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.'

The whole 'left-righ't trope has become an utterless tiresome cliche.

There is a whiff of neocolonialism about all this. Americans have always had a generally poor understanding of the world beyond their own country, but there is a cultural arrogance at play here, an entrenched refusal to even consider that the political landscape and issues in another country might be different. It’s also ironic, because the lack of tradition and understanding of left-wing politics in the US means that people who think they are left wing, but are actually liberal individualists and who have more in common with the right than most of us do, simply fail to recognise left-wing materialist positions

Absolutely!

And the biggest irony is that is now the contemporary British left who have adopted this wholeheartedly. U.K based chatrooms ( & media) over-taken with discussion of U.S style identity politics and American cultural issues. The left in Britain have traditionally hated all things American.

So much of American identity politics has arisen out of U.S consumer culture and neo-liberalism.

@PermanentTemporary

There is no doubt that if you are completely sure that transwomen are women in every possible way, then of course they should be able to compete in women's sport. I don't agree and I can't imagine a situation in which I would, so of course the Fair Play poll makes sense to me. I don't regard the International Olympic Committee as an objective organisation with integrity or real concern for women; I think they are quite malign and I have lost any remnants of romantic feeling about the Olympics, which is probably a good thing. Therefore I feel the influence of their rule changes in 2004 and 2015 are not positive for women's sport. Having competed in women's sport in the past I know how little any man cares about it, and a lot of women don't care either. But I do.

I am not an uncritical support of the IOC in any way. Their treatment of sports which stand up to them on and demand genuinely effective doping control, for example, has been just as appalling as some of their treatment of women's sports in general an many women in particular.

Where I disagree is that the rules in place for the potential inclusion of trans people in the Olympics from 2004 onwards have not created the doomsday scenario that many claim.

Further, the key group which has benefitted has been trans men who for whatever reason, compete in men's sports in considerably higher numbers.

It's also not the only successful trans inclusive policy in sport.

On the other hand, the American bills forcing people to go through genital examination and the scandalously poor treatment of cis women like Caster Semenya do precisely nothing to 'protect' or 'enhance' women's sport and everything to increase barriers to access, especially for black athletes who are disproportionally targeted.

I think that's a powerful point about Americans not actually knowing what everyone else's left wing is or how socialism can work in practice.

Neocolonialism is definitely on the up too. You can see it in the wording here on this thread. "Civil rights" is not a phrase used in the UK when we discuss laws against unfair discrimination.

When a Brit hears the phrase we tend to think of attempts to stop mid 20th century white Americans lynching black people and putting them in ghettos, separate crappy schools etc.

[quote Skyliner001]@bigotryisbad You are breath of fresh air in this echo chamber. Thank you 🥰[/quote]
That's very kind of you but as the earlier response shows; the reason I left this platform before (the vociferous transphobia) is still very much alive and well.

There's not a great deal of point in a couple of people trying to stand up for basic dignity in the face of a thread where people flatly lie about what major sections of the GC movement are doing to make themselves feel better about supporting a hate campaign based on an antisemitic conspiracy theory which is seeking to roll back human rights protections for a minority group.

For example, here, highlighted are sections of the Response that I linked yesterday doing every single thing I claimed. Everyone is free to count the number of times they were denied between me posting the original link from the House of Commons and now.

1. Caster Semanya is a male with a DSD disorder. And yes, to keep sports fair, for the few intersex athletes out there extra protections should be in place. Both for the intersex athletes as well as the rest. Caster is in the wrong here and they know it.

1. The change of not requiring genital surgery wasn't removed until 2016, making the 2020 the first Olympics that transwomen with a penis could take part by only showing the fact they had taken cross sex hormones for two years. Funny though that the requirements for intersex athletes and transwomen athletes are different, but that is another debate.

In the four years since that ruling, out of the 5000 women that could have qualified for the 2020 Olympics, there were already 4-5 transwomen in position to take a womens place. None of the transwomen were on the mens Olympic teams of Olympic hopefuls prior to transitioning. None of them were even in the top mens league. But they all smashed womens records and took womens prizes. They took places from women who were in top womens leagues and the womens Olympics teams. Anyone that says that is fair, needs their head examined.

Prior to 2015 the IOC required TW to have undertaken genital surgery hence there's very few examples of TW in Olympic sport. Since the 2015 rule change there has only been one summer Olympics (2016) so there will have been no chance for TW to fit into the Olympic training cycle.
The next Olympics will see several TW competing.

