GC and the extreme right etc etc

[lionheart]

In case you were wondering ...

transsafety.network/posts/gcs-and-the-right/

'In an unfortunate development, in the last few months we have seen a rapid increase in the rate at which practical crossovers are happening between so-called "Gender Critical" feminist groups (which seek to abolish transition healthcare and trans civil rights) and the traditional far right.'

I'm a little bit left of Marx, athiest, socially liberal, most definitely 'woke' and Gender Critical.
However, I think its disingenuous to think that there isn't an overlap with far right groups, or that they hijack womens fears for their own agenda. In some of those groups I do see the real transphobia that feminists are wrongly accused of.

Susan Stryker wants to find out about this too. I don't know if Susan is a member of the Stryker Foundation family?

Maya F has provided some links on this thread

twitter.com/susanstryker/status/1371218565043343362?s=20

For sure. Those connections have been discussed on various threads.

What is disingenuous is to present those connections as a means of discounting the 'so-called "Gender Critical" feminist groups' or claiming that the aim is to 'abolish transition healthcare and trans civil rights'.

Sorry, Stryker Corporation is the one I mean. Stryker Corporation and the Arcus Foundation. Confused me

Yes. I agree. It's bollocks.

ZOMG I'm an American anti semetic right wing NF supporting .. something?

It's funny though. I mean. I'm just a bog standard lefty feminist type.

So, whatever.

Here’s a link to the submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry they mention:

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/

It calls for the removal of all trans people’s existing human rights and legal protections and an ending of healthcare except where it limits access to any remaining legal rights.

It’s deeply transphobic and entirely unjustifiable. It’s not even the closest ties between GC campaigners and attacks on trans people.

If you read the article there are direct links between ‘mainstream GC’ people and violent attacks on trans people. An arsonist had literally shared GC materials as part of the justification for his attack.

The links do discredit a movement which was founded on an antisemitic conspiracy theory and works with and for the far right to attack a minority. Claiming otherwise just shows that the links (which are clearly there) are simply acceptable to the entire GC movement rather than being some fringe accident.

It's been getting noticeably worse he past couple of years.

It calls for the removal of all trans people’s existing human rights

It doesn’t. At all.

It’s such an utterly juvenile approach, to post something, claim something about that post, then assume people aren’t capable of reading it and will just believe your claim.

It’s also utterly juvenile to say “that person who disagrees with me is exactly like those other people who disagree with me! Anyone who disagrees with me is the same and all bad!”

Maybe so many people disagree because it’s all nonsense.

There is also a completely juvenile deliberate obfuscation of language.

“Deny transition healthcare” usually means “not letting kids permanently damage their bodies for no psychological gain with no evidence it helps”.

I’m always amazed people on the “left” think it’s acceptable that kids should be subjected to low evidence poor quality medicine. But to object to that is “right wing”. Yeah right, pull the other one.

It's maybe worth pointing out, that it isn't just GC feminists and the far-right that worry about this issue. Mainstream conservatives worry about this issue too. They often don't think biological males in female sports is fair at all.

And it may actually be plenty of folks on the political left that would have concerns also. Remember that Twitter, the left-wing NGO's, and the political parties, don't necessarily accurately represent the general population, or the voters on the left.

So it's not like you just have this tiny fringe group of extreme feminists, and another fringe group of extreme right-wingers.

If you just take into account all the mainstream conservatives, or I don't know, polling of the general population, I think you can see that GC concerns about supposed "trans-rights" are perfectly mainstream.

But even if it was just two tiny groups of extremists that believed in this stuff, well you know, it's still going to be true that biological men aren't women.

"If you read the article there are direct links between ‘mainstream GC’ people and violent attacks on trans people. An arsonist had literally shared GC materials as part of the justification for his attack."

Haven't read the article, but just what you mention here, is next to meaningless. Were the GC materials calling for violence? Because if not, there probably isn't much of a link. Or not a link that we would have to worry about.

People can commit violence in the name of all sorts of causes. It doesn't instantly discredit the cause, or any particular source the attacker happened to like.

No one should write a book defending socialism in case some people end up wanting to use violence in support of the cause? The author of such a book would be "directly linked" to violence?

Have read through the original link and the evidence from the Women's Human Rights Campaign that bigotryisbad posted.

The WHRC submission includes statements requesting the repealing of the GRA. This is definitely a more radical view than most GC organisations and individuals would say but hardly unheard of. The WHRC website is helpful in that it shows who is part of the organisation and anyone can see who they are. They aren't fascists.

For a response to the WHRC stance from a GC writer (Lorelei/hatpinwoman), you could also read this piece here medium.com/@hatpinwoman/a-reponse-to-jennifer-bilek-and-julia-long-338924df34c

The original link has been very helpful to me as I've seen references to a GC writer who has apparently turned out to be an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and I hadn't found out who that was - turns out this accusation is against Jennifer Bilek. Now I can try to find out more.

