I remember, quite fondly, the days when journalists & editors used to ensure they fact-checked & then balanced out nonsense claims made by people they were interviewing. This article about today’s Trans Pride March in London, however, is so riddled with things that are objectively untrue & others that a good journalist would seek to interrogate simply to avoid bias as far as humanly possible that I suspect if you were to erase those bits you’d have more gaps than remaining text. And it irked me so much I felt obliged to ensure you all got to share in my annoyance.
In one of the most egregious examples of false teaming I’ve seen, the London Trans+ Pride spokesperson claims the EHRC argued the UK government should delay reforms to conversion therapy for trans and intersex people & was actively damaging human rights for trans people - hence said organisation calling for the EHRC to be abolished. Obviously no mention of the view
the way the EHRC dramatically shifted its position on trans rights was necessary because the EHRC had not been doing its job properly, but the crucial thing here is that they’re - yet again - dragging people with VSDs into things. INTERSEX CONVERSION THERAPY?! Endlessly appropriating the very real problems experienced by people with VSDs (including claiming to be intersex) is vile; & there is no excuse.
It’s unsurprising but still frustrating they uncritically print paragraphs of ranting about trans conversion therapy, with the government’s refusal to ban it characterised as an abhorrent and deliberate attack. Of course, some of the issues with the Bill were because it was so rushed; but there are activists who actively want the dangerous & damaging affirmation-only “care” it would’ve caused.
You’d think/hope journalists taking an interest in this would want to know why there are such significant issues with the data - or rather, lack thereof - on the prevalence of conversion therapy in the UK used in drafting the Bill. Including the fact nobody asked if people were being offered conversion therapy for their gender identity or their sexual orientation. So it’s - genuinely, seriously - entirely possible that nobody has ever been offered trans conversion therapy in the UK at all; & it’s simply the case the higher visibility (as it were) of trans people has made them obvious targets for LGB conversion therapy, hence the way the stats skew.
Stonewall claim that Trans people are nearly twice as likely [as cis people] to be targeted by conversion practices without citing any evidence they have for that;
nor what saying what they are including under the “conversion practices” umbrella. We know they like big brollies at Stonewall, after all… I assume the stats they are referring to are that 2% of gay and lesbian respondents said they [had] undergone conversion therapy, with 5% reporting they had been offered it. In comparison, 4% of transgender respondents said they had received it, and 8% said they had been offered it.🚩
It might be terribly cynical of me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that “conversion practices” here = “anything other than instant & absolute affirmation”. Certainly the way the survey was designed means respondents were using their own definitions - & we all know about how “literal violence” works, for example 
It also seems hugely counter-intuitive that more trans people would be offered &/or receive conversion therapy when transitioning is considered an acceptable “cure” for homosexuality by multiple demographics who utilise LGB conversion therapy 🤨
Anti-trans campaigning in the UK is predominantly led by small groups calling themselves “gender critical feminists”, mostly made up of cisgender people.
Does this mean we can just call them “anti-women campaigners”?
“The Independent” absolutely accepts the narrative of a tiny group of women managing to control the government & take over the EHRC etc: do so enjoy the way that 3 people with lots of sock[puppet]s are utterly insignificant & universally despised BUT able to pull the strings of institutions of state. Witchcraft, clearly. And Rowling’s running the Wizengamot.
As for “mostly cisgender people” - how do they KNOW? Or rather, “where do they get off assuming that?!” - most GC feminists are agender (or possibly non-binary or genderfluid) surely? And use she/her pronouns because they’re women, not gyroscopes.
Huge deal about a trans man who had a sign saying “not safe to be me”. And yet there were no black-clad thugs assaulting the marchers here. Oscar is fully protected by British Law & the past several years have shown he would be enthusiastically defended by the police from threats real or imagined. Is it possible Oliver feels unsafe in some situations due to his sex perhaps? Massively tone-deaf in its self-absorption though. The last few years have been FULL of unmissable examples of people who are unsafe - the scandal over secret DNRs for the disabled during COVID; BLM protests; dreadful treatment of members of minority faiths including Uigurs in China, Christians in [particularly North & Central] India, the Rohingyas in Myanmar, & the Yazidi of Kurdistan. The repeal of Roe v Wade is going to cause women & girls to die because they cannot safely access an abortion. But “The Independent” thinks we should all feel sorry for Oscar because Oscar feels so very unsafe that he explains: It’s important to me to be visibly part of the trans community, and to proclaim in public that I am proud to be trans. I’m not sure Oscar is completely au fait with what “not safe” means 🤨 To be clear, I don’t think Oscar should have to hide away from the public/creep about in the shadows - but it’s an absurdity to talk about feeling unsafe etc because they then effectively say “I choose to deliberately make myself a target & try to provoke a negative reaction from others”.🚩🚩
“Pride started as a riot and we should not forget how much we owe to trans elders of colour like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson who took the streets before us and stood up against violence…”
It was an interviewee who trotted out the Great Pride Lie, but again, how/why is it all just uncritically accepted?!
The only person to say Rivera was there when the riot started was her & as is well-established, Malcolm Michaels Jr was gay & considered himself a transvestite. Indeed, it seems that “If a transvestite doesn't say I'm gay and I'm proud and I'm a transvestite… nobody else is going to say it for them." needs some caveats as obviously he said it, & certainly that should have been enough, but apparently in Current Year, he DOES need other people to explain that it’s not ok to alter his identity, even posthumously, to fit an agenda.
To wrap up they had someone who was on an anti-carceral kick. Presumably you’re not allowed to mention violent sex offenders (including paedophiles) because it [almost] never happens & somehow that makes it acceptable collateral damage. And obviously the perpetrators are not really trans anyway (etc).
Dangerously close to saying the quiet part out loud at the end with I want more than rights, even though in the article it’s followed by I want liberation and justice. Obviously no explanation of in what way(s) Charlie is not free nor the injustices that weigh so heavily upon them. Charlie, incidentally, travelled from Germany to the UK to take part the event. International Travel to attend what organisers & participants are describing as a protest? Gosh yes Charlie, the world is terribly unfair, isn’t it…
🚩 Data from 2017 National LGBT Survey
🚩🚩 If you genuinely believe that [frothing] transphobes will pursue you for merely existing as a trans person, literally seeking to draw their attention is… an odd move.