Liz Truss reveals ‘shocking’ plan to remove healthcare for trans youth, slammed as an ‘extraordinary’ attack on equality - the backlash begins

[stumbledin]

Predictably trans activists and their media allies have started misrepresenting what Liz Truss said.

"" ... Worryingly, only one of the three principles set out by Truss actually relates to GRA reform.

The other two – the protection of single-sex spaces for women and access to healthcare for transgender youth – are talking points often repeated by those opposed to trans rights in any form. ... "

(ie protecting women's rights is anti trans)

" ... “It would be an extraordinary move for the minister for women and equalities to support the introduction of a new form of inequality into British medical practice, by effectively treating transgender teenagers as less capable than their cisgender peers.

“We believe that transgender young people should have the same right to make important personal decisions as non-trans people.

“Furthermore, we must question why Ms Truss is making a statement about clinical pathways while answering a question on the Gender Recognition Act, which has no bearing on medical care.” ... "

(This is pink news so not surprising that they would take this tone!)

Meanwhile in the Independent:

" ... LGBT rights group Stonewall demanded talks with the minister to establish what decisions she had in mind and to ensure that young people continue to be offered appropriate support. ... "

" ... We’d welcome an opportunity to discuss this with the minister, as it’s crucial all young people who are questioning their gender identity are able to access high-quality, timely support. Every trans young person should be given the care they need, in an informed and supportive manner, so they’re able to lead a happy, healthy life.” ... "

As far as I know no women's groups or services have made any statement, eg re confirmation that single sex service provision is guaranteed under the EA.

Pink News: www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/23/liz-truss-trans-rights-gender-recognition-act-reform-healthcare-puberty-blockers-backlash/

Independent: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lgbt-gender-government-liz-truss-transgender-rights-consultation-a9478901.html

It just seems odd that this is the only thing children apparently know their own minds on. I really think they are after lowering the age of consent for other things as well. I have no issue with adults living as they wish to live, and taking whatever drugs they need to feel happy in their bodies, but children cannot make those decisions. And yes, many times it is the parents who are encouraging it.

Yes. We know what some of them would like to lower the consent for.

@witchesaremysisters

A wonderful analogy - this really nails it. Not sure if you've posted it before, but it's the first time I'd seen it - so thanks.

There's a person I know who's a disabled rights activist. She's very abrasive and PC in a bad way (IMHO). Recently I saw her on Twitter agreeing with a trans activist. This really struck me as I know she'd claim that she's a feminist herself and she's always going on about people infringing others' rights.

I think she was drawing a parallel from disabled rights along the lines that, because people with disabilities suffer prejudice and oppression because their bodies don't fit the norm, then likewise if a trans person doesn't fit the physical norm of what a man (or woman) is, then it's similar and prejudice against that is equally wrong. We should therefore validate trans people just like we should validate people with disabilities.

I'd love her to read your analogy. But there's no way I'm sending it to her as I try to clear of her for my own mental health. Plus she could ruin things for me as we work in a related field.

Or is the next step to say If 11 year old children can know their own minds on gender treatment they are capable of knowing their own minds on having sexual relationships?

It's already being suggested by people like Peter Tatchell, who thinks nine-year-olds can enjoy sex with adults. Munroe Bergdorf and other transactivists who see nothing wrong with drag queen children and was challenged by Julia long after Desmond is Amazing (age 11) had money thrown at them while twerking in an adult gay bar and of course the trans person referred to above by ScapaFlo has campaigned for a great deal of their career to legally reduce the age of the participants in extreme and violent pornography.

Bergdorf added: “I think we need to be encouraging children to be themselves and do whatever they want to do.”

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgender-activist-munroe-bergdorf-should-not-work-with-children/amp/

Liz Truss reveals ‘shocking’ plan to remove healthcare for trans youth

Fake news.

Munroe Bergdorf and other transactivists who see nothing wrong with drag queen children and was challenged by Julia long after Desmond is Amazing (age 11) had money thrown at them while twerking in an adult gay bar

Munroe Bergdorf became a patron of Mermaids Charity recently, announced during their online fundraiser 'Digi Fest'

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3870816-New-Patron-for-Children-s-Charity

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3862287-Mermaids-DigiFest

It seems Mermaids Charity do not adhere to same Safeguarding principles & understandings as NSPCC

12 JUNE 2019

Peter Wanless (NSPCC CEO) statement:

(extract)
"The Board of Trustees and EB want to be totally clear that the reason we stopped working with Munroe has nothing to do with the fact that she is transgender.

The driving force of the decision the Board took was concern around the lack of process that our organisation used when deciding to work with Munroe. This is not Munroe's doing but is much more a failure of our systems and processes than anything Munroe has done while engaged with us, and something we have to learn from.

When appointing an ambassador we are required to consider whether the relationship supports our ability to safeguard children and be influential in safeguarding children. The board decided an ongoing relationship with Munroe was inappropriate because of her statements on the public record, which we felt would mean that she was in breach of our own risk assessments and undermine what we are here to do. These statements are specific to safeguarding and equality. (continues)

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/news-opinion/munroe-bergdorf/

It always has to be asked: for what reason do adults want these systems changed? What's their personal stake in that happening?

