Trans activism on retreat - Sarah Ditum, Sunday Times

[Igneococcus]

I do hope she is right:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3422b888-39a5-11ec-a14e-75e3a4bcdc4c?shareToken=ae8e96e0285845775f46c996b8eb4b6b

@Vanishun

That screenshot can't be for real, can it? Because if so, Christ. That's child abuse right there.

Please god thats not real

Even if the 5 year old calls you mummy what’s the fucking problem? As long as everyone else is calling you he why the hell does it matter

Very upsetting

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Sarah Ditum is a skilled writer and that's a well written piece.

The tide is not turning. I think she's mistaken about the true intent of this consultation.

I shall use a modified version of Ditum's on point description of Mermaids whenever I can: controversial lobbying group, Stonewall and child transitioning lobbyists, Mermaids.

I agree.

While there’s slips of sanity here and there at times these aren’t a magic wand and require a disproportionate amount of energy by us to make them effective (schools still ignoring the v clear d of e guidance for example).

And there’s still the extreme, unquestioning, quixotically delusional views growing strong with followers also.

The proposed ban is a trojan horse to get gender identity onto the statue books

How are they going to do that when they can't even define what a gender identity is? Because I don't think they have defined it in the consultation documents. If they have and I've missed it, can someone post a link to where the definition is?

I'm afraid I'm a bit pessimistic too. I am concerned about how much our public services are in thrall to Stonewall Law and too much evidence exists that these services are reluctant to disassociate. I think that the CPS is no longer on Stonewalls list but I read that it doesn't matter because another department has taken over their HR (one that no one will notice the bias). The calls for evidence on conversion therapy is also throwing up some conflicts.

Perhaps I should be more positive, after all Liz Truss heads up the department and she says no child will be subject to Hormone or cross sex hormone therapy. We also have some great allies in Parliament, so any bill will have to undergo their scrutiny

I really think we have to wait and see with this conversion therapy bill. I can't believe that Truss would want to pass a bill that stops people advocating a "watchful waiting" approach with children with gender dysphoria, given that she has already told schools they can't tell children they were born in the wrong body. Assuming gender identity is going to be in there, there are three options:

1. Banning people from telling kids they are trans, or encouraging them to be trans - basically putting an end to the affirmation model.
2. Banning people from telling trans kids that they are not trans.
3. Banning both telling trans kids that they aren't trans, and non-trans kids that they are trans.

I think that all three would be difficult to pass into law, but especially 2 and 3, because if you don't believe there is such a thing as a trans kid in the first place, how can you be accused of persuading them that they are not trans? Most of us believe the whole idea of gender identity is ludicrous, so you can't talk someone out of something you don't believe exists.

Most of us believe the whole idea of gender identity is ludicrous, so you can't talk someone out of something you don't believe exists.

If 'gender identity' is going to be written into law, it needs a clear definition.

On another thread last night (the cisisnotaslur one) we had a new poster telling us (yet again) what gender identity isn't (according to them it's not the same as gender expression and it's not about stereotypes). But as is always the case with these posters, as soon as they were asked 'well what is it then?' they disappeared. Because they can't define it in any other way than feelings about gender woo.

The government need to come up with something better than this transactivist line about what it isn't, and better than the Yogyakarta definition which is a mix of feelings, stereotypes and expression:

each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms;

There is nothing there which tells me how I would know what my 'gender identity' is or convinces me that I have one.

@Rightsraptor

'Serious politicians (and Keir Starmer) ...'

😂😂That tickled me

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Thanks for the share token. I hope she's right. Long way to go to return to sanity, though, esp on other side of the Atlantic. Just read a shocking tweet about a US family where both parents are transitioning, 5yo son is terribly upset and mother's reaction is he needs intensive therapy to come to terms with it. A few short years ago everybody would have seen that this child is being let down very badly and social services needed to step in. I doubt they can now. When we can be confident that UK social services would intervene to protect a similar child, I'll accept the tide has turned.

Jesus 😱 I actually feel sick. Is this real???

