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.'

I tell you what really isn't "out of place on right-wing websites" - violent rhetoric against feminists and women, particularly those of non-Christian religions.

So take a good look at whether you really feel comfortable comparing what is said by whom.

[quote Yasminelikescoffee]I was going to say that it looks like women were not really involved with the capital riots, but maybe this woman ring-leader had been a GC feminist? www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/26/politics/jessica-watkins-oath-keepers-capitol-attack/index.html[/quote]
Is that the Transwoman Jessica Watkins by any chance?
The one who helped lead a violent insurrection against the US government?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It calls for the removal of all trans people’s existing human rights and legal protections and an ending of healthcare except where it limits access to any remaining legal rights.

This is nonsense. Trans people's human rights are protected by universal human rights laws and the Equality Act 2010. All British citizens have the right to healthcare on that NHS. I don't think anyone is proposing to remove those rights.

People have said that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be removed in this thread.

The an attack on the existing provisions about denying trans people equal access to services being discrimination and them being protected by the Equality Act 2010 are in the post I quoted. Seriously; trans people have had the right to these spaces longer than I've been alive. Taking that away needs to be justified but more than a claim that "women say no" when there is decades of evidence that trans inclusive policies have not caused the issues that are being claimed.

The instant dismissal of trans people's rights being under threat and the misinformation about the rights that exist isn't a position I can see any justification for.

I've heard that the feminist section here are also really anti- gun-control and Obama-care. That's why the UK has no Obama care.

@Yasminelikescoffee

Did he? I'll have to check that out. Did Trump quote Mumsnet?

Link for Trump being his usual self:

@Bigotryisbad The problem is that what you frame as 'existing rights for trans people' is actually the rolling-back of women's rights - if by that you mean transwomen should continue to be allowed into women's sports, prisons, refuges, etc. Or if you are referring to 'trans children's rights to childcare', you mean children's access to a process which has been recently labelled in court as experimental, badly-documented, and likely to lead to lifelong medical consequences. We are campaigning against the gradual erosion of women's spaces, safety, and right to name and define sexism, which has arisen because of the insidious capture of institutions by TRA ideology and some shoddy law-making. No one here is against trans people having exactly the same human rights as anyone else . (I have never seen anyone here suggesting that gender reassignment should not be a protected characteristic in the EA.)

It is interesting isn't it that the right wing accusations have stepped up a gear since the GC argument started gaining more traction in public. Smears are a well worn propaganda tactic. It won't work of course because the more sunlight there is, the more people will realise they were GC all along, or indeed find out what's been going on and say no. The average person doesn't really believe that men can become women, nor will they accept the infringement of the rights of women and girls that comes with accepting that TWAW. That's why organisations like Stonewall are using stealth tactics and why TRAs are using the same baseless smears over and over again. Repeat to fade...

@CorvusPurpureus

Oh the hostility!

I think we're perceived as hostile for much the same reasons a budgie thinks its mirror is hostile.

We're holding the line for women's rights. If you (general you) attack them & bruise your beak, maybe stop it with the pecking.

"Holding the line" might justify hostility if there was a single thing that I've said that didn't boil down to:

• Leave trans people's human rights alone.

I can see that's what a lot of the posters think is what's going on. But it doesn't address what I have actually said.

You clearly feel strongly that you are threatened by trans people, but I'm genuinely unconvinced that even if everything you said was true it could ever justify removing human rights from people.

Constantly refusing to accept that males who identify as women are just as likely to be violent and or sex offenders as any other person born male shows clearly that you have no interest in defending women's rights if they are in conflict with the desires of people of the opposite sex.
Like so many other people on this board, I do not fear trans people nor do I wish to deprive anyone of their human rights. Women have safe spaces to protect our privacy and dignity and to ensure our safety from male violence. As transwomen are male and there is no evidence to suggest that they are not as prone to violence as other males, then it is only right that they are excluded from such spaces.

This debate is raging in the US right now and they're facing the same questions as the U.K. Trans equality in sports? Over 70% support.

bigotryisbad, are you going to support this claim about "over 70% support"? I have already given one poll that completely contradicts it, so I doubt you are providing accurate information.

You also tried to dismiss UK polling I linked to, because you didn't like the group that was referencing the polls. That doesn't change the validity of the polling...

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

Honest to goodness! The skewed perception that many see to have of people who contribute to mumsnet - purely on the basis that it is called Mumsnet, and that many have children.....

There is no club to join. People of all backgrounds have navigated here in order to discuss issues which they have come to recognise as being really quite profound.

Nobody has been 'converted' - people have actually been relieved to escape the group think and unquestioning acceptance of what have now become mainstream orthodoxies and automatic mantras ( which have arrived almost fully formed without the public even really having much of a clue about how it originated or got to this point).

Black Lives Matter is a political movement which promotes certain problematic beliefs, like queer theory. Not supporting it doesn't make you right wing, or suggest that you believe black lives don't matter, or that you oppose rights movements for BAME people.

Leave trans people's human rights alone.

We disagree on the definition of "human rights" though, don't we?

@continuallyconflating no way! I read about it in a UK paper (the daily mail to my shame) that had no mention of her being a trans-woman and all the comments talked about how dangerous women were because they get "hysterical".

bigotryisbad
"Genital Surgery" was never a requirement under the Gender Recognition Act.

That it was needed and that this is somehow changing is often repeated (famously by JK Rowling) so I looked it up. It's not there at all.

bigotryisbad

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.