How realistic (and compatible with safeguarding) is it to unquestioningly assume those who speaks so often on this subject do so from pure altruism and a burning concern for the stifled freedoms of children?

Safeguarding: think the unthinkable. Ask the difficult questions. Stay neutral in the case of a persuasive adult involved in the situation who is seeking your time and attention and remain focused on the experience and needs of the child.

Safeguarding: think the unthinkable. Ask the difficult questions. Stay neutral in the case of a persuasive adult involved in the situation who is seeking your time and attention and remain focused on the experience and needs of the child.

This ^^

Lisa Muggeridge: Social work training: Ever present risk of predatory behaviour

Sorry if this has been posted already, but the pile on continues with a highly emotive, in terms of language, petition that has now been launched on Change.

I imagine the person who came up with this was shouting as they typed:

Liz Truss Threatens the future of young transgender individuals. This needs to be stopped

Not forgetting that what she said was in her opinion (ie nothing about proposing a new law) under 18s should not take decisions that could not be reversed, and she didn't just mean about the GRA.

In fact under 18s aren't meant to have plastic surgery.

So to date all LT has done is confirm what already exists, ie the provision of single sex services under the EA. That in her opinion under 18s shouldn't be allowed to take decisions that are not reversable.

And in fact she implied that older people should be allowed to do what made them happy which linked to her saying they would be publishing the results of the GRA consultation, could be read as saying she support self ID!

But what is going on know is so much part of the tactics of the campaign by trans activists. They must always be seen to be the persecuted group whether by reactionary right wingers or reactionary terfs.

So newspaper, who continue to collude with this narrative chose to interpret what was said to be an attack on trans rights (which they probably dont care about) but then generates pages of click bait text.

And women dont have a voice, or rather aren't given a platform so that their voice can be heard.

It's always so interesting the way they play the narrative game. Years of quiet lobbying in private meetings and various schmoozing for the TRAs to get as far as they did in the halls of power, via the Tories and Labour and all the establishment and corporate entities is simply unremarked on.

One Conservative minister makes a tame statement about protecting single sex rights, allowing trans people to live fairly and safely, and protecting children from irreversible and wrong decisions, and suddenly this group of well connected TRAs, entrenched in every possible sphere, pretend that the entire establishment is against them.

The brazen audacity is one of the reasons they've got so far, tbh. You do stand, open mouthed in shock that they can claim these things, never mind have people nod along.

The petition came up on my facebook earlier.

No actual aim other than "This needs to be stopped" (Thought experiment - if there was a feminist petition with those exact words on about something what sort of names do you think we'd be called?).

No links to anything, let alone any of the words that Liz Truss actually said.

Just frothing.

I could barely look for cringing.

What exactly needs to be stopped? Liz Truss speaking in Parliament? That's going to be difficult, what with her being a Minister and all.

Evidently safeguarding children from potential harm needs to be stopped. One wonders why they want that? no one doesn't

Is it self referring...the petition itself is the this to be stopped?

^It always has to be asked: for what reason do adults want these systems changed? What's their personal stake in that happening?
^^
^How realistic (and compatible with safeguarding) is it to unquestioningly assume those who speaks so often on this subject do so from pure altruism and a burning concern for the stifled freedoms of children?

Spot on. No sacred castes.

At the very least I suggest anyone who has a Tory MP writes to them and say how please they are to see that despite the COVID-19 crisis that Ministers are continuing to oversee day to day business. And that how reassuring it was to hear Liz Truss confirm that single sex services are guaranteed under the EA and that she is concerned to protect under age children from taking decisions before they are old enough to fully understand the implications

This, I think, I think is important & also to include a couple of specific points of issue.

Apologies for typo, coffee is needed.

Sadly we are Labour - female mp who never speaks on woman’s issues, spends her time complaining about the gvt (not offering solutions), local high profile ‘initiatives’ that don’t really do much (bugger all for locals in lockdown in need) and having gurning pics taken with the mayor. Never replies to tweets. Useless.

Claimed response from an MP to a complaint about Liz Truss' statement & 3 principles:

twitter.com/MistresSinestra/status/1253709419436748800

I’ve been following that thread on Twitter R0wan

Colour me sceptical......

Would an elected MP really start a letter to a constituent with “Hi” and no name?

And use capital letters for nouns and adjectives?

I call bullshit.

Why not publish the MPs name? Is the MP ashamed?

The only group of people I can think of who capitalize for no reason in that specific way are MRAs. Which, I mean, not impossible that an MP is an MRA, but there are more likely explanations.

Is the MP Mhairi Black?

As an MP at this point you'd be extremely - er 'courageous', was that the Yes Minister word? - to pin your colours to the mast like that.

I would imagine a key reason to hide the name of this MP, if it is indeed an MP, is to prevent bloody horrible women writing to the MP pointing out terrible things like logic, fact, reality and current law, and asking them to consider the frankly evil POV of child protection policy and practice in the UK.