I think one thing is changing. At least in the UK. I only noticed these discussions after JK Rowling was attacked on Twitter. In contrast to that period, the power of #nodebate is diminishing. There is more mainstream media coverage. Disagreement is emerging into the public arena. Pile-ons are not the automatically suppressive done deal they used to be. Perpetrators get kick back. At least discussion is possible. And I thank all the women here (and elsewhere) who have worked so hard to make that possible.

I’m referring to the screenshot in this post.
Thanks for the article - so clear and succinct.

I'm not sure whether the tide is turning but things are changing. Look at the nature of the discussions happening in the public realm (not just on Mumsnet or tucked away in other corners) and compare it to 3 years ago. Look at the BBC. Maybe it's a token on their part or maybe they're going to start attempting a degree of impartiality.

These days someone standing up and asking questions does cause an almighty row with people pitching in with different perspectives (an example of this from today: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-dawkins-race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary-hrjz95kqn) while 3 years back it would cause an immediate silence (well, there'd be the ranting on twitter etc), the offender would be denounced and people would back away, and the topic would be swiftly changed.

@Threadbaretoe

Who knew that 1970s working men’s club comedians were writing the script for the gender revolution all along? So many brilliant lines in this article but this one really resonated.

I agree. This was my favourite line too!

She is only talking about England though. Things are abysmal in Wales and Scotland.

I do wonder though if the 'conversion therapy bill' will lead to talk of 'genital preferences' being seen as the 'shaming people out of same sex attraction' homophobia that it is.

"There seems little point at this stage in pretending trans activism is anything other than a respectable cover for misogyny."

It's a feature, not a bug.

The Times is just so biased these days against any reasonable middle ground, that it is hard to take them seriously. Just a propaganda machine IMHO stirring up minority issues to sell copy.

I guess that is how they survive in today's world, but what an unethical business to be in.

Uh huh. It's the Times that is unethical. Not the ones making toddlers transition because they like the wrong kind of toys and clothes.

You've had your #nodebate for a few years now MishyJDI. What it gave us was a toxic situation manifesting largely with hatred directed at women. It looks like #debate is now having a turn.

Like most people, I assume all news sources are biased in some way. It's a given, I take that into account.

What I then do is try and establish whether a given event or fact is true or not.
Essentially I'm always looking for things that prove me/ an article wrong.
I know much of what is stated there is true.
I also ask a lot of questions to establish the other side's position.
They are repeatedly ignored by genderists to the point I can only conclude they don't know the answers or that they are unpalatable.

That poor little boy. His mum is changing to be a "man" and his dad a "woman", by the sound of it. How disorienting.

And he's being told by authority figures that it's his issue, he needs therapy, he needs to change, he needs to monitor his language etc. Awful.

Yeah. That kid. My heart breaks for him.

The Times is just so biased these days against any reasonable middle ground, that it is hard to take them seriously. Just a propaganda machine IMHO stirring up minority issues to sell copy

Don't pretend there is a any reasonable middle ground from TRAs.

It is also not a 'minority issue' when all legal protections of half the population to have male free spaces, services and sports, and the right to name ourselves and advocate for our unique needs as women, a separate and distinct class from men, removed, just because a tiny subset of males demand it as they think their subjective unprovable feelings of 'gender' matter more than the sex based reality and continued oppression of females.

Their male entitlement, pretend oppression, and male violence and sexual aggression aimed at women who dare to point out the truth is very telling. I mean, all those thousands of 'women' sending JKR threats of rape with the male penis they claim is a harmless lady sex organ. So oppressed.

Great post @Whatsnewpussyhat.

The Times is just so biased these days against any reasonable middle ground, that it is hard to take them seriously. Just a propaganda machine IMHO stirring up minority issues to sell copy.

Yep, there is absolutely no 'middle ground' when it comes to TRAs.

The disgusting abuse thrown at Margaret Attwood when she dared to share something which wasn't 100% TWAW a couple of weeks ago illustrated that quite nicely.

I would imagine a lot of ordinary people, reading the recent 'cotton ceiling' piece, would view Hayton as a good representative of 'the reasonable middle ground'.
Well, a lot of women have some reservations about Hayton, but nothing like what comes from the trans activist side - on a Twitter thread by robin the barrister which appeared to equate the bbc coverage of abused lesbians with Goebbels, Hayton was referred to as 'Quisling'. (Not merely 'a quisling').
I thought it was rather telling.