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.'

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

...or that caster seymenya has a disorder of sexual development that is only applicable to males, and that repeal of the GRA does not remove all rights for trans people, as they have the exact same equality rights and human rights as everyone else, including gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, or that puberty blockers being administered to minors in this country is now illegal on the basis of them being unable to consent, and that complaints about waiting lists have no foundation, since trans activists have gone out of their way, against the law, to make sure no one knows how many trans people there are, etc.

Tedious isn't the word...

Are you ever going to address the actual comments where your points have been refuted?

I guess that last reply answers your question, Datun.

or that caster seymenya has a disorder of sexual development that is only applicable to males,

Exactly. If Caster Semenya is any sort of woman according to the poster's belief system, they are a trans one. Perhaps they are simply misinformed, about this and much else.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend my life debating with members of a board

Or the ability, a cynic might say.

I don't understand these genital inspections TRAs claim GC people want. If in sports you want to verify self-declared sex or birth certificate sex then:

1. Use a blood test or cheek swab instead. Check for XX, XY or something else. Do it once in a lifetime.

1. If you really really really want to check sex by looking inside knickers (see point 1, why?) your doctor still do it once in a lifetime. You would probably not even need a special apppointment, for example you could produce a statement from the clinician who did your smear test or prescribed contraceptives or checked your testicles for lumps.

But ultimately see point 1. It is super easy and non-invasive to find out who is XX, XY or has a DSD.

Another piece, this time on Substack which touches on that trans-Atlantic crossover:

gen.medium.com/substack-is-not-a-neutral-platform-8fc5bdf8e5f2

'The transphobic writers of Substack often present themselves as liberal or leftist; they have mainstream credentials; many of them identify as gay or lesbian; they cloak what are often extreme anti-trans talking points in veils of “being reasonable” or “asking questions’’ or “concern” for women or children or the parts of the LGBT+ community with which they identify. They launder extremist arguments into the mainstream: Singal, for example, (in)famously published an Atlantic cover story about how “children who say they’re trans’’ may be victims of “social contagion,” without mentioning that one of the parents he interviewed was part of an organization aimed at preventing youth transition.
They look, in other words, very much like the TERF movement that has achieved mainstream legitimacy in the U.K., defining the conversation around trans rights and leading to a rollback of those rights. Last September the British government decreed that trans people lacked the right to legally self-identify and in December the British High Court banned gender-affirming health care such as puberty blockers for those under 16. There is every reason to believe that, by allowing this set of writers to define and shape a media consensus against trans people’s humanity and right to define ourselves, we are setting ourselves up for the same progression in the States.'

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.

Not only is that utterly wrong, I think it's probably libellous.

What she actually said:

"If you could come inside my head and and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man you would find solidarity and kinship".

She 'stands alongside trans women campaigning for freedom of speech and thought, and rights and safety of the most vulnerable in our society'.

bigotryisbad

Where on earth are you used to posting if saying patent lies and nonsense actually works?

'Only a few years ago, TERFs in the U.K. looked like a handful of moms complaining on a message board. Today, they’re the mainstream face of British feminism, they’ve converted the most famous living British writer to their cause, and every trans child in the U.K. is suddenly unable to access puberty blockers unless they can convince a court to show mercy. Organized transphobia has made fewer advances in the United States — America is a racist country, and our mainstreamed hate groups operate primarily along racial lines — but there are currently dozens of bills in state legislatures aimed at restricting or criminalizing care for trans children, who already attempt suicide in huge numbers: Over half of trans boys, 41.8% of non-binary children, and 29.9% of trans girls, according to a study from the American Academy of Pediatrics.'

Only a few years ago, TERFs in the U.K. looked like a handful of moms complaining on a message board. Today, they’re the mainstream face of British feminism, they’ve converted the most famous living British writer to their cause, and every trans child in the U.K. is suddenly unable to access puberty blockers unless they can convince a court to show mercy.

