Caitlyn Jenner's new campaign against "gender extremists"

[BonfireLady]

Apologies if this is a duplicate thread but I don't think I've seen it elsewhere.

Caitlyn Jenner has launched a new political action committee to protect children from the (pull towards a pathway of medicalisation for life and sterilisation) impact of gender identity belief and to protect the integrity of women's sports. It's targeted at exposing and stopping the influence of gender belief extremists, not the every day lives of transgender people.

She's receiving both support and criticism.

"I don't want to be a trans activist," Jenner responded "I gave millions and millions of dollars away in philanthropy to LGBT organizations. I want to be a trans example not an activist. Live your life however, you want that's the beautiful thing about this country."

It's great to see her stepping up as a role model for safety, fairness and boundaries.

Article in Newsweek

Is this the same Caitlin Jenner who lives as a woman apart from days they want to play golf at the male only golf club?

Thank you for your story, thus part is excellent news ;it all us but amazing result here!)

"Equally, it was fantastic to hear that the Local Authority is using our case study to examine its protocols that support vulnerable children across the whole of the county in which we live. During the EHCP review meeting, they told me that number of EHCP referrals in our county has gone up by 50% since the pandemic. They also told me, that the pattern of autistic girls who were questioning their gender identity was there in plain sight. They have the power and the desire to change so many children’s lives for the better."

Not great that ehcps have sky rocketed though :(

Issue is the wrong word; you simply can't change sex. Jaime and her partner are parents.

When I saw Jamie's interview on Triggernometry, I felt that it was really clear that she knows people can't change sex. For example, she states that she is in a gay relationship and at the end of the interview she reflects on homophobia. So although the main focus of the interview is about the impact on children, she is also making a stand on the boundaries between being lesbian and being trans. It's interesting that she uses the word gay rather than lesbian but perhaps that is what she and her spouse are both comfortable with over all. In the same way that I'm using "spouse", rather than "wife" (how I would see it) or "husband" (perhaps how Jamie and her spouse see it?). Either way, it's a clear boundary - very different from when it gets conflated e.g. a woman and a transman describing their relationship as "heterosexual". That second description erases and denies the homosexuality within the relationship.

Presumably her spouse agrees that they are in a gay relationship, otherwise that's a bit awkward 😬

Thank you @MrsOvertonsWindow, I appreciate your words.

Wow I've just read this and I was in tears. Well done @BonfireLady what a fantastic mother you are. You fought so hard to safeguard your child. There are so many 'what ifs' in your account. What if you hadn't been resilient enough to challenge repeatedly the incorrect statement that your daughter identified as male? What if you didn't have the confidence to refuse the referral to GIDS?

I am sure there were many, many times that you just wanted to scream at the 'professionals' who were (in some cases) attempting to trans your daughter, but it sounds as if you managed to stay calm throughout. You are a shining example of what responsible parents should do. Stay open minded, always keep the long goal of your child's wellbeing in mind.

It sounds like you had a great GP and met some truly responsible professionals who were capable of reflection too.

However, sadly, particularly in relation to schools where the teachers don't have medical expertise, I think you were lucky there was a teacher who was responsible, capable of reflection and focused on safeguarding. In schools there are a lot of activists and GI is very entrenched as we've seen in the case of the teacher who was dismissed for refusing to use wrong sex pronouns and raising safeguarding concerns about this approach. We know, we're told many times that adults who have a vested interested in undermining safeguarding seek out positions of responsibility over children, and I think there are many bad actors in schools. And they are going relatively unchallenged.

The question 'what are your prounouns' DOES involve a huge amount of bias (unconcious or not) not least that everyone believes in gender ideology - and for children this is leading them. I am totally fed up of being asked a question about something I don't believe in. It's like assuming everyone is Jewish, or Catholic or Muslim and asking questions about elements of those belief systems. It's incredibly exclusionary.

One thing I've realised is that it's important for child safeguarding to teach your children 'I don't know' and a refusal to answer a loaded question is a valid answer to a question posed by adults. So many children feel forced to pick an answer if presented with a binary choice. 'I don't know' should always be valid but -especially on forms etc - it's often not even a choice. And 'non-binary' is not the same as 'I don't know'.

