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.'

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

Quite!

There would be much less conflict if the appropriation and colonisation of women's spaces, services and sports was not the goal.

Cannot think of another movement which has sought to move in and redefine reality, then impose it on other traditionally marginalised groups - and then have the nerve to call it a movement for human rights.

I've addressed and I will re-iterate: I think the Bell case has fundamental flaws and it is subject to appeal.

It is. Who said it was final? What if the appeal upholds the judgement? Whose flaws, as it seems that any flaws were on the TRA side, since they lost?

What fantastic new evidence do you have to offer? The Tavistock recently published the research they didn't submit to the court on the day. It didn't exactly cover them in glory.

He's probably holding secret meetings with Julie Bindel.

Ssssh!

You'll find, if you look, that I don't propose taking any rights away from anyone; even in the case of sports I have argued for the continuation of the existing rules.

And we have shown that these rules are unfair to women and girls. You've totally ignored our points about TW in the Olympics and Caster semenya. Both TW in women’s sport and male intersex athletes in women’s sport take opportunity away from women. Why can’t you see that?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

I disagree. The right not to have an abortion remains as it was. Those people have only lost the right to enforce their opinions on others.

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

It also isn't a radical idea that the courts be involved.

I disagree. The right not to have an abortion remains as it was. Those people have only lost the right to enforce their opinions on others.

Some people believe that the foetus/embryo is a human being, with rights to life. So they see it differently. You don't appear to grasp my point.

I think if you are spreading misinformation or inciting hatred towards a minority group, in the knowledge that some of your target audience may be violent - as in the case of Posie or those who have appeared on Poulton's show - then you do share culpability for that violence even if it was not by your hands.

That line of argument works both ways.

The "trans-rights" side will throw accusations of bigotry and transphobia for next to nothing in this debate. So just deny that trans-women are women (obviously biologically speaking they aren't) and you will be called a transphobe over it.

So that's arguably incitement of hate, and they know that some of their fellow travelers can act violently.

So are they going to tone down the rhetoric, look for civil debate, and accept that people can disagree with them?

Or do they share in responsibility for any violence that may manifest?

All sides can be guilty of misinformation of course. E.g. "puberty blockers are reversible" is dangerous misinformation. Obviously people should try to avoid that.

(I ignore whether GC are a "minority group" as I don't think that aspect matters.)

@Ereshkigalangcleg

He's probably holding secret meetings with Julie Bindel.

Ssssh!

Oh he definitely is. I heard that he sent an invite to Burchell by accident, but he definitely wanted to meet with Bindle. They meet in Trump towers.

The link you share bigotry has absolutely zero relevance to the points under consideration in the Tavistock Bell case. It's a deliberate deflection. This is about whether young people can consent to irreversible medical intervention - intervention that almost inevitably puts them on a path to cross sex hormones and the possibility of infertility (not to mention severe body altering surgery). The 4000% increase in girls being referred to the Tavistock also indicates social contagion and an alarming reaction to the way women are treated by society. Tavistock staff have raised concerns themselves:

NHS child gender clinic: Staff concerns 'shut down' www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962

‘Children have been very seriously damaged’ by NHS gender clinic, says former Tavistock staff governor

www.channel4.com/news/children-have-been-very-seriously-damaged-by-nhs-gender-clinic-says-former-tavistock-staff-governor

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

This is the crux.

TRA activists don't recognise their own position as ideology. Though what we see is a total ideological construct - in which many now place their unquestioning faith and belief.

This ideological certainty is rubbing up against material reality and the facts of life on earth in a sexed body. To the point that the reality of the body is denied in order to justify the ideological faith.

@Yasminelikescoffee
Yup, it's ignored or glossed over in most reporting
www.out.com/news/2021/2/22/trans-woman-jessica-watkins-insurrection-capitol-assault-riot-oath-keepers-jail

@Zeev
it would be deleted as "not in the spirit"
too true

Bigotry

If the GRA were to be repealed - not something I am personally campaigning for or bothered about, really, although I do feel it's based on dubious & outdated premises - what trans rights do you believe would be lost? It seems a central plank of your argument is that GC people are campaigning for its repeal.

