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.'

it's understandable that a narrative that claims the greatest threat women face is not poverty, inequality, racism, or the resurgence of anti-feminist conservative ideals, but trans people

Classic dog whistle here from jj.

The greatest threat to women is not trans people. But changing the legal definition of the word women to include men who demand it is probably the biggest threat to women’s rights in the west.

And Bigotry’s comments about the Swedish study are simply astonishing.

I will quote the conclusion the study came to, for the avoidance of doubt:

”Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. ”

and

” Crime after sex reassignment, however, has not previously been studied. In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females. “

@bigotryisbad But what universal human rights are we talking about? Not the right to marry, obviously, or the right to a family life, so which ones? You don't have to go into massive detail.

Apologies. A straw man, not a dog whistle.

I'm not going to respond to this further as it's dragging a long way away from the point.

That's handy isn't it, it means you don't have to answer questions about Semenya's performance advantage.

When I looked into this, I found out that having XY chromosomes doesn't stop you being a mother and giving birth to children:

It's funny how no one ever felt the need to appropriate intersex people to argue about 'who the men are and who the women are' when deciding who to deny a vote, an education or a job to.

Somehow they just knew!

Trans people have the right to marry who they want, to have sex with who they want, they have the right to be protected from discrimination, from violence. The same rights as anyone else.

They also have the right to create a fiction on a legal document, their birth certificate, if they go through due process. This is a right that other people do not have.

So actually, trans people have more rights than other people.

@continuallyconflating

just for the protection of trans people's existing rights

First from that image:
It's case by case, not person by person

And whereas you may be wanting to "just protect existing rights", that's very much not what the loudest trans advocates are calling for

They are violently and aggressively pushing for the erasure of any exceptions allowed under the EA, such as provision of single sex places, allowed on the basis of the protected characteristic sex.

It's disingenuous to pretend this isn't happening

And as I've pointed out before, one of the other exceptions allowed under the EA, is for insurance contracts based on risk based assessments
The patriarchy soon draws a line if you start to effect their profits

Again; all of the stuff I've being saying is based on what I found when I went looking with an open mind. I haven't seen that.

Given that there were people earlier in the thread denying that Julie Burchill ever had 'links' to GC groups when the evidence is out there for all to see:

www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/14/observer-withdraws-julie-burchill-column

I am happy to say that I have not, in this thread, called for anything close to this description:

They are violently and aggressively pushing for the erasure of any exceptions allowed under the EA, such as provision of single sex places, allowed on the basis of the protected characteristic sex.

If the Mumsnet feminism board is (reasonably enough given her recent racist, sexist tirade and working with a Neo-Nazi) wishing to 'cancel' Julie Burchill as a GC campaigner then I can't be held responsible for the claimed words of others presented without evidence.

That's not disingenuous; it's just reasonable.

I have attached a copy of the guidance which clarifies the law on this. I don't think this is in question and I'm pretty clear on what this says being reasonable.

[quote AtTheDickensDesk]@bigotryisbad But what universal human rights are we talking about? Not the right to marry, obviously, or the right to a family life, so which ones? You don't have to go into massive detail.[/quote]
Yes I've read the whole thread but still have no idea what rights would be lost if the GRA was repealed.

We have equal marriage
We have equal pension age
We have protection from discrimination in the EA

There was some stuff about privacy which could easily be solved now by adding 'gender identity' to GDPR special category data (not sure why it wasn't added in the first place - if I was trans I'd be furious about that)

So what remaining purposes does the GRA serve and in what way are these human rights?

@AnyOldPrion

it's understandable that a narrative that claims the greatest threat women face is not poverty, inequality, racism, or the resurgence of anti-feminist conservative ideals, but trans people

Classic dog whistle here from jj.

The greatest threat to women is not trans people. But changing the legal definition of the word women to include men who demand it is probably the biggest threat to women’s rights in the west.

And Bigotry’s comments about the Swedish study are simply astonishing.

I will quote the conclusion the study came to, for the avoidance of doubt:

”Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. ”

and

” Crime after sex reassignment, however, has not previously been studied. In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females. “

These quotes are selected in order to distort what the study shows. This has been confirmed by the lead author of the study:

www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm

If the legitimate aim is to provide services or spaces for people of one sex and some of the people of that sex would be unable to use the space or service if people of the opposite sex were allowed entry then it is legitimate and legal to apply that exclusion irrespective of GRC or not GRC. So again, there is NO automatic right for trans people to avail themselves of services or spaces that do not correspond with their sex, this needs to be upheld and implemented, failure to do so is what is causing problems as can be seen by the numerous recent court actions.

@334bu

*There would be much less conflict if the appropriation and colonisation of women's spaces, services and sports was not the goal. Cannot think of another movement which has sought to move in and redefine reality, then impose it on other traditionally marginalised groups - and then have the nerve to call it a movement for human rights.*

This 👆

Redefining reality is central to this ideology

Transwomen can't possibly share the same patterns of criminality as other males because it doesn't suit the narrative, so just lie about it.
Transwomen can't be bigger, stronger, faster etc than all females because it doesn't fit the narrative, so just lie about it.
Transwomen aren't members of the male sex because it doesn't suit the narrative , so just lie about it an throw in some totally irrelevant data about people with VSD and pretend there could be more than two sexes.