Further, the key group which has benefitted has been trans men who for whatever reason, compete in men's sports in considerably higher numbers.

Do you have any examples of TM in elite mens sports? I haven't seen any.

The ruling against Caster Semenya, if you look into it, clearly acknowledges her XY status whilst also acknowledging her (incorrect) legal sex records. What World Athletics tried to do was retain the integrety and fairness of womens sport whilst balancing CS's rights. They successfully and in my opinion argued that CS had an unfair advantage over women. There's nothing scandalous about her treatment, the only thing that is scandalous is she's unfairly made millions of dollars and taken acollades away from women.

The Keira Bell case was so important. The courts looked at the situation carefully. The court did not ban puberty blockers. The court said that if clinicians believe a child should be given puberty blockers then they would have to come before the court and make a very solid case for giving puberty blockers to that child.

The judgment made it clear that courts would consider the ability of the child to understand the long term consequences, the likely efficacy of the treatment for this child (backed by evidence).

So TRAs interpret that as puberty blockers are effectively banned in England? Presumably they recognise that children mostly won't be deemed capable of consent and there is terrifyingly little solid evidence of the treatment being the best treatment for debilitating symptoms of gender dysphoria in children.

@PermanentTemporary

The biggest single change in the legal landscape has been access to same sex marriage and perhaps also to civil partnership for all. That it's joyously normal for anyone of either sex to refer to their wife or their husband and whether they are perceived as male or female makes no difference to their access to that.

Sexuality and gender identity are separate things. Claiming that an advance for equality for one group justifies the rolling back of the rights for another seems an anathema to me.

For example, here, highlighted are sections of the Response that I linked yesterday doing every single thing I claimed. Everyone is free to count the number of times they were denied between me posting the original link from the House of Commons and now.

Most of the higlighting seems to be of random phrases and sentence fragments like 'pornography industry' and 'forced to admit men'. I think you might have to explain your reasoning a bit more clearly.

As usual lies about JK Rowling, lies about puberty blockers being reversible, lies about ourselves being far-right, all starting with lies about being able to change biological sex.

@AnneListersHat

Prior to 2015 the IOC required TW to have undertaken genital surgery hence there's very few examples of TW in Olympic sport. Since the 2015 rule change there has only been one summer Olympics (2016) so there will have been no chance for TW to fit into the Olympic training cycle. The next Olympics will see several TW competing.

Further, the key group which has benefitted has been trans men who for whatever reason, compete in men's sports in considerably higher numbers.

Do you have any examples of TM in elite mens sports? I haven't seen any.

The ruling against Caster Semenya, if you look into it, clearly acknowledges her XY status whilst also acknowledging her (incorrect) legal sex records. What World Athletics tried to do was retain the integrety and fairness of womens sport whilst balancing CS's rights. They successfully and in my opinion argued that CS had an unfair advantage over women. There's nothing scandalous about her treatment, the only thing that is scandalous is she's unfairly made millions of dollars and taken acollades away from women.

A cis woman was lied to in order to falsely obtain consent for an invasive and personal examination to 'prove' her sex. That is a scandal which has very little to do with trans people and everything to do with misogyny.

As for trans men competing in top level sport; the most relevant example is Chris Mosier who is the only trans person to have reached the US Olympic trials of either gender.

That piece refers to sources though. Sources that have covers facts, like the trans porn category usage. Which is apparantely a thing. Why is it wrong to call that out?

Why is it wrong that it is not ok to deny womens single sex service funding if they din't include male transwomen?

Why is it wrong to say transwomen are celebrated (in the Uk) for being trans?

Why is it wrong to say a certain law should be repealed that someone can change their legal sex, now that it is being abused to push organisations to ignore the EA? If laws are being used for something else than intended and it harms people, laws should be reviewed. Isn't Stonewall not demanding the same thing, to repeal single sex excemptions because it excludes transwomen from the category of women? Why is it ok for Stonewall to use tax funding to lobby but a womans organisation, funded by women, can't do the same thing?

Your comments are coming from an agenda that conflicts with the GC one. Just slinging around 'you evil people' is not going to cut it. Maybe some self reflection is in order here.

A cis woman was lied to in order to falsely obtain consent for an invasive and personal examination to 'prove' her sex.

Isn't a cheek swab enough to prove your sex? No idea who you are referring to btw.

A cis woman was lied to in order to falsely obtain consent for an invasive and personal examination to 'prove' her sex.

Caster Semenya is intersex, not a "cis woman".