@NotBadConsidering

It calls for the removal of all trans people’s existing human rights

It doesn’t. At all.

It’s such an utterly juvenile approach, to post something, claim something about that post, then assume people aren’t capable of reading it and will just believe your claim.

It’s also utterly juvenile to say “that person who disagrees with me is exactly like those other people who disagree with me! Anyone who disagrees with me is the same and all bad!”

Maybe so many people disagree because it’s all nonsense.

Yes it does.

Read it and admit it calls for the removal of the Gender Recognition Act or stop lying about it.

The Gender Recognition Act only exists because trans people's human rights were denied in the U.K. for decades so one posh bloke could get away without paying what was due in a divorce. Corbett v Corbett (1971)

GC or not; that's barbaric and wrong. Taking away human rights from a group is - shall we say it politely - "not ok". Taking them away again after 17 years because an antisemitic conspiracy theory stoked unjustified fears?

No.

@Zinco

"If you read the article there are direct links between ‘mainstream GC’ people and violent attacks on trans people. An arsonist had literally shared GC materials as part of the justification for his attack."

Haven't read the article, but just what you mention here, is next to meaningless. Were the GC materials calling for violence? Because if not, there probably isn't much of a link. Or not a link that we would have to worry about.

People can commit violence in the name of all sorts of causes. It doesn't instantly discredit the cause, or any particular source the attacker happened to like.

No one should write a book defending socialism in case some people end up wanting to use violence in support of the cause? The author of such a book would be "directly linked" to violence?

Read the article. The materials posted were from "Posie Parker" famous for T-shirts, her own consistent links to the far right and calling for men with guns to harass anyone they thought might be trans and in a women's toilet.

So, yes: a person known to call for violence against trans people repeatedly and obviously.

The key driver to the passing of the GRA was the Goodwin case which was about privacy, that people who had had genital surgery shouldn't have to have documents that didn't match their target sex, with a secondary factor of making sure that there was a way of marrying as their target sex too. It's a strange Act with its exemptions for inheritance of titles and the big argument was that it would only ever apply to a small number of people, which in fact appears to be right as about the predicted numbers have taken out a GRC.

The legal landscape is entirely different now, as is the picture of who now identifies as trans. But yes, I understand why most trans people, including those usually mentioned as linking with GC views, would be very much against repealing the GRA.

This source references some polling of the UK:

fairplayforwomen.com/commonsense_sport/

And GC concerns would appear to be perfectly mainstream.

@PermanentTemporary

Have read through the original link and the evidence from the Women's Human Rights Campaign that bigotryisbad posted.

The WHRC submission includes statements requesting the repealing of the GRA. This is definitely a more radical view than most GC organisations and individuals would say but hardly unheard of. The WHRC website is helpful in that it shows who is part of the organisation and anyone can see who they are. They aren't fascists.

For a response to the WHRC stance from a GC writer (Lorelei/hatpinwoman), you could also read this piece here medium.com/@hatpinwoman/a-reponse-to-jennifer-bilek-and-julia-long-338924df34c

The original link has been very helpful to me as I've seen references to a GC writer who has apparently turned out to be an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and I hadn't found out who that was - turns out this accusation is against Jennifer Bilek. Now I can try to find out more.

Calling for a repeal of the Gender Recognition Act is actually quite widespread in GC circles.

As noted above, it's a law that only exists to (barely) cover the UKs Human Rights commitments. Remove it and you are directly attacking the human rights of trans people in a way that has been repeatedly ruled as a breach of human rights.

As for the antisemitic conspiracy theory; that was also pushed heavily and repeatedly by Jane Claire Jones and others. Again, not some unknown minor figures. The racism is woven through the GC movement.

The materials posted were from "Posie Parker" famous for T-shirts, her own consistent links to the far right and calling for men with guns to harass anyone they thought might be trans and in a women's toilet.

That was a fairly recent controversy over that comment from her. From what I remember, it wasn't anything like a call for violence against people.

If you can show an actual quote calling for aggressive violence, then please provide it.

That Martine Rothblatt is a major leader and funder in transgender circles, and also writes about transhumanist ideas, which are deeply weird and quite worrying? That isn't an antisemitic conspiracy theory in itself. Rothblatt is an amazing person and I'd agree her achievements are incredible. She transitioned aged 40. It is infuriating when she is described as a female CEO. It's infuriating when creating a robot wife into which she plans to download her actual wife is described in any other way than 'this is completely batshit misogyny'.

I do think that British people who aren't necessarily actively antisemitic themselves are particularly bad at spotting antisemitism, which is nonetheless deeply endemic in British culture, due to the history of British Jewish communities trying to protect themselves by 'keeping their heads down'. I come from a family that I had no idea was antisemitic until I married a Jewish man; then I found out. I hope that's changing. (I'm not sure Corbyn started out as antisemitic but he ended up there or as an enabler of antisemitism, and he's quite symbolic of the problem.) So I'm conscious that I may not see it and I will look further.

