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.'

Oh yes and which lies?

To be honest though I mean we're not going to agree are we.

I've been talking about this for years and years.

Do you think that there should be words for the female half of the world? To enable stats to be collected, identify issues that affect us around the world etc.

I've read that women, girls, females, should include people who ID as female.

Should there be a word and what should it be?

@Scepticaltank

From that linked page

On the evangelical and fundamentalist group the signatories include:

Heritage Foundation - who were profiled by Southern Poverty Law Centre's HateWatch for their anti-LGBT lobbying and close ties to the Trump Administration.

Here is a chat Sam Brinton had with the Heritage Foundation.

www.heritage.org/nuclear-energy/commentary/liberty-justice-all-conversation-sam-brinton-deep-isolation-and-the

By association Sam Brinton is a right wing fundamentalist.

Quoting my own post here.

Can the experts on evangelical and fundamentalist associations watching this thread confirm that Sam Brinton is officially an evangelical and fundamentalist group member of the Heritage Foundation please?

[quote bigotryisbad]@adviceseekingnamechanger

I've reported several directly personal attacks on me in this thread alone. MNHQ get about two reports per post when it gets really bad on a thread and there are entire threads where the only thing I do is report blatant transphobia and I don't post at all.

It's deleted a reasonable proportion of the time but claiming it doesn't exist at all when the reason for that is the dozen reports I've had to make having gone through it all?

This website is hostile because people keep posing transphobia and personal attacks and arguing that pro trans voices should go elsewhere. That it might not be so obvious because people have taken the time to report it? Still means those people have to look through it.

And by "those people", I mean me.[/quote]
You set the tone by joining a thread on FWR and accusing GC feminists of racism, anti-semitism and you accused posters of lying. I do find it a little bit rich when after attempting to school women on opinions you don't like you take umbrage at their responses.

[quote bigotryisbad]@adviceseekingnamechanger

I've reported several directly personal attacks on me in this thread alone. MNHQ get about two reports per post when it gets really bad on a thread and there are entire threads where the only thing I do is report blatant transphobia and I don't post at all.

It's deleted a reasonable proportion of the time but claiming it doesn't exist at all when the reason for that is the dozen reports I've had to make having gone through it all?

This website is hostile because people keep posing transphobia and personal attacks and arguing that pro trans voices should go elsewhere. That it might not be so obvious because people have taken the time to report it? Still means those people have to look through it.

And by "those people", I mean me.[/quote]
Sorry @bigotryisbad I genuinely couldn't see any personal attacks - what was said to you that you saw as a personal attack if you wouldn't mind answering? (Asking in good faith as I'm genuinely unclear). I did see people praising you for your engagement and people asking you to expand on your ideas.

I feel people are engaging with your opinions robustly - is that not what you want? I don't know why you think this is hostile?

I will point out you have lied quite badly about puberty blockers and when challenged, made a fairly nonsensical point about saying there's no evidence they 'turn people trans' but no one was arguing this. Posters were pointing out you said they were reversible. They are not. You lied and then deflected when challenged. (12:28)

Similarly with JKR, you said at 06:16 that she'd said that SRS was a necessity for a GRC. She in fact said the opposite. You lied.

It's hard for posters to engage with you when you inflate claims and refuse to acknowledge this. I don't care so much about the JKR one but you can't peddle nonsense that puberty blockers are reversible.

Yes, what's with the anti-semitism accusations?! Talk about pulling something out of your arse!

@Juliesipadwillcallyouback

Yes, what's with the anti-semitism accusations?! Talk about pulling something out of your arse!

I've noticed a lot of this lately in different discussions where there are attempts to link it to some pretty widely different ideas, like covid conspiracy theories. And in a very circuitous way, and including similar claims about connections to unacceptable ideas - that these people share some idea (say about vaccines) therefor they are in bed on these other ideas (about Jewish conspiracies).

It's actually a bit disturbing, and I worry about what the results of this approach might be.

