: I know that if this blog reaches as many people as it usually does, there will be hundreds, maybe thousands of social workers, psychologists, therapists and doctors thinking about their own cases of children they are working with.

She is warning other practitioners to be mindful of male predators in all groups, and that the risk is real, and established, and should not be ignored for fear of what people might say.

The fact this could be cast as a moral panic at all shows how badly astray we are. Speaking the truth is currently frowned upon, and women and children's bodies pay the price of silence. It's quite extraordinary that we are in a point in history where warning that a group of male people pose a normal male safeguarding risk is controversial, even when we have the stats to illustrate male offending patterns. Truly, we live in post-truth times.

You can't speak truth to power without meeting opposition. That's the point. If there's no opposition any more, then you got there too late.

We can't allow safeguarding to be dictated by what people will think.

Excellent article. Should be taught in schools ffs.

Agree - excellent and very clear. She backs up her claims carefully and comes across as sensible and empathetic. No derision of trans and gender-nonconforming people. A good essay to pass on, one of the best I have read.

I was with her until the section on grooming by transwomen, where she makes allegations that aren't substantiated

Taylor is trying to protect the identity of the victims in the two cases that she mentioned.

That some transwomen are paedophiles and groom children is a matter of legal fact as they have been convicted: transcrimeuk.com/tag/grooming/ Obv NATWALT