This! Both posts!

Trump repeated GC rhetoric directly in a recent speech...

Firstly if something is obvious common sense then it can be independently discovered by different people.

Secondly, despite your nonsense on this, Trump isn't saying anything "far right". It's a mainstream Republican position that he is advocating for. Not only that, but going off the poll I previously gave, it would be a mainstream position even in the Democratic Party. (At the voter level anyway.)

So completely mainstream viewpoint. Not "far right".

@jj1968 "Inventing the Transgender Child conference - a conference incidentally largely funded by Julie Burchill who has been a major player in the growth of the UK GC movement"

Could you supply a link for this assertion please? My search skills are failing me.

Thanks

Went off & fed kids.

Thanks all for clarifying re the GRA.

I'm feeling much as I did before - it's bad law ab initio, was always a terrible fudge with unintended consequences, & has been superseded by better legislation, such as equal marriage rights, which are more in line with modern thinking about letting people peacefully enjoy their lives, relationships & personal beliefs without prejudice.

I wouldn't make it a focus for campaigning, one way or the other, but I wouldn't be at all sorry to see it fall into disuse. Which, given the documented relative unpopularity of GRCs in recent years, does seem to be in line with the thinking of a majority of trans people.

Women's rights remain my focus.

& I think certain PPs either can't tell one Julie from another, or are rather wildly hyperbolising J Burchill's involvement in anything GC .

@bigotryisbad "Given that there were people earlier in the thread denying that Julie Burchill ever had 'links' to GC groups when the evidence is out there for all to see:

www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/14/observer-withdraws-julie-burchill-column"

That article proves that Julie Burchill is an awful person but there is nothing there to support that she has links to GC groups (unless Suzanne Moore is a group).

When I looked into this, I found out that having XY chromosomes doesn't stop you being a mother and giving birth to children

When you "looked into this", did you see that the person in that case has mosacism? They are in no way an average XY chromosome haver. There is no known example of someone with both sets of gonads functioning to produce both sets of gametes. Humans develop more one way than the other. Disorders of sex development happen within the sex binary.

And the vast majority of MTF trans people are perfectly average XY males.

CrossPurposes your link isn't working, but I assume that it's to the column that Julie Birchill wrote 8 years ago which she has since apologised for?

I'm missing how this makes JB an 'awful person'.

Sex offenders 72 transwomen( not including any with a GRC being housed in male estate
124 female sex offenders( which might include biologically male prisoners with GRC)
So women more likely to be sex offenders. Oh wait!!!
Women approx 27 million in England and Wales
Transwomen if 2%of male population approx 54,0000
So 72 out of 540,000 against 124 out of 27,000,000. Sure transwomen are just like women

bigotry

If 16:31 wasn't sufficient for you then I don't know what else I can say.

It doesn't remotely address my point which was about U.K. polling and people thinking trans means someone who has had SRS? Which I have already demonstrated. Keep up.

My comment referred to those who are protected by the s.7 Protected Characteristic of the Equality Act 2007.

It's the Equality Act 2010. So no, that definition of "trans" hasn't existed "for longer than you have been alive". Unless you are 11?

@RedDogsBeg

You really are something else jj1968, you dismiss all and any violence or threats of violence by TRAs against GC women and women as being the fault of the women for daring to attend meetings regarding changes to legislation or for involving themselves in any way with protecting the rights of women. Women deserve it according to you for holding and voicing a different opinion.

This just isn't true. I have repeatedly condemned violent and misogynist language used against gender critical women. I also think some of the things that happened at the initial protests were wrong and I have said so. I don't however think that the movement for trans rights is in anyway comparable in terms of violence to the far right. As far as I'm aware only one trans activist has been convicted of an assault in the name of trans rights since Stonewall. That's not a defence of what happened, or an attempt to minimise it, but it is clearly very different to the far right who have murdered hundreds - or millions when they have managed to get into power.

If any trans activist appeared on a far right or MRA website I would condemn them without hesitation and they would be over in trans inclusive feminist circles. There would be no looking the other way or mealy mouthed attempts to justify it. I don't want fascists and conspiracy theorists on my side. I do not want to whip up extremist groups with a history of violence against gender critical people no matter how much I may disagree with the gender critical position. And I don't want to add any credibility to far right groups and conspiracy theorists by collaborating with them in any way because they are dangerous people to all of us.

That article proves that Julie Burchill is an awful person but there is nothing there to support that she has links to GC groups (unless Suzanne Moore is a group).

She funded the Inventing the Transgender Child conference and has funded several other events.

[quote continuallyconflating]@Yasminelikescoffee
Yup, it's ignored or glossed over in most reporting
www.out.com/news/2021/2/22/trans-woman-jessica-watkins-insurrection-capitol-assault-riot-oath-keepers-jail

@Zeev
it would be deleted as "not in the spirit"
too true
[/quote]