Thank you @dimorphism

I am sure there were many, many times that you just wanted to scream at the 'professionals' who were (in some cases) attempting to trans your daughter
Sooooooooooooo badly. But I knew that I needed to hold it in, so that the conversations could move forwards.
I remember and regularly reflect on the call with the senior lady in the second CAMHS team, when she called me back to say that they wanted to talk to me about our safeguarding boundaries and then, if we were comfortable, meet with our daughter - the "U turn" moment. She had consistently been incredibly forthright and no nonsense (frankly, formidable and brilliant) and this time round, in that same firm but fair tone she said "You've started a lot of conversations here [pause]. I think that's what you wanted". Not delivered with a tone of judgement, in fact quite the opposite. Despite me previously being on the end of her strong and forthright "no, you can't have an appointment, because we won't follow your rules, you'll follow ours" (paraphrased) during my earlier conversation with her, I hadn't screamed out loud (I did in my head!) and I think that this was foundational in both of us having a mutual respect for the other's view, even though during that first call we vehemently disagreed with each other. There were lots of emails back and forth before these calls too.

The question 'what are your prounouns' DOES involve a huge amount of bias (unconcious or not) not least that everyone believes in gender ideology - and for children this is leading them. I am totally fed up of being asked a question about something I don't believe in. It's like assuming everyone is Jewish, or Catholic or Muslim and asking questions about elements of those belief systems. It's incredibly exclusionary.

One thing I've realised is that it's important for child safeguarding to teach your children 'I don't know' and a refusal to answer a loaded question is a valid answer to a question posed by adults. So many children feel forced to pick an answer if presented with a binary choice. 'I don't know' should always be valid but -especially on forms etc - it's often not even a choice. And 'non-binary' is not the same as 'I don't know'.

Beautifully put. I've made a decision that from now on, if/when I am asked "What are your pronouns?", or I'm asked to introduce myself using my "preferred pronouns" - I'm envisaging a work meeting where this is done during a round of introductions - I'm going to say something along the lines of "I don't know [what my pronouns are]. I'm happy to explain why I don't but I appreciate that this probably isn't the right moment". Then I'll leave it there and will happily have the full conversation (back and forth, with me listening too) with anyone that would like to ask me why this is my answer.
My short version here is that I don't know because I don't have a belief in gender identity, whereas I know and respect that others do.

Yep, non-binary and agender are not the same thing. Nor is "I don't care what pronouns you use for me" as that can be received as challenging someone's core belief that gender identity exists.

It's an absolute minefield but I do think it's possible to navigate it with a combination of compassion, firm boundaries, listening, critical thinking and mutual respect. In the event that I'm not getting any mutual respect in return, I'll just politely finish with something like: "I respect [your] belief in gender identity but this feels like a conversation that a Christian and an atheist might have. If they get can't get past debating whether God exists or not, there is nowhere else for the conversation to go." I'm yet to encounter this in real life but I guess it may happen, so I think it's helpful to have an idea on how I would back out. A significant amount of my clarity on this latter part has come from some of the recent "good faith" discussions on the FWR board.

Oh, the missing bit....

I did respond to this point:

"You've started a lot of conversations here [pause]. I think that's what you wanted".

I said yes, it is. Primarily to help my daughter but also more widely.

I think you were lucky there was a teacher who was responsible, capable of reflection and focused on safeguarding

I forgot to comment on this bit (I want to say so much in response to your post - thank you for taking the time to read it and share your thoughts 💐) but I think this one is particularly pertinent: I agree with you completely. Luck has also played a part.

The school stuff is more of a footnote in the article, as the primary focus was mental health, but it's where so much of my tentative early conversations were happening. I would have kept hunting for the person who could help me, until I found them, but I am very lucky that I didn't need to look for long and that this person was in a sufficiently senior position.

I do believe that there are many education and health professionals that would either have the same conviction as me already on safeguarding in respect to gender identity exploration, or who would on reflection. The truth is that many aren't close enough to the issues until they see them really clearly articulated, in full not in soundbite. It's such a nuanced subject that it's almost impossible to get to that point without expressly choosing to dive in and dig around below all of the polarised firm views.

Thank you. Sorry, I'm reading backwards up the thread.

There