Who knew we had all this power, eh?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend my life debating with members of a board

Or the ability, a cynic might say.

Indeed.

I mean, I understand not being able to refute anything. But I will never understand how they don't realise that saying you don't have the time or just don't wanna, demolishes your arguments in one fell swoop.

What's the point? Who are they actually talking to?

'There are no two sides, there is no argument; there are trans people, who exist, and the bigots, who think we shouldn’t. Only one of those groups is right. Only one of them has any points worth hearing.'

Look at this follow up tweet from the author:

Jude Ellison S. Doyle
@sadydoyle
·
17 Mar
Replying to
@sadydoyle

'One of the things I appreciate about this piece is that it had approximately 97 editors and legal experts on it, ensuring I could not say anything that was not both provable and responsible, which is what happens when your publisher actually cares about the public interest.'

"Converted", really? "Mercy", really?

These people can tell me I'm right-wing all day long and every single time it would be yet another lie.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Only a few years ago, TERFs in the U.K. looked like a handful of moms complaining on a message board. Today, they’re the mainstream face of British feminism, they’ve converted the most famous living British writer to their cause, and every trans child in the U.K. is suddenly unable to access puberty blockers unless they can convince a court to show mercy.

Who knew we had all this power, eh?

'Handful of moms'.

They don't even realise how the sexism leeches from every word

Another piece, this time on Substack which touches on that trans-Atlantic crossover

Do you think that stuff makes you look like the rational ones? Who's it aimed at? I guess you can no longer tell, but that was aimed at the true believer - to reassure you that you're the good guys, at that everyone else is the bad guys.

But strategically, it's not a good idea to post it to a general audience, like people likely to be reading here. They can see the things you don't want to see. You don't care about the truth or accuracy of the piece - it's about propping up your preconceptions.

There's a reason this is crumbling underneath you and you are losing all the court cases. You've become detached from reality. You don't know how to make your arguments - you don't even know what your opponents arguments are, so you can't counter them and you haven't gone back to prop up your own in response.

And the level of lying and authoritarianism is getting out of hand, and people are increasingly seeing how unethical some people have become, and are calling them out on it. Your support is dropping hard as a result. Your bad actions are becoming the story. It's increasingly implausible to call the other side "haters" and "bigots".

You've overplayed your hand - you need to rethink your strategy.

Some pieces related to that Sady Doyle stuff:

The Campaign of Lies Against Journalist Jesse Singal—And Why It Matters

Journalists Start Demanding Substack Censor its Writers: to Bar Critiques of Journalists

Glenn Greenwald VIDEO: With Katie Herzog on the Expansion of LGBTQ Identity and How it is Wielded in Political Discourse

Between them, those 97 really dropped a lot of balls.

ensuring I could not say anything that was not both provable and responsible

No, they ensured you didn't say something you couldn't get away with in defamation law as "fair comment" or plausible deniability of your intentions.

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

1. Children are, in general, not permitted to make permanent changes to their bodies in the U.K. due to gender dysphoria; the treatments are limited to social transition and puberty blockers which can be reversed. Surgery is far more common for cis children wishing to have surgery for cosmetic reasons than trans young people who virtually all have to wait until they are 18 plus. Evidence that puberty blockers are reversible?

2. There is decades of evidence as to the efficacy and safety of the treatment. The first "children" who received these treatments are now in their 40s and 50s. The success rates remain over 99%. Those stories aren't reported in the U.K. but have been subject to rigorous international studies, all of which are supportive.
Evidence please? In the recent Keira Bell case the Tavistock was unable to produce evidence of success.

3. The U.K. has been a backwards irrelevance to trans healthcare for decades, failing to follow best practice for patient care and demanding that trans people (of all ages) join unbelievably long waiting lists and traverse impossible hurdles.
Who decides best practice? What are the impossible hurdles? And are you aware that there are a limited number of gender specialists, hence long waiting lists?

