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 is worth clicking on the above link and reading it all.......

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.

Well, I never. I think you said that a deleted posts contained personal attacks, and you say that you report 'blatant transphobia' also.

Since posts have been deleted for such simple things as 'bless' or an emoji before, any lurkers or readers here will likely get an entirely incorrect view on the types of posts that get deleted. I've had posts deleted here as "not on the spirit" and feel obliged to say in my defense I have never made anything even approaching an attack or transphobic post. Never.

May I respectfully ask whether you spend time on Facebook, YouTube, Data Lounge or Lipstick Alley on entire threads where all you do is report and never post?
If you only do such here, what is the attraction to Mumsnet?

1st Rule of Misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

Because men always listen to feminists and do exactly as they say......

Thank you for posting the link to that video Necessary it's pretty horrifying.

attempts to link it to some pretty widely different ideas, like covid conspiracy theories

It's kind of a conspiracy theory conspiracy theory, if you like.

However, I think you may well be right: there is no point posting things that are in favour of trans rights on a forum this hostile

It was inevitable that you would be subject to robust disagreement. I'm not sure what else could have been expected?

Nobody here is against basic human rights for anyone.

The problem we have, and the crux of this intense disagreement, is due to the ideological nature of the trans rights movement. It is like no other civil rights movement ever, in that it seeks not just to obtain equal rights, but to up-end the understanding of biological reality and sex; and re-invent that world in order that it be compelled to reflect an individual's feelings or desires back to them.

It really is a kind of apotheosis. An end point of post-modernism.

Thanks for posting that Vaush video.

It is horrible but it not that unusual line of talk from young men who see themselves as skeptical modern types, very online , very misogynistic and very angry. More people should know that in many online places this is not just tolerated but celebrated.

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

I'm another interested in the answer to this question.

There was nothing transphobic in my deleted post - it was a generalisation about tactics. In that sense I shouldn't have generalised.

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

Just asserting your personal opinion without backing it up isn't a compelling argument for you, Hibari. You seem unable to back up most of the things you say. Why is that?

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

It really is, speaking as someone who has been in a psychologically abusive relationship. It depends on a form of coercive control.

@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog

There was nothing transphobic in my deleted post - it was a generalisation about tactics. In that sense I shouldn't have generalised.

You can’t generalise. And you can’t be too specific . It reminds me of Trainspotting. “It’s a fucking tightrope Spud.”

Interesting insight into those who monitor and report on this thread.

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

For me it is like arguing about religion with True. Believers. I left a religion. I recognise the no debate, the misogyny dressed up as kindness, the disconnect with reality and of course the rewards for coercion.

I can’t help but snark on the idea that the eight points as laid out by the high court judges are so stupid as to not be in good faith

Imagine me doing Inigo Montoya right now, because I think someone needs to look up what a bad faith argument actually is.

My favourite recent smear on here was saying GC feminists are so lost to reason we were like people who don’t believe in spleens. Entertainingly barking. it’s like a lucky dip for some of our contrarian friends here, just reach into the bran bucket of whataboutery and pull out some random item of conspiracy or political chicanery and shout “THIS IS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU ARE”. PPs are correct, it’s supposed to shame us. But what it actually does is provide a launching point to refute the assertion, so please do by all means keep doing it. If your argument can’t stand on its own merits and needs bolstering by this sort of tactic, crack on!

Saying a woman who has detransitioned "kinda stinks" in place of making an actual argument is absolutely vile, but I think it should be left to stand so that people can see the real views of Hibari.

MNHQ get about two reports per post when it gets really bad on a thread

How do you know this bigotry?

Bell was over 16 before receiving any treatment.

Keira Bell wasn't the only party in the case. It was a joint case brought by two claimants: Keira and "Mrs A".

Mrs A is the mother of a 15 year old girl with ASD who she fears will be put on the pathway to transition if referred to GIDS.

This case was a judicial review of GIDS policy, from the judgement:

"As this case is brought by way of judicial review of the GIDS policy and practice, rather than a challenge to an individual treatment decision, it is not possible to give a detailed analysis of the facts of an individual case and the degree to which all the matters referred to by Dr Carmichael were explored in the particular case."

Again from the judgement

The claimants’ primary case is that children or young persons under the age of 18 are not capable of giving consent to the administration of PBs. Their secondary case is that the information given by the defendant and the Interested Party is misleading and inadequate to form the basis for informed consent to be given. In their statement of issues, the claimants put issue one as the adequacy of the information and issue two whether children and young people are capable of giving consent. In our view, the first issue must be whether Gillick competence can be achieved, and the secondary or alternative issue, whether the information being given is adequate. We deal with the arguments in that order.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

My favourite recent smear on here was saying GC feminists are so lost to reason we were like people who don’t believe in spleens.

Oh yes that poster is reliably entertaining and another who cannot conceive that not everywhere is the US.

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

Don't forget that Trump has been listening to GC feminists because he correctly identified biological males.

it’s like a lucky dip for some of our contrarian friends here, just reach into the bran bucket of whataboutery and pull out some random item of conspiracy or political chicanery and shout “THIS IS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU ARE”.

This is the general way it goes with this debate, particularly on Twitter.

We have had accusations of racism for a long time (standard, as it seems that black women only exist in gender ideology to prop up arguments about how males are women), the 'white feminism' thing, anti-semitism, then it was anti-abortion after the Keira Bell case, alt-right. The single Magdalen Berns tweet out of 17,000+ that is endlessly rolled out. It really does feel like there is just a desperate fumbling around in the bucket for something to discredit and silence women, I'm always kind of intrigued to see what they are going to pull out next to be honest!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

Don't forget that Trump has been listening to GC feminists because he correctly identified biological males.

Haven't read the full thread but the few times I've popped in I've seen this frankly bonkers idea that raging gynophobes like Trump listen to women

Still I'm guessing it shows the quality of evidence being presented against women by by the MRAs.

You can’t generalise. And you can’t be too specific

A post deleted for generalising has been presented as a "personal attack". But it is gone now and no reader can see what it said and that it wasn't a personal attack.

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

I can believe this

I am only half way through the thread and this might have been answered already, so apologies in advance.

Can someone please tell me why when you choose a chambers or a barrister, you would assume your barrister’s alleged beliefs based on cases they had argued vs their competence and knowledge around that section of law?

I was always led to believe barristers were supposed to be professionals. Like most of us in other walks of life, do the job at hand.

Where is the evidence that the professional in charge had personal beliefs that reflected the case argued?

Or, am I viewing the profession in the wrong light? If so, please correct me if I am wrong.

I keep seeing this being brought up as another point of debate against Keira’s case and frankly, it is bizarre.

It is like stating someone is evil because someone with the same name as an arsonist liked a post where a T shirt you sold was featured.