2. Bring healthcare into line with internationally accepted standards of care and have it placed into the hands of properly qualified professionals and out of the hands of Tavistock permanently.

This is interesting isn't it? What is wanted is for NHS GPs to be forced to give NHS prescriptions on demand without any diagnosis of any medical condition in the same way that Gender GP does. And for surgery to provided on demand in the same way. It's not actually properly qualified professionals that are required, it is high volume, unrestricted cosmetic body treatments free on demand and paid for by tax payers with no limits as if it's medically necessary, despite the recognition of the legal status these procedures and drugs are for not being anything medical at all.

@NiceGerbil

'Equal marriage is the obvious current example: LGBTQ+ people were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but not someone of the same sex. Why? Bluntly because the UK has had some of the most homophobic laws across history and it'd been decided that being Gay itself was unlawful in living memory.'

I think if you think UK law has been much harsher on gay people around the world and through history you might want to do a bit more to reading.

Many religions have not been very keen with results that affect a huge amount of people.

Homosexuality is still illegal around the place. How is it worse in the UK?

I would also point out that the history of women's rights around the world and through history is pretty grim.

In the UK it was only made illegal to rape your wife in the early 90s. That's not great is it. And yet our laws are pretty strong around women (in theory). Which shows how bad it is in many other places.

The UK is actually responsible for imposing a lot of the homophobic laws currently in place around the world on those countries as part of the British Empire...

I'd suggest that imposing homophobia by force on 1/4 of the globe is right up there in terms of most homophobic county of all time. Especially given the toxic results that these laws have left behind.

@Scepticaltank

2. Bring healthcare into line with internationally accepted standards of care and have it placed into the hands of properly qualified professionals and out of the hands of Tavistock permanently.

This is interesting isn't it? What is wanted is for NHS GPs to be forced to give NHS prescriptions on demand without any diagnosis of any medical condition in the same way that Gender GP does. And for surgery to provided on demand in the same way. It's not actually properly qualified professionals that are required, it is high volume, unrestricted cosmetic body treatments free on demand and paid for by tax payers with no limits as if it's medically necessary, despite the recognition of the legal status these procedures and drugs are for not being anything medical at all.

I mean, that's not what I have said at all...

So, you do you, I suppose.

Please keep me out of it and don't put words into my mouth.

I think it's a scattergun approach.

The aim is to make other posters feel horrified at being accused of aligning with xyz and so stop talking about their views. Also to see if anyone gets upset and if they are upset enough they might not post again. That sort of thing.

The fact that so many women who are vocal about this are old school lefty feminists. Nicey nicey. The sort that the right wing press likes to stereotype etc. Seems to be, I don't know. It's impossible? That's the bit I don't understand.

But that's why for many of us it doesn't land like it's supposed to. Because it's so bloody ridiculous.

The question as to why so many women in public life, politics, feminist activists etc. The sort of women who care about gay rights, the rights of asylum seekers, you know on and on. Suddenly have turned into raving bigots.

I mean the obvious example is JKR. been through a lot of shit, very generous to charities, walks the walk as a person concerned about those who are struggling etc. Suddenly is the most evil person in the world?

It just doesn't make sense.

There is never an explanation past 'bigot, transphobe' and worst of all 'weaponising' her experiences of male violence.

There is no engagement with any of this. No discussion. No explanation.

Just you're wrong shut up you want us to die etc.

The idea that trans people are most at risk from a bunch of mainly lefty women is ridiculous.

Why isn't male violence on the agenda?
Why aren't more facilities/ privacy on the agenda?
And why is it that while women understand the concerns of trans people generally (male violence, discrimination) and say what about this or that solution that works for everyone, the concerns of women are dismissed out of hand?

@adviceseekingnamechanger

1. I've said repeatedly why the evidence presented in the Bell v Tavistock case is not something I consider settled as it appears on examination to be about as far from genuine medical opinion as a lawyer who has fought for forced pregnancies is away from being a feminist.