I would rather it become gradually obsolete, tbh, because I don't believe it actually does much for trans people. A very small proportion of trans people seem to want to avail themselves of a GRC, for example. So it seems a bit unclear to me how much it's valued, & to what extent trans people feel it's of use to them? Happy to listen to why you feel its retention is important & necessary.

We should be focusing on allowing everyone to crack on with their lives peacefully & express themselves however they like, IMO.

Whilst staunchly defending the rights of women, which do affect 51% of the human race, after all.

Oops, ha ha - yep, @bigotryisbad, definitely a Freudian typo.

The current rights - albeit ones which have often passed into current usage while they aren't exactly legal, through misunderstanding (wilful or not) of the EA, have already rolled back women's rights.

I take your point re the Tavistock case - perhaps I should not in fact appeal to authority by referring to judges, who can of course be fallible, but instead say that no child should be allowed to access experimental, unsupported, off-label medical processes which demonstrably increase risk of long-term harm and whose efficacy cannot be supported by data presented by the people administering it.

Trump repeated GC rhetoric directly in a recent speech

You call it rhetoric because you are committed to an ideological position and construction of reality which runs against the reality of life on earth.

It is up to an individual if they wish to place their faith in something, and define their life according to its dictates; but you don't get to redefine the reality of everyone else in order to justify it.

@EyesOpening

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?

The exact quote was this:

The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

I think that there is a clear link between the "explosion of trans activism" the "robust systems" and the suggestion that a medical requirement form one of those "robust systems" is pretty clear.

Partly, I think this because that's exactly what I though must be happening until I went and it looked up! I stand by the fact that this paragraph is carefully written to outrage people about something that has not changed.

When I first read the essay, something felt 'off' about the logic, in part because I share the hypervigilance it described for a very similar reason (which I'm not keen on going into here as it isn't relevant beyond being the initial prompt) so I went and I looked it up, point by point to find out what I'd missed (which is a trauma response of my own, I accept).

Others have since done so much better than I did then; this is only one example:

seems a central plank of your argument is that GC people are campaigning for its repeal.

So what if they are? It's a law which gives people the right to get an inaccurate birth certificate, people are allowed to think it's a poor law which should be repealed. (Not directed at you, just responding to the point).

@AtTheDickensDesk: Goodness, please don't be embarrassed! I'm genuinely up for being on those barricades, arm in arm!

I'm more sceptical of the judgment than you but accept we'll just have to see how it turns out.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

seems a central plank of your argument is that GC people are campaigning for its repeal.

So what if they are? It's a law which gives people the right to get an inaccurate birth certificate, people are allowed to think it's a poor law which should be repealed. (Not directed at you, just responding to the point).

Well, yes Eresh, I agree that it's a completely defensible position! I'm just trying to unpick why this would be a rights-reversal for trans people, in PPs eyes.

You call it rhetoric because you are committed to an ideological position and construction of reality which runs against the reality of life on earth.

It is up to an individual if they wish to place their faith in something, and define their life according to its dictates; but you don't get to redefine the reality of everyone else in order to justify it.

What she said. The arrogance is quite breathtaking.

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".

People have done similar here. I'm glad you recognise that Maya's appeal might also change things.

Did something feel "off" about the logic of JKR's essay bigotry because you find it hard to empathise with women? Particularly those who've experienced domestic abuse? Or is it simply that women are no longer allowed to express their fears and describe their own vulnerabilities because they have been promoted by TRAs to a position of privilege? It's also a neat trick to cast aspersions on women's politics isn't it - makes it even easier to ignore women if you shout bigot and fascist every time they try to speak.

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

Which doesn't govern "all trans people's existing human rights" so...?

There would be much less conflict if the appropriation and colonisation of women's spaces, services and sports was not the goal.

Cannot think of another movement which has sought to move in and redefine reality, then impose it on other traditionally marginalised groups - and then have the nerve to call it a movement for human rights.

Indeed. And it is a nerve. Almost a DARVO-level claim.

This is the crux.

TRA activists don't recognise their own position as ideology. Though what we see is a total ideological construct - in which many now place their unquestioning faith and belief.

This ideological certainty is rubbing up against material reality and the facts of life on earth in a sexed body. To the point that the reality of the body is denied in order to justify the ideological faith.

Yes. I agree this is the heart of the matter. With the ideology comes the zealous desire to convert and control non believers and prevent them questioning that ideology.