Labour's Ben Bradshaw on the attack

[CysticMeg]

twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1607991584234115072?t=cBmrw2vp-ik9Q-5oSqyJow&s=19

So disappointed to read this tweet and the very clear direction of his follow up.

Interesting to read the overwhelmingly challenging replies though, with so many people feeling able to state their concerns. Another demonstration of the own goal nature of the Scottish ruling?

So mystifying to see see a gay man who is otherwise open to listening (or who has given that impression over his career) be so absolutely defiantly resistant to acknowledging the concerns of female constituents.

Depressing to think that surrounded by Tories in the SW, Labour are prepared to do nothing to listen in an effort to represent and engage with their electorate.

EvilBee you’re really talking over women here. It’s not OK.
Lumping all lesbians in with what you call ‘LGBTQ+’ over this issue is homophobic and misogynistic. It ignores over a decade of grassroots lesbian protest to preserve women’s single sex spaces and places and opportunities and what has basically been the all-but obliteration of lesbian-only spaces and the disturbing truth that many lesbians are being made unwelcome and feeling threatened at Pride and in other gay spaces just because they want women only single sex spaces.

Imagine the absolute outcry if a peaceful consenting expression of men’s sexuality had been all but driven out of the public sphere in the way that has happened with UK lesbian culture.

And that’s not even to mention the coercive mind trips being played on individual lesbians by supporters of gender identity so that men can fuck them. It’s absolutely disgusting. Have a look at the Get the L out and the LGB alliance websites.

www.gettheloutuk.com/
lgballiance.org.uk/about/

I am massively concerned by success in the past couple of decades of this extremely successful men’s sexual access campaign which has been enabled by the wilful naivety and misogyny of those in power. Of whom Ben Bradshaw in Exeter isn’t even a particularly prominent example so how sad if he were making this some kind of political swan song point.

Not only has this misogynistic homophobic identity politics impacted on the lesbian community horrendously it has encouraged the loss of professional safeguarding and appropriate consent as foundations of medical treatment for kids and messed up various types of data collection for the future which will adversely impact everyone.

How anyone could side themselves with any of that as a potential future career options enhancer is completely beyond me.

Like people can see the same tropes and recycled homophobia appearing.

Absolutely nothing is more homophobic than the erasure of same-sex orientation that gender identity theft ideology threatens with its replacement of "same-sex attraction" with " same-gender attraction". The concept of "breaking through the cotton ceiling" is the most regressive and despicable piece of lesbophobic nonsense I have seen in my lifetime.

Re the Economist headline:

"Sterilisation" - you mean an actual gender affirming transition? I.e. a transwoman has "her penis" removed/inverted and testicles surgically removed?

Nobody's forcing that, either, but if you want the paperwork with the shiny new gender, then perhaps you should be willing to actually "transition" as much as possible...as opposed to self-ID or a doctor's note, and Maternity Services falling over themselves to erase the words "woman" and "mother" lest they offend those "birthing dads".

I wish you wouldn’t begin sentences with “Like” - it makes you hard to understand.

Same. Really sad.

As for Ben - what a knob. But I think the Rosie/Eddie meme on his thread deserves a thread of its own, so I’m grateful to Ben for letting me see it.

Rosie - I ❤️ you.

That tweet was a click bait attempt to draw attention to an article about a legal case in Japan. You can read The Economist article here (funnily enough, it doesn't argue for the sterilisation of anyone): archive.ph/XuAXD

great post ItstheBiologyStupid

Weird way to phrase the fact that some people think genital surgery should be a condition of legal ‘transition’.

i don’t, btw, because humans can’t change sex, no matter how much cosmetic surgery they have/how long they live with artificially altered hormone levels.

But mentally competent adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies as long as they self fund and any doctors involved are competent and stick to professional standards (eg not the lax way Webberly has behaved re: monitoring the FBC of patients on exogenous Testosterone or Russell Reid/ Robert Smith style amputations)

Stop using words you don't understand.

The word, even the concept, of homophobia, is meaningless to you. As is section 28. You don't believe in homosexuality, or sexual orientation based on sex.