I've also noted that I'm prepared to disagree on this, politely, several times. That's not a deflection; I'm just not accepting that a biased option sourced from a hate group is the best place to start anything at all.

1. As for JKR I copied her comment, in full, and noted why I felt it was disingenuous. I acknowledged that, in part, this was because I had felt lied to when I took it at face value as the situation in Scotland, only to discover the truth later. Having done that, I do not accept an allegation of lying: I gave her words a reasonable examination and explained why I had a problem with them.

1. Two of the personal attacks against me have been deleted by MNHQ. My understanding of the rules, albeit now somewhat out of date is that re-posting deleted content is against the posting guidelines. If you want to know if they were acceptable, I'd suggest that the deletion makes clear that they were not.

Yes the actions and legacy of the empire is terrible.

You'll get no arguments from me there.

You used it to support the idea that the UK is backwards on these matters now and I don't think that's true.

You also said that it was illegal to be gay in the UK in living memory. That's true. I pointed out that it was legal to rape your wife until the early 90s. No comment on that?

If you look around the world we are by no means it's illiberal though.

@Juliesipadwillcallyouback

1. Respect trans people's existing rights and just stop with all the lies. They help no one; they scare some and they lead to hostility and, on occasion outright violence.

Which lies, and what violence?

2. Bring healthcare into line with internationally accepted standards of care and have it placed into the hands of properly qualified professionals and out of the hands of Tavistock permanently.

So you think that pubescent children should be put onto unlicensed drugs to halt their normally developing puberty, stunting their brain development possibly permanently and other physical development? Why?!

1. OP linked to an article which contains all the details of a transphobic arson attack. The person concerned had a history of posting content by Posy Parker and then decided to try a kill a trans person as a result of their GC beliefs.

Those lies.

That violence.

1. As for thinking that international best practice in treatment is somehow a scandal?

What do you suggest? Using a system that's worse because you're worried about treatments with outstanding success rates and safety rates that have been proved over 30 years and dozens of studies and metastudies to work?

I mean, that's not what I have said at all...
You said the first bit but I said the second bit. There was no implication I was saying it was what you wanted.

So, you do you, I suppose. We are all posting our own opinions, so there's no need to be silly about it.

Please keep me out of it and don't put words into my mouth. I really haven't. You are starting to sound a bit overwrought, as if you somehow own the whole conversation on this thread and have to manage every else's thoughts. That's not possible or particularly healthy.

@NiceGerbil

Yes the actions and legacy of the empire is terrible.

You'll get no arguments from me there.

You used it to support the idea that the UK is backwards on these matters now and I don't think that's true.

You also said that it was illegal to be gay in the UK in living memory. That's true. I pointed out that it was legal to rape your wife until the early 90s. No comment on that?

If you look around the world we are by no means it's illiberal though.

I think our rape laws are still a mess and need total reform but terrible laws on rape are not the fault of trans people.

A bit like earlier in the thread on the terrible fact that rape where the victim is known to the perpetrator is now functionally unprosecuted is something I'd be willing to fight because it's horrific.

In the Keira Bell/Mrs A vs Tavistock, it was three Queen’s Bench High Court judges who weighed all the evidence presented to them, including all that the Tavistock could muster, and then made a judgment. Judges made a judgment. The judgment is not a transcript of a lawyer’s opinion.

During that case, the Tavistock were asked to present their research. They declined to do so, citing it wasn’t ready. They then published their findings online a few days after the publication of the Bell judgment and then published the paper a month ago. It shows that puberty blockers confer no psychological improvement in the children placed on them, that all but one progressed to cross sex hormones despite this, and all had reduced bone density in comparison to age-related peers.

The judgment also did not ban puberty blockers. It advised that if children can successfully meet 8 criteria of informed consent then they could receive them safely.

