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.'

@CrossPurposes

This link is the only one I can find about this

Maureen O’Hara of WHRC introduced herself...She thanked Julie Burchill for helping to fund the conference, which was met with applause...
lilymaynard.com/inventing-the-transgender-child/

It did surprise me a little and looking at the poster in the link above it's spelt "Birchall"

But it's also Julie Burchill, and after having been witness to her antics for 30 odd years nothing really surprises me about her
Tbh though I always end up feeling deeply sorry for her and worrying as she never seems to help herself

[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]
Is Jessica Watkins a trans rights activist or just a trans person? Was the assault on the capitol done in the name of trans rights? Hardly. This is like someone trying to smear gender critical feminists with Rose West. I'm sure you'd think that would be misogyny, so why isn't it transphobia when you do the same to trans people?

@christinarossetti19
I'm afraid Julie Burchill's article has gone down the memory hole so it was a link to the Observer reaction. I personally think the quotes from her original article explain themselves why I think she's an awful person.

However, I still want to know how it shows she is even gender critical nevermind part of a GC group.
www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/14/observer-withdraws-julie-burchill-column (without the " which broke the link)

@jj1968 I didn't realise that she was trans! I was just looking for a female who stormed the capital as it appears that the thread is on "GC links with the far right".

I guess she could still be gender critical? Maybe that's the reason for GC feminists apparently being behind the capital attack?

But she voted for Trump, and trump is a GC icon apparently, so I guess maybe she is GC?

Maybe she'll be asked if she watched Posie Parker or read Julie Bindle before donning the gun and storming the capital?

but it is clearly very different to the far right who have murdered hundreds - or millions when they have managed to get into power.

Yes, you might want to look up some far left movements too and what they did when they got into power.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August

Extremism is rarely a good thing. Power corrupts.

I didn't know Jessica Watkins was trans.

Nothing was said to indicate on the reporting. I thought it was very unusual for a woman to be in that position but I thought well there are unusual people about.

God's sake.

Sorry I've been trying to read through the thread and just got to that bit.

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

Yes. I'm not sure why this is so very hard to wrap one's brain around?

@jj1968 That is true but there is nothing in that article (which @bigotryisbad linked to) to indicate that which is the point I was making.

[quote CrossPurposes]@christinarossetti19
I'm afraid Julie Burchill's article has gone down the memory hole so it was a link to the Observer reaction. I personally think the quotes from her original article explain themselves why I think she's an awful person.

However, I still want to know how it shows she is even gender critical nevermind part of a GC group.
www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/14/observer-withdraws-julie-burchill-column (without the " which broke the link)[/quote]
Ah, yes. The column that JB apologised for.

I'm no fan of Julie Birchill, but she is far, far from the most awful people involved in this debate (clue: the more awful ones issue rape and death threats and assault others).

@continuallyconflating

Thanks for finding that for me.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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?

You are correct in pointing out the typographical error. I'd suggest that it's doesn't justify your comment but I'm sure I would be considered "tone policing" rather than just objecting if I did.

And no, the fact that the current law setting out the current test is 11 years old does not mean that the rights are only 11 years old.

All it means is that the current test is 11 years old and there are statements that it's not going to change at the moment.

It's the current version of the test that goes back to the 1970s in its current form and preceded that as I understand it.

@NiceGerbil

I didn't know Jessica Watkins was trans.

Nothing was said to indicate on the reporting. I thought it was very unusual for a woman to be in that position but I thought well there are unusual people about.

God's sake.

According to this piece 28 women face charges so far relating to storming the Capitol: 19thnews.org/2021/02/women-arrested-storming-the-capitol/

JJ out of interest, if a trans activist appears on a far left website what's the reaction in "trans inclusive" circles?
They have heard about the USSR, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, haven't they?

Totalitatlrianism, rather than a plurality of viewpoints and the right to Express never leads anywhere good.

As I have said, I'm not here to call for new rights; just for the protection of trans people's existing rights

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else.

...but they don't get to redefine everyone else's already established rights.

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

And if they appeared on a far left MRA website?

As human rights are being mentioned a lot I thought I'd post them.

Long so skim past if you are familiar with them.

Thought it would be useful to reference them explicitly when we're talking about human rights being removed etc.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

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

The claim that I am quoting those sections in order to distort the data is false. Those sentences are literally the main conclusions of that area of the study, reproduced in the original wording. There is nothing else in the study that negates that understanding.

The lead author of the study did not like the way the conclusions were being used. Presumably people were pointing out, quite rightly, that these males that doctors like her were pushing into female spaces continued to commit violent criminal offences at the same rates as other males. Perhaps that was getting in the way of her pet project, who can say, but to claim I am attempting to distort the data is ludicrous.

Dhejne, perhaps genuinely and with reason, objected to the claims made that the overall rates offending was higher in trans people and pointed out the fact that the higher rate of offending was only in the earlier group. That still leaves the later group offending as a whole (mixed male and female) at the same rate as the general population.

That is covered in the part quoted below: relating to data that is separated by date. Note the calculation of separate sexes is not included in this date separated data. Given that the sexes are not separated for this calculation, it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to whether the reduction in offending was simply due to female to male subjects reverting to a female rate of offending with better mental health support.

”Crime rate
”Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.“

Much as she doubtless regretted her conclusions, she cannot simply change them. I did not misunderstand the quoted parts and neither did anyone else. Her subsequent attempts to muddy the waters by claiming the cohorts split by time period meant that the original conclusions were not sound is disingenuous at best. Science doesn’t work that way. You can’t dismiss figures and conclusions, just because you don’t like the unexpected effects your data created.

This section is the part I believe she hoped people would pick up on:

Conclusions

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Ironically, many who claim to be leaders in the trans community are pushing hard to reduce or remove the mental health care support that Dhejne feels is so important. Given that she states the reason for reduced criminality is down to that help, it seems likely the problems will intensify.

And given these are people going through a medical transition, the chances of the more recent male transgender cohort having lower behavioural and criminal patterns from their own sex are zero.

The claim is that various groups are working to remove the human rights of trans people in the UK.

If which human rights are in jeopardy are flagged then we might have a more productive conversation.

I don't want fascists and conspiracy theorists on my side. I do not want to whip up extremist groups

You do realise that fascistic or extremist behaviour is not the sole preserve of the right? Much of the fascistic behaviour we see in recent times comes from those purportedly on the 'progressive' left.

Anyway, enough of this tedious left/right trope. It has become a meaningless cliche. Extremes at either end are pretty indistinguishable from each other.

@jj1968 it's weird that this early article only mentions her www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9250659/amp/Oath-Keepers-leader-Jessica-Watkins-joined-Capitol-riot-awaiting-direction-Trump.html

They've now deleted the comments, but it was basically "look how dangerous women are too"

How many men stormed the capital?