Furthermore, you're addressing many lesbians on this board. Given you don't understand sexual orientation, you're probably unaware of this, but female homosexuality and feminism will often go hand in hand.

Thats why the LGBA has such strong support. And why it's so relentlessly targeted of course.

My lesbian friends (4 close friends) are vocally GC, as are the majority of gay men friends (I work in dance) . They are feminists, they do not subscribe to being called transphobes for their same sex (rather than same gender) orientation, and the lesbians see much of the FtM trans ing amongst young people as a fear of coming out as lesbian. Because Trans is currently seen as cooler than lesbian.

I campaigned against Section 28 alongside them. There are R wing conservatives who do not consider either homosexuals or Trans people as deserving of equality, despicable thinking. That does not mean every GC person has those beliefs.

@DaughterOfPsychiatrist I’ve just looked at the Guardian article you link to - so glad there were no photos in it. WTAF?

EvilBee is very far from being the sharpest tool in the box.

I refer everyone once again to the wise words of Rebekah Vardy, which we should all bear in mind every time one of these dimwits pops up on these threads: "It's like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong but it’s still going to shit in your hair.”

I’m really not convinced that @EvilBee has the same level of understanding of the issues as many of the very knowledgeable women on this thread have. Its painful to witness, actually.

‘Cis’ is an offensive slur. Stop using it here.

It’s 😅

Bingo

Yes, irritating. And the constant use of which belies the assertion that the poster is old enough to have been 'brought up thru' section 28. Which, if this poster is from the US, they didn't even have.

So much bollocks, in other words.

Bonkers, innit?

the psychiatrist in the amputations story retired after being disciplined by the GMC for his work with trans patients. His successor/protege (a trans man doctor) was also investigated but closed the private practice without the case reaching tribunal.

There is a Horizons episode about the limb amputations saga. I watched it a little while ago on internet archive (will come back with a link). To bring this back on topic a bit this is is a prime example how our concerns re: chikdren & teens and gender transitions is absolutely NOTHING like section 28, as there weren’t batshit predatory doctors cutting bits off gay kids in the 80s.

I’m pretty sure @EvilBee is from the US. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but as you point out, Section 28 is part of British legal history, not American. Additionally, the liberal use of “like” in sentences places @EvilBee very firmly in the under-25s category. And therefore not old enough to have lived “thru” Section 28.

Unless of course @EvilBee “identifies as” a British time traveller. In which case, we must all bow to @EvilBee’s superior knowledge and not be “time traveller-phobic”.

By the way, this isn't for EvilBee (who is beyond reason) but if anyone is interested in rebutting arguments about why "transphobia" is exactly like the homophobia of the 80s and 90s, or exactly like Section 28, here's an extremely well-argued and well-evidenced thread from Simon Edge about why it isn't:

twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1457327246042181635

archive.org/details/BBCHorizonCollection512Episodes/BBC+Horizon+-+s2000e06+-+Complete+Obsession+-+Body+Dysmorphia.avi

It’s episode 6 from the series that aired in 2000.

not sure if the link will go straight to the episode or not, added some screenshots showing the doctors involved (Psychiatrist Reid and Surgeon Smith).

There are other archived Horizon episodes that are similarly shocking re: doctors in this field including one about John Money and what he did to the Reimer brothers.

anyone Ben Bradshaw’s constituent? Maybe he should watch some of these old programs. Thanks to the internet archive, the reality of what he is endorsing is all viewable.

Thanks, Corgi.

The ratio on Ben Bradshaw's tweet is excellent.

If you were brought up when section 28 existed you’d be aware that it meant nothing in practice. And you would be able to write “through” instead of the brainless “thru”.

And many of us are lesbian or gay.

Simon Edge’s thread is a proper eye opener. Makes my heart hurt - teens today (including one in my own family) are pretty much ‘culturally appropriating’ the historic victimisation of gay men (and lesbians, whose struggles were also very real but often very different, eg losing custody of children, which is a lot less glamorised).