Repealing the GRA - I think eventually the GRA will become a completely dead letter. It's already largely irrelevant to most trans people because the legal and social landscape is so different. I hope that's a better process than repealing it.

@NotBadConsidering

There is also a completely juvenile deliberate obfuscation of language.

“Deny transition healthcare” usually means “not letting kids permanently damage their bodies for no psychological gain with no evidence it helps”.

I’m always amazed people on the “left” think it’s acceptable that kids should be subjected to low evidence poor quality medicine. But to object to that is “right wing”. Yeah right, pull the other one.

Actually, this is simply is not true:

1. Children are, in general, not permitted to make permanent changes to their bodies in the U.K. due to gender dysphoria; the treatments are limited to social transition and puberty blockers which can be reversed. Surgery is far more common for cis children wishing to have surgery for cosmetic reasons than trans young people who virtually all have to wait until they are 18 plus.

1. There is decades of evidence as to the efficacy and safety of the treatment. The first "children" who received these treatments are now in their 40s and 50s. The success rates remain over 99%. Those stories aren't reported in the U.K. but have been subject to rigorous international studies, all of which are supportive.

1. The U.K. has been a backwards irrelevance to trans healthcare for decades, failing to follow best practice for patient care and demanding that trans people (of all ages) join unbelievably long waiting lists and traverse impossible hurdles.

1. Before you say "so what" realise that the current waiting lists for urgent care for trans people can extend to 25+ years.

1. This isn't the only national shame that I think we're facing right now but it's one of the bigger ones. Britain has become the 'control group' for the rest of the world where proper treatment isn't offered and trans people are subjected to abuse, violence and terrible standards of care.

If you think that's ok? Even if you actually want to force people through these barbaric systems? At least don't be flippant and ill-informed.

Everything I have said can be verified and is available to confirm on the open internet. No special "GC only" links or sources. Look this up. Speak to the people who have been dealing with the Kafkaesque, bureaucratic nightmare...

Then, if you still want to be transphobic; be informed and aware of what you're doing.

@Zinco

It's maybe worth pointing out, that it isn't just GC feminists and the far-right that worry about this issue. Mainstream conservatives worry about this issue too. They often don't think biological males in female sports is fair at all.

And it may actually be plenty of folks on the political left that would have concerns also. Remember that Twitter, the left-wing NGO's, and the political parties, don't necessarily accurately represent the general population, or the voters on the left.

So it's not like you just have this tiny fringe group of extreme feminists, and another fringe group of extreme right-wingers.

If you just take into account all the mainstream conservatives, or I don't know, polling of the general population, I think you can see that GC concerns about supposed "trans-rights" are perfectly mainstream.

But even if it was just two tiny groups of extremists that believed in this stuff, well you know, it's still going to be true that biological men aren't women.

This debate is raging in the US right now and they're facing the same questions as the U.K.

Trans equality in sports? Over 70% support.

Biden's support for Equality legislation? His most popular policy.

The voices that are boosted are the anti trans ones, especially in the U.K. where major press outlets have been publishing transphobic scaremongering on a regular basis for years.

Everything else, including the downright laughable claim that 99% of people in silicon valley are trans which was made by Graham Linehan in the House of Lords... are "not capable of being substantiated", again, using the polite terms.

@PermanentTemporary

The key driver to the passing of the GRA was the Goodwin case which was about privacy, that people who had had genital surgery shouldn't have to have documents that didn't match their target sex, with a secondary factor of making sure that there was a way of marrying as their target sex too. It's a strange Act with its exemptions for inheritance of titles and the big argument was that it would only ever apply to a small number of people, which in fact appears to be right as about the predicted numbers have taken out a GRC.

The legal landscape is entirely different now, as is the picture of who now identifies as trans. But yes, I understand why most trans people, including those usually mentioned as linking with GC views, would be very much against repealing the GRA.

As far as I can see (IANAL) there has been 1 relevant act since the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and that's the Equality Act from 2010.

I've read that it didn't change anything significantly in terms of any of the protections it offered, it just collected them all in one place.

There aren't any 'changes to the legal landscape' on this since 2010. The legal tests and the law have not changed one bit.

The claims that there are seem to have been made in the US and Canada... who have totally different legal systems and don't have a 10 year old, proven, Equality Act which seems to be generally working.

So there's no space for fear mongering when there's simply nothing to back it up.

@Zinco

This source references some polling of the UK:

fairplayforwomen.com/commonsense_sport/

And GC concerns would appear to be perfectly mainstream.

That "source" is an anti trans campaign group with a history of asking misleading questions.

I would suggest that, while they very clearly want to make the case for trans exclusion, they're not actually a reputable place for an insight into public opinion.