4. Before you say "so what" realise that the current waiting lists for urgent care for trans people can extend to 25+ years.
Oh really? Show your workings.

5. This isn't the only national shame that I think we're facing right now but it's one of the bigger ones. Britain has become the 'control group' for the rest of the world where proper treatment isn't offered and trans people are subjected to abuse, violence and terrible standards of care.
Citations required.

@bigotryisbad I was wondering if you had any answers to the points I raised above?

mean, I understand not being able to refute anything. But I will never understand how they don't realise that saying you don't have the time or just don't wanna, demolishes your arguments in one fell swoop.
What's the point? Who are they actually talking to?

I think they're used to Twitter where you can Have Your Say on broadcast with the ability to block people with opinions you don't like, and set replies to allow only the people you mention.

That isn't how it works on Mumsnet, where your supposed mic drop "own the transphobes" post will be forensically analysed and refuted if there is anything factually incorrect or otherwise problematic. Whether or not you choose to participate in any further discussion.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

mean, I understand not being able to refute anything. But I will never understand how they don't realise that saying you don't have the time or just don't wanna, demolishes your arguments in one fell swoop. What's the point? Who are they actually talking to?

I think they're used to Twitter where you can Have Your Say on broadcast with the ability to block people with opinions you don't like, and set replies to allow only the people you mention.

That isn't how it works on Mumsnet, where your supposed mic drop "own the transphobes" post will be forensically analysed and refuted if there is anything factually incorrect or otherwise problematic. Whether or not you choose to participate in any further discussion.

Ah, ok. That explains it. You'd think they'd have the nous to check out the medium before they make themselves look so daft tho.

I think a lot of them simply can't parse the idea that they if they tell women to shut up, 'Shan't' is a possible answer.

Oddly, amongst friends, family & colleagues, the people I know with this particular dysfunction tend not to be female. Socialisation, it's a bugger all right.

Claiming that an advance for equality for one group justifies the rolling back of the rights for another seems an anathema to me.

Well indeed bigotryisbad - you'll understand why women are concerned about the wholesale upheaval of their rights in this context. The denial of biological sex as the root of female oppression when women experience it daily, the desire to incarcerate male born people in female prisons, for them to have access to refuges with women who have been victims of domestic violence and who may be triggered by their presence, the right for rape victims to refuse intimate medical examinations by a male born person, the right to single sex spaces where people with penises aren't allowed, the right to fair access to sport and so on and on...

@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog

Claiming that an advance for equality for one group justifies the rolling back of the rights for another seems an anathema to me.

Well indeed bigotryisbad - you'll understand why women are concerned about the wholesale upheaval of their rights in this context. The denial of biological sex as the root of female oppression when women experience it daily, the desire to incarcerate male born people in female prisons, for them to have access to refuges with women who have been victims of domestic violence and who may be triggered by their presence, the right for rape victims to refuse intimate medical examinations by a male born person, the right to single sex spaces where people with penises aren't allowed, the right to fair access to sport and so on and on...

Quite

Claiming that an advance for equality for one group justifies the rolling back of the rights for another seems an anathema to me.

Honestly. Vulnerable women prisoners being forced to share accommodation with convicted rapists as part of their sentence?

How can any human being not see that as the rolling back of women's rights?

The thing is, I'm sure they all do, of course.

Thanks for posting their ridiculousness for all to see lionheart

I was particularly taken with this part:
how “children who say they’re trans’’ may be victims of “social contagion,” without mentioning that one of the parents he interviewed was part of an organization aimed at preventing youth transition

If you thought your child had become caught up in a harmful social contagion then you might form or join an organisation with the goal of preventing that social contagion causing permanent damage.

Like if some children started getting face tattoos to be their authentic selves, got fawned over for being special, and then loads more children started demanding face tattoos to be their authentic selves then there would soon be a campaign by parents to make it harder for children to get face tattoos with lots of complaint about the social contagion effect.