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.'

This is the only thing they've got on that MALE arsonist being GC

twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1364382023247355906

Remind me again why women are being blamed for this...

I think because what men do is always a woman's fault.

Mother
Wife
Daughter
Woman who didn't want to go out with him
Etc etc

I find this post interesting on that thread.

'You think someone like Lee Harrison was born hating trans people?... No he learned it!

He learned it from consuming media and news stories that constantly painted trans people as predators. He learned it from “outraged” opinion columns full of hateful transphobic rhetoric! '

This seems so very naive. The idea that the only place this man could have learnt to hate gender non conformity, to use words like he did, to act in such a violent way, is from women, and in the last, what, 5 years or so.

If there is such a total lack of understanding of how men too often are heavily socialised into the nasty side of masculinity. And violence. Then I don't know where to start.

@AnneListersHat

bigotry have you read the Keira Bell case? Because if you had points 1 and 2 are easily proven too be false

Bell was over 16 before receiving any treatment.

And she still couldn’t understand the full implications of what the treatment would do to her. What’s your point?

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.

What does policing sex status mean? People are actually male or female, regardless of legislation.

What does policing gender mean? I always thought it meant having a go at men who wear make up, or who have long hair or who wear the type of clothing that is typically marketed to women. Or having a go at women who wear short hair and no make up. and practical, durable and comfortable clothes with decent pockets and shoes they can run in. Or having a go at men who like child rearing and making a nice home or women who like pursuing a high-flying career etc. etc.

Gender is just sexism and it should not be protected in law.

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.

Gosh

@NotBadConsidering

And she still couldn’t understand the full implications of what the treatment would do to her. What’s your point?

Relevancy of case vs. sought outcome.

Attacking the access of healthcare to under 16s because an over 16 "got treatment too easily".

Kinda stinks.

The points @bigotryisbad made about Bell's legal team are pretty telling too. Whole thing was bad faith and I'll be shocked if the ruling survives the appeal.

Of course it’s relevant. Can you explain how someone under 16 can consent if someone over 16 can’t? Do you think, for example, an 11 year old girl can meet these criteria:

(i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
(ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
(iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
(iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
(v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function;
(vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
(vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and
(viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain

If Bell’s legal team was pretty telling, how telling is it that the Tavistock legal team couldn’t provide any evidence that made the judges rule differently, and argued such points as “some kids will grow up to be asexual, so what does it matter if kids on puberty blockers do?”

Do you think it’s unreasonable that a child should be able to meet those criteria on consent? Or do you think consent isn’t important?

"Let's have more kids on long-term drugs that have not been proven to benefit them!" is a really interesting take.

That's shoddy 'healthcare' and kids - no matter how they end up identifying - deserve better.

16 is so so young.

Also she brought the case. The judgement was made based on the case. The decision was by the court.

'Attacking the access of healthcare to under 16s because an over 16 "got treatment too easily".

Kinda stinks.'

So when you say this, you're talking about Keira bell? You think she shouldn't have brought the case?

This argument is so stupid it cannot possibly be in good faith.

Those 8 points of consent were set out by the judges of the High Court. I copied and pasted them from the judgment. And you’re calling them “bad faith”.

Do you or do you not think children should adequately understand the implications of starting puberty blockers and do so with fully informed consent?

Hello, this is a matter from quite a while back in the thread, but when I read it, I think it may have made my hair stand on end.

bigotryisbad

do, as it happens, think there are areas where the advance of rights for trans people is justified. I haven't even begun to form the ideas into a postbecause I'm not atotalidiot and I can see what a hostile environment looks like. The first "new" (actually, most of my ideas as minor reforms) right that someone proposed in here would have to be bomb proof, battle tested and would still probably be flame war-ed into deletion.

Firstly, some common ground. I don't enjoy areas of the internet that are hostile, by which I mean places that do not abide by the level of civil (but snarky) debate that my first online debating society kept. If the order of the day is intimidating people out of discussion with rape threats and the like, then I'm out. Which is why I am on mumsnet these days.

However, if I have proposals for some form of social reform, my first port of call would be (and has been!) quarters of the internet where people of a different view on the topic gather. 100%.

Developing and refining proposals for social change is like performing an experiment using the scientific method. You try to disprove your pet hypothesis.

You find your ideological opponents and you ask them to identify the flaws in the proposal. If you can't find an opponent, you get a friend to play devil's advocate. Then you go back to the drawing board and think about how to eliminate the flaws identified.

The purpose of a post should be to initiate discussion in order to refine and improve your concept. Sometimes not much survives the first trial, but that's all to the good, because there is no point wasting ink and your best calligraphy pen making copies of a fundamentally flawed proposal.

The way you've phrased it makes it sound as if, at the root of it, you think the purpose of initiating a discussion about your ideas would be to rake in the like notifications!

A funny cartoon I just saw on twitter. Kind of apt.

@NotBadConsidering

This argument is so stupid it cannot possibly be in good faith.

Those 8 points of consent were set out by the judges of the High Court. I copied and pasted them from the judgment. And you’re calling them “bad faith”.

Do you or do you not think children should adequately understand the implications of starting puberty blockers and do so with fully informed consent?

Quite interested in the answer to this.

There was a thread on here recently about a 'left wing' youtube commenter

Bit off current topic, but thought it was worth providing the link requested above. Here's that thread +

That is the worst I've seen from someone vaguely mainstream, but attitude is consistent with the general tidy of misogyny that's often all too obvious in places like Twitter or Reddit. The raw hatred of women who stand up for themselves and say "no".

And where are the women acting like that in the other direction? There aren't any.

Love that cartoon. So true.

@continuallyconflating

This is the only thing they've got on that MALE arsonist being GC

twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1364382023247355906

Remind me again why women are being blamed for this...

Apparently he learned to hate trans people because of some t shirts.

With a dictionary entry on them.

Not hatred, not slurs, not death or rape threats. The suggestion is a man tried to murder a TW because he saw a dictionary definition of a woman on a statue of a woman.

Grasping at straws doesn't even begin to cover it.

The suggestion is a man tried to murder a TW because he saw a dictionary definition of a woman on a statue of a woman.

This whole debate is like being in a psychologically abusive relationship. It's crazy.

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 is certainly a tool of repression which is widely, and reflexively, used; and it does seem to bring many back into line. Trying to shame people by supposed associations. It really does have all the hallmarks of totalitarianism.

"it's a bit confusing on paperwork"

bigotry, you've said this is a GC argument but I'm unclear what it means - could you expand on what it's referring to specifically? If you could accurately give both sides of the argument on this that'd help...

"While the Party controls Oceania’s culture, economy, and political system in 1984, it can never execute totalitarian control until it gains control of the citizens’ minds. The bulk of the Party’s energy, therefore, is spent on capturing and maintaining control over people’s thoughts and feelings"

The Party’s widespread use of surveillance prevents citizens from organising to overthrow it. Throughout the novel, Winston walks past posters reminding him that “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.” The telescreen in his home, which cannot be turned off, has the power to monitor his movements and issue orders to him to correct his behaviour"

"Cameras and recording devices are frequently planted in public areas. Orwell takes this method of social control from the writings of eighteenth-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who designed new structures for prisons that would allow the guards to watch prisoners while preventing the prisoners from seeing the guards. Bentham believed that over time, prisoners would internalise the surveillance of the guards and stop engaging in criminal behaviour when released from prison"

"Winston Smith has psychologically internalised the Party’s surveillance, and monitors his own actions and thoughts accordingly. His struggle not to think subversive thoughts" " www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/central-idea-essay/how-does-mind-control-work/