The tide is stalled - is this why?

[NotAssigned]

Women and a few male allies have made amazing progress in the last few years.

However, while all the signs of the tide turning are there, it is not retreating down the beach.

I'm trying to work out why, because this ideology (TWAW) does not make any sense and yet it pervades political parties, institutions, corporates, the NHS and more.

Here are some possible ideas why. What do others think?

• People have trans-identifying friends who are decent people and just living their life and it would be disloyal to push back against TWAW ideology.

• Language has been hijacked (assigned at birth, pronouns in news reports, etc)

• Intersex conditions have been hijacked (many people think trans=intersex)

• The 'Born in the wrong body' narrative has gained a currency and acceptance due to media reporting of the idea.

• it's section 28 etc all over again.

I know there is nothing new here
I just think if we can distill why people are prepared to go along with this we might be more able to push back.
And I've had a glass of wine.

I do think there are some questions that don't really have clear consensus. My sense though is that as these other issues are finally examined they may be opened up for real analysis.

Probably the first things that needs to happen, and maybe the easiest to achieve, is protection of same-sex spaces etc. Along with that recognition of language that describes sex and boundaries around certain areas that can't be fudged, like statistics.

The second thing because it is so important is the whole medicalisation of children element needs to be dealt with, and regressive education. I think this will probably end up connecting to a more open discussion of gender dysphoria in adults. The science world really needs to pull up their pants here and start being real, this will include looking at institutions and doctors who have been pushed out because they differed from the lobbyist narrative. I think when we start seeing effects of medical transition on young people that may push this along significantly, it may be a real scandal.

I think those are the more immediate issues, and they are likely to lead to the other things that need to happen. There will likely need to be reexamination of some legislation, including repeals. There will need to be a close look at the way certain organisations are allowed to dominate and direct policy and enter institutions to do training. Free speech and freedom of thought, and maybe also freedom of religion, need to be solidified, and that will include the state looking at is own role in pushing social agendas.

Academia - well, I really wonder if they can survive, not just this but the wholesale anti-intellectualism that has infected it. I have wondered for some time if there will need to be a kind of rebellion of academics who leave the established universities before that happens. But in any case if we don't have real robust thought going on at the level of the university or some similar area, that tends to go poorly overall.

Well, if taking the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to court over your ideologically backed position that TWAW and TMAM, results in them calling transactivists 'thugs', the following day, we may well not have to do much at all.

Understanding the reality & history of how women's sex-based rights & Safeguarding has been undermined is important

Yes, but where do we begin when it comes to rolling back the tide - in a realistic, achievable way - in terms of public debate and consciousness?

The problem is TheProdigalKittensReturn is legally they are right

Morally they're wrong, though, and bad laws can be changed. It must be rather worrying for people who've been supporting those bad laws to realize that a. to the extent that the public is aware of what the laws say, support for them is very weak and b. this is only the beginning and public awareness is growing.

In terms of having a clear consensus, of course there won't be one when no public debate has been allowed to happen. We won't get anything even resembling a consensus until the whole thing is talked out without the pretense that trans people are the only stakeholders whose input is required.

Yes, but where do we begin when it comes to rolling back the tide - in a realistic, achievable way - in terms of public debate and consciousness?

Being very clear is the only way (as always) to identify & challenge Safeguarding failings.
These are specifically sex-based and age-based.

"Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights: Summary
The Declaration outlines current international laws and policies on women’s rights and how they are being threatened by organisations that are trying to change the definition of woman. It reaffirms existing women’s rights and suggests ways that states should promote and protect them. It was drafted with input from women internationally. Launching in March 2019, the Declaration is a clear call to law and policy makers to retain the sex-based biological definition of woman.

The Declaration on Women’s Sex Based Rights is a statement on the importance of keeping the current sex based definition of woman.

Women’s rights, set out in the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and subsequent international agreements, are based on our sex, defined by the UN as “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females”[1].

In recent years organisations have been quietly trying to replace the idea of biological sex with the idea of “gender identity” in human rights documents; and to include men who say they have a female “gender identity” in the word “woman”.

Many women’s rights are related to our biologically female bodies e.g. the right to abortion, and maternal rights. Other women’s rights are aimed at eliminating discrimination against women in public life e.g. women’s rights to education, political representation, work, equal pay. Further women’s rights are to protect us against violence or harmful practices e.g. rape, and FGM.

A key way women and girls are denied rights is by gender or sex role stereotyping (e.g. girls should help at home while boys go to school). The UN recognises this is harmful and works for “the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.”[2] The Declaration raises concern that the term “gender identity” reinforces sex role stereotyping because it is only possible to have a “gender identity” by choosing between sex role stereotypes for men and women.

In recent years some governments have been substituting “gender identity” for biological sex in law and policy, and including men who say they have a female “gender identity” in the word “woman”. This enables these men to access spaces and services set up for women and girls. This includes single sex victim support services, single sex sport, women’s shortlists designed to increase women’s participation in political and public life, scholarships and prizes for women, single sex toilets, changing rooms and sleeping areas aimed at protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Using “gender identity” instead of biological sex threatens maternal rights, women’s right to assemble and organise without including men, and data collection on violence against women and girls,. Furthermore, “gender identity” is being used to “transition” girls who do not conform to sex stereotypes."
www.womensdeclaration.com/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-summary/

Yes, but where do we begin when it comes to rolling back the tide

As R0wantrees keeps pointing out, we start and end by representing the interests of women and the protection of children.

Why would we want to pick a position that we think others will accept right now because they are not fully informed - which would involve ceding ground before we've even begun. That's just keeping the Overton window narrow.