Maybe not a lie, perhaps, but you and Pink News were wrong to say that’s what JKR had said, as shown by the FactChecker thing and subsequent amendment by PN, no?

and in December the British High Court banned gender-affirming health care such as puberty blockers for those under 16

This little gem shows the usual ignorance and lack of understanding of the UK

As usual the fact that Scotland has a separate legal system is not understood or ignored

Wtf is the British High Court?
That ruling was for England and Wales

This ruling in the Tavistock v Bell case has no effect in Scotland, with the Scottish Gov explicitly stating that children still have access to puberty blockers up here

(Though considering the fact that the London based media seems to have no understanding that NHS England and NHS Scotland are separate bodies, perhaps we can forgive our American cousins. But people should at least make an effort to understand what they're talking about)

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

It will make a change for a truly progressive initiative and movement to have its origins in the U.K - which is what U.K Gender criticism is - rather than always being the unwilling recipient of U.S cultural imports.

Is that the Transwoman Jessica Watkins by any chance?
The one who helped lead a violent insurrection against the US government?

Perhaps there should be a thread about transwomen and the extreme right, etc etc. (Although I suspect it would be deleted as "not in the spirit")

The an attack on the existing provisions about denying trans people equal access to services

Which services? Trans people have the same rights to access services as everyone else. They do not have the right to override the single sex exemptions and if you read and understood the Equality Act you would know that. No-one has a right to self identify their way into toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons or refuges designated for the sex they are not, organisations indoctrinated by Stonewall that allow this are wrong.

It has been pointed out many, many times that even the possession of a GRC does not automatically grant access to services that have a single sex exemption, it has also been pointed out repeatedly that the comparator for those without a GRC is with the sex they are.

Current misunderstanding and deliberate obfuscation of the actual law perpetuated by influential lobby groups is causing issues and there is ample evidence of this.

It seems to me, @bigotryisbad, that maybe by 'human rights' you mean 'rights'. You say, as if it entirely defends your argument, that all you are doing is arguing for the retention of existing rights and that removing rights is always wrong. But is it? Surely progress often involves balancing out of unfair 'rights'. If a man currently had the right to order his female relatives to stay in the house, for example (which I assume you agree would be wrong and for the record I am plucking out of the air more or less at random to illustrate my point), would it be wrong to rewrite the law to deprive him of it?

Link for Trump being his usual self:

So because Trump mentioned the entirely accurate fact that MTF trans people are "biological males", that is "repeating GC rhetoric"?

LOL.

@bigotryisbad while I love the anonymity of MN, sometimes I think it's helpful to share for both you and the lurkers some non-identifying personal things to show a bit more about the diversity of GC women.

I'm both a GC and leftist. If you want to search my history, you will find:

1. I have a beloved trans child in my life who struggles with mental health. I came here to help him. (Btw, he thinks trans women don't belong in women's sports and he knows sex is binary).

1. I'm a leftist American who supports BLM. You may find me arguing often vs other GC feminists about this, especially on race issues being different in US. We don't all agree on everything.

1. I'm passionate about many women and girls' causes particularly US Black and Native women's issues (incarceration rates, kidnapping, murder rates), surrogacy, egg donation and lack of health care resources for women/girls (focus on period poverty and reproductive care). GC views are needed when championing these causes. If you can't name it, compare it, track it nor understand it, you can't fix it.

1. I personally championed and actively worked on legalizing marriage equality in my state. As a result of being closely involved with many lesbian rights' groups, I'm particularly concerned with how lesbians are treated within the LGBTQ+ class. Ignoring lesbians' unique issues is sadly common.

1. I agree that US idea creep and dominance on these threads is probably annoying and I may be guilty of it (sorry). However, I'm glad to be here because my country (like Australia) likes to kick GC women out of social spaces and MN is a rare gift for us to speak and learn.

[quote AtTheDickensDesk]@Bigotryisbad The problem is that what you frame as 'existing rights for trans people' is actually the rolling-back of women's rights - if by that you mean transwomen should continue to be allowed into women's sports, prisons, refuges, etc. Or if you are referring to 'trans children's rights to childcare', you mean children's access to a process which has been recently labelled in court as experimental, badly-documented, and likely to lead to lifelong medical consequences. We are campaigning against the gradual erosion of women's spaces, safety, and right to name and define sexism, which has arisen because of the insidious capture of institutions by TRA ideology and some shoddy law-making. No one here is against trans people having exactly the same human rights as anyone else . (I have never seen anyone here suggesting that gender reassignment should not be a protected characteristic in the EA.)[/quote]
I actually think everyone should have a universal right to free good quality childcare on request but I think that might be a typo (albeit one I hope all fellow feminists should support).

• Maintaining existing access doesn't "roll back rights for women". It leaves us exactly where we are.

• Letting doctors judge healthcare and not judges (who are historically bad at it) isn't some radical idea.

• Indeed; bringing the U.K. in line with WPATH guidelines isn't some radical treatment; it's just what everyone else is already doing because the evidence is there.

I've addressed and I will re-iterate: I think the Bell case has fundamental flaws and it is subject to appeal. Citing it as final is no more valid than someone coming to a GC heartland like Mumsnet and spamming every single post with "this opinion isn't worthy of respect in a democratic society".

Men who have argued for forced pregnancy and against reproductive rights aren't feminists and when they take on a case like this, in this way, they have to be assessed all the more critically.

Here's a report of the case he took for a father trying to force someone into keep a baby:

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/33182.article

It makes my blood run cold.

I support women's right to choose to have an abortion. But many Catholics don't. Therefore repealing the 8th in Ireland was, for them, a removal of rights.

Not all rights are progressive.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Link for Trump being his usual self:

So because Trump mentioned the entirely accurate fact that MTF trans people are "biological males", that is "repeating GC rhetoric"?

LOL.

He's probably holding secret meetings with Julie Bindel.