If there is confidence children can consent, then there should be no difficulty demonstrating this. If it cannot be demonstrated, then it’s disturbing that anyone would want to pursue this line of treatment on children who cannot consent.

And in no way does wanting children to be adequately consented to a medical pathway that will alter them for the rest of their lives make anyone right wing, left wing, or anything other than a compassionate human being.

@NiceGerbil

Oh yes and which lies?

To be honest though I mean we're not going to agree are we.

I've been talking about this for years and years.

Do you think that there should be words for the female half of the world? To enable stats to be collected, identify issues that affect us around the world etc.

I've read that women, girls, females, should include people who ID as female.

Should there be a word and what should it be?

I'm not going to address this in full; as @Scepticaltank is suggesting, it's time for someone else have a go, and fair enough; everyone's welcome.

I just want to say something personal:

In this thread people decided that it was ok for them to police the gender and sex status of someone they've never met and really know almost nothing about. She's not harmed anyone or put anyone at risk. As I linked, and said, I think she's been treated abominably and I think lying to people before conducting personal examinations (which is what happened to her) is simply unjustified.

That didn't matter though; there was this determination to make sure everyone knew what they thought of her and why and to enforce it on everyone, including me.

What good does that do women?

How is that not the patriarchy in action?

Genuinely, why?

Who am I to judge?

[quote bigotryisbad]@adviceseekingnamechanger

1. I've said repeatedly why the evidence presented in the Bell v Tavistock case is not something I consider settled as it appears on examination to be about as far from genuine medical opinion as a lawyer who has fought for forced pregnancies is away from being a feminist.

I've also noted that I'm prepared to disagree on this, politely, several times. That's not a deflection; I'm just not accepting that a biased option sourced from a hate group is the best place to start anything at all.

1. As for JKR I copied her comment, in full, and noted why I felt it was disingenuous. I acknowledged that, in part, this was because I had felt lied to when I took it at face value as the situation in Scotland, only to discover the truth later. Having done that, I do not accept an allegation of lying: I gave her words a reasonable examination and explained why I had a problem with them.

1. Two of the personal attacks against me have been deleted by MNHQ. My understanding of the rules, albeit now somewhat out of date is that re-posting deleted content is against the posting guidelines. If you want to know if they were acceptable, I'd suggest that the deletion makes clear that they were not.[/quote]

Thanks for replying.

1. The NHS guidance (not a hate group) doesn't say they are reversible, and simply says 'little is known about long term side effects' so yes we'll have to agree to disagree there and apologies, I hadn't realised you'd already said that previously. I don't think you can outrightly claim they are reversible though.

1. I'm still confused on this one. You said she said X when in fact she said Y I'm not sure why you think it disingenuous of her. Pink News made the same error. But that's not the point of the thread so we'll leave this here I guess.

1. Yes, absolutely fair point - I hadn't realised that's what the deletions were. I'm glad any personal attacks against you were deleted. I hope you see this as MN being active in preventing a hostile environment.

Once posts are deleted I suppose one can imagine the worst. I was pointing out oft used tactics against gc feminists:

I never said they were the fault of trans people

I find your posting style of picking stuff out of context and adding context or intent that wasn't there, not conducive to furthering discussion.

Can I ask why you said 'it's not trans people's fault' when I had never suggested it was?

Did you misunderstand my post/ point?
Did you read into it that I thought it was trans people's fault? Why did you think that?

I'd also be really grateful if you could link to the international healthcare standards you have referred to. I don't know what they are and it's hard to discuss when I don't know what the thing under discussion actually says.

This is the arson attack

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-south-yorkshire-51552031

Sounds like classic male type violence to me.

I'll have a look for where it says he was interested in gender critical views.

Can't find anything except a couple of people on twitter saying it.

Oh and pink news returned this but I don't know what it means

www.pinknews.co.uk/wp-sitemap-posts-post-36.xml

This is what the WHO say, are these the standards being referred to?

www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/95/2/16-183913/en/