@AvocadoBathroom

As usual lies about JK Rowling, lies about puberty blockers being reversible, lies about ourselves being far-right, all starting with lies about being able to change biological sex.

You are welcome to point out a single "lie".

There are none:

• The one time I have mentioned JK Rowling was to connect her to something which she chose to publish.

• As for puberty blockers? They were developed for cis people. They are primarily used to treat cis people. There is no evidence for them 'turning' people trans any more than 5G is responsible for the moon landings being faked or other similar nonsense conspiracy theories.

A cis woman was lied to in order to falsely obtain consent for an invasive and personal examination to 'prove' her sex. That is a scandal which has very little to do with trans people and everything to do with misogyny.

In what way? What about the women that CS has stolen careers from? Any sympathy from them? I think CS has done alright out of her hiding her true sex from the world.

how did I just know Chris Mosier was heading towards this conversation

medium.com/@drtonylycholat/slower-than-a-spritely-grandma-81dd8000dfac

"A quick search reveals that Mosier is an ‘age-grouper’, having competed mainly in age-group duathlon and triathlon. The qualification procedure for Team USA age-groupers is described on the governing body’s website where it also says that there are, “between 18 and 20 athletes per age group” for both males and females.
Age-groupers are not elite athletes in the way that anyone who understands sport uses the term ‘elite’ or ‘Olympic’. The standard of competition in age-group competition is often considerably below that seen in the Olympics. This is not to belittle the achievements of any age-group competitor of either sex: it’s hard to train and remain competitive when life gets in the way and the passage of time, year on year, relentlessly diminishes an athlete’s strength and endurance, whilst also sapping away at their ability to recover.
A little more online research reveals further background regarding Mosier in the form of a race report (2).
From this report:
“Competing with the age 35–39 men’s group sprint, Mosier, 35, finished 144th among 434 competitors across all ages with an unofficial time of 1:06:29. He finished 26th among the 47 men in the age 35–39 group and second among the U.S. men in his group.”
In 2020, it honestly looks to me like Mosier entered what appears to be the weakest possible event in US men’s athletics; the 50km walk. Hardly anybody in the US does this event and the number of entries is so low it’s probably fair to say that anyone who enters the Olympic trials and is able to cover the distance in around 6 hours is accepted (3)."

Bigotry Do you believe the highlighted points are transphobic hate-mongering?

You've highlighted a fact about the proportion of porn featuring TW. Are you disputing the fact or are you annoyed at it being mentioned?

You've partially highlighted a statement about elimination of prejudice based on one sex being deemed inferior or superior to the other. What's up with that?

Most of your highlighting is highlighting the point being made by the authors. They don't believe in gender identity. They have theories about why what they perceive as a pseudo-religious belief in gender identity has gained popularity in recent years

I could get a Bible Belt American Creationist to go through a lobbyist statement about why creationism should not be taught in science class in school and they'd go nuts on the highlighter too.

You believe in genderism. Many of us don't. When we write stuff our non-belief will be obvious. This does not equate to hating people who do believe and identify as trans.

Like if you are a Catholic and I am an atheist, me writing about how much I like eating burgers on a Friday and going to work on Sunday morning isn't an indicator of me hating Catholics.

bigotryisbad (it is, I quite agree)

I see you haven't yet managed to address that you don't understand what the mainstream views are in the U.K., and that FPFW haven't made up the polling, and that it has been demonstrated to you that JK Rowling never claimed that "famously" this the requirement for surgery to get a GRC was being changed. But that LGBT media tried to suggest that it still was.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but my ghast is totally flabbered.

'the only trans person to have reached the US Olympic trials of either gender."

Not true, Alaskan transwomen as a newcomer to running got to Olympic trials for Tokyo. CeCe Telfer transwoman hurdler also hoping to qualify. June Eastwood also potential Olympic runner. These transwomen are also unlike Mosier competing in highly popular US events.

bigotryisbad

Are you ever going to address the actual comments where your points have been refuted? In a sort of two and fro fashion, that people might generally call debate?

@sanluca

That piece refers to sources though. Sources that have covers facts, like the trans porn category usage. Which is apparantely a thing. Why is it wrong to call that out?

Why is it wrong that it is not ok to deny womens single sex service funding if they din't include male transwomen?

Why is it wrong to say transwomen are celebrated (in the Uk) for being trans?