We put our case on what we want and need.

Human beings can't change sex. Women have sex-based rights which should be preserved and needs currently unmet, which should be met. Human beings who are not women should not be allowed to colonise those rights or prevent those needs being met. We have sophisticated child protection legislation and frameworks and no group should be allowed to breach them.

That's our case. Why should we water it down?

Being very clear is the only way (as always) to identify & challenge Safeguarding failings.These are specifically sex-based and age-based

Personally think the whole thing has moved beyond that sort of clear-cut clarity that for now, due to institutional capture. Organisations are acting ahead of changes to the law as it is......As I see it when there is an emergency situation ( which is how I would describe the current conditions), the first thing you need to do is to get the situation under immediate control; stop it escalating further.

Afterwards you can look at what went wrong; how it went wrong and identify what is needed to try to prevent it happening again.
And in this case the reasons for the escalation of the emergency is that a whole ideology has been pushed to the extent that it has institutional capture, and that the safeguarding measures you speak of, and those who are supposed to implement them, have become misguided and confused.

Obviously part of the firefighting measures will be for those with knowledge and expertise in safeguarding procedures to keep on highlighting how these are failing; but until the ideology itself has been confronted this is not going to be straightforward.

I think SMART targeting likely is the best way to proceed:

Goals need to be:

1)Specific

2. Measurable

3. Achievable

4. Realistic

5. Targeted

*As R0wantrees keeps pointing out, we start and end by representing the interests of women and the protection of children
*

Yes, I get that........but when society has become subsumed in an ideology in which TWAW and children can be born in the wrong bodies that is going to be less straightforward to assert. Obviously it needs to be asserted by those fighting that particular prong........along with other very specific actions and goals.

If Stonewall got their way sex would no longer be a protected characteristic. So first of all there is an immediate need to thwart Stonewall's ( & Mermaids etc) secretive agenda, and give it public exposure.

That's our case. Why should we water it down

I'm not suggesting watering anything down.....but if you want to effect change you have first of all have to take hold of the levers of change; nobody is going to just hand them over to you because you. The first goal is, surely, to stop the escalation of the problem, which to my mind is creating enough noise and exposure to pause the GRA - to allow the space and time to do the rest. And it will take time.

take hold of the levers of change

We put our case on what we want and need

Yes, but it is not just about you. What we want and need has become part of a far wider context and set of circumstances.

not just about us

Justhadathought I agree with you about the SMART targets (how corporate).

It seems the majority of GC arguments are based on opinions. Even the ones based on facts lack any focus. People can argue until they're blue in the face that it's impossible to change sex, but without a clear SMART objective backing the argument it's effectively pointless.

Justhadathought I agree with you about the SMART targets (how corporate)

Yes, part of corporate lingo...but in my case arising from the experience of teaching. The building blocks of learning have to be specific, measured and targeted. You can't run before you can walk.....and so on.

It is like we have to work backwards if we want to unravel and un-pack what has gone wrong in the process or the system.

Yes exactly. In my industry every bit of of marketing material needs to be backed by SMART objectives, otherwise there's no focus.

It's also why I don't understand the logic behind the sticker campaigns. Aside from vaguely raising awareness, I can't see what the end goal is.

It's also why I don't understand the logic behind the sticker campaigns. Aside from vaguely raising awareness, I can't see what the end goal is

The sticker campaigns are a form of guerilla action......effective for grabbing attention and starting a dialogue. They pique interest and generate awareness. But meaningless on their own other than for those that are able to decode the signs and messages.

For example, up until the 'Women Don't have Penises' sticker campaign - on the Anthony Gormley statues on Crosby Beach - I had zero real awareness of what was going on........and that woke me up....because my local paper was full of it.....with the Liverpool Resisters being called a hate group and so on.....So I googled 'Liverpool Resisters' and here I am now...two years later fully engaged.

To instil a message in the unconscious the mind requires repetition, so if a buzz is created around a slogan or a soundbite and it is shared amongst friends, it enables repetition.

Women don't have Penises

Woman: Adult Human Female

I guess the right allocation of role and responsibility is important too when conducting any sort of camoaign. People need to be given tasks which match their strengths.

campaign

It seems the majority of GC arguments are based on opinions. Even the ones based on facts lack any focus.

That's your opinion.

It seems the majority of GC arguments are based on opinions.

Even if we assume that's true for a minute, are you trying to say that 'TWAW and TWAM' are fact-based positions?

It's also why I don't understand the logic behind the sticker campaigns. Aside from vaguely raising awareness, I can't see what the end goal is.

It's more like warfare propaganda by 5th columnists, who don't have a place where they can communicate openly. It's changed now in the UK, but for quite while this couldn't be talked about openly, so intriguing someone enough that they might go looking was the only real way to communicate with people.

"It is like we have to work backwards if we want to unravel and un-pack what has gone wrong in the process or the system."

Many young people now don't seem to accept that women actually are oppressed, hence why do our rights need protecting?; on paper (in UK at least) we have 'equal rights'. Do young people understand how oppressed women are, and have always been, because of our biology and relative physical weakness compared to men? Women's history isn't really covered as a topic in school. Do we need a 'top 100' list of facts of women's oppression, worldwide and history-wide, leading to the present day?

I believe that the current situation was an inevitability, in retrospect. At its heart, it is the product of the shift in left wing politics and social justice from a goal of equality to equity; as well an attempt to tame and sell exclusion (though I feel exclusivity is a more accurate term, exclusion conveys a more appropriate emotion) in aid of this goal. A part of this (though, in my opinion, far from the entirety) was, ironically, contributed by third and (more significantly) fourth-wave feminism.