Why is it wrong to say a certain law should be repealed that someone can change their legal sex, now that it is being abused to push organisations to ignore the EA? If laws are being used for something else than intended and it harms people, laws should be reviewed. Isn't Stonewall not demanding the same thing, to repeal single sex excemptions because it excludes transwomen from the category of women? Why is it ok for Stonewall to use tax funding to lobby but a womans organisation, funded by women, can't do the same thing?

Your comments are coming from an agenda that conflicts with the GC one. Just slinging around 'you evil people' is not going to cut it. Maybe some self reflection is in order here.

This will be my last response; I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend my life debating with members of a board who uncritically share lies about a minority group:

1. That piece refers to sources though. Sources that have covers facts, like the trans porn category usage. Which is apparantely a thing. Why is it wrong to call that out?

It is wrong to deny people's human rights because there is a category of pornography which you disagree with.

From my, limited, understanding of pornography it is made about every type of human life experience.

It can no more be used to justify the removal of trans people's rights than it can be used to justify misogynic and racist spree killings.

Why is it wrong that it is not ok to deny womens single sex service funding if they din't include male transwomen?

I have looked up every incidence of this in the UK that I have seen reported. Every single time, I have found that the services were trans inclusive and being cut due to funding squeezes on Local Authorities before and during a pandemic.

I absolutely abhor this. I have had the honour to work in the sector in the past and the people who keep it running are some of the best people I have ever had the privilege to meet. They were also universally trans inclusive and very willing to give me a flea in my ear for my own poorly considered opinions.

Stripping away funding should be a national scandal. Why is it not? Is it acceptable because trans people are being scapegoated? Why?

Why is it wrong to say transwomen are celebrated (in the Uk) for being trans?

Trans women are bullied out of public life. Look at Munroe Bergdorf who was bullied off twitter for accepting an invitation to speak at an intersectional event celebrating IWD.

The most famous author in the world has decided to use her vast funds and influence to campaign against trans people's lives and rights.

It's wrong to say this because it's self evidently not true.

Why is it wrong to say a certain law should be repealed that someone can change their legal sex, now that it is being abused to push organisations to ignore the EA? If laws are being used for something else than intended and it harms people, laws should be reviewed. Isn't Stonewall not demanding the same thing, to repeal single sex excemptions because it excludes transwomen from the category of women? Why is it ok for Stonewall to use tax funding to lobby but a womans organisation, funded by women, can't do the same thing?

It is wrong to repeal any law that protects people's human rights.

That's it.

There can be no justification for taking away the Human Rights of people you choose to vilify because it is equally a justification for taking Human Rights away from everyone else.

The fact that this Campaign turns out to be grounded in antisemitism, predominantly based on dishonest claims, lies and transphobia makes even that justification impossible to countenance.

The fact is, rights being stripped from the most vulnerable always lead to further rights being stripped away. Look at Poland and Hungary right now. The crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights immediately lead to attacks on reproductive rights.

I, personally, don't think that human rights should only be supported because it's in our collective self interest. I think they're worth defending because they're intrinsically worth having.

That, it appears from this thread, may just be me.

Your comments are coming from an agenda that conflicts with the GC one. Just slinging around 'you evil people' is not going to cut it. Maybe some self reflection is in order here.

What agenda do I have? Apart from pointing out specific issues with the claims made, all of which are verifiable and true...

What is an agenda about supporting basic human rights?

There's clearly an agenda behind stripping those rights away; this thread is evidence of that. The number of times I have been called a liar despite not actually saying anything untrue shows a significant collective distaste for anyone standing up for basic human decency.

As for me?

I have looked at myself. I looked at the way people were being treated. I looked at the medical evidence and spoke to people who had been through the processes. I wasn't a cosy experience and I had to change my mind a lot but I think it's worth doing that for personal growth.

An agenda? No.

I've found that word being used to prop up homophobia though and as a way to deny other LGBTQ+ people equality. It depersonalises the people whose rights you're denying and makes the hatred more bearable.

"You don't hate all trans people; just the ones with an agenda" seems more palatable. When the agenda is surviving in a brutally transphobic country with terrible health care and people actively campaigning against your human rights...

I think it's probably better to say unconformable things than remain silent?

Wouldn't you?

You believe in genderism. Many of us don't. When we write stuff our non-belief will be obvious. This does not equate to hating people who do believe and identify as trans.

Like if you are a Catholic and I am an atheist, me writing about how much I like eating burgers on a Friday and going to work on Sunday morning isn't an indicator of me hating Catholics.

Indeed. I don't hate trans people. I just don't share their beliefs, and as a feminist I centre women and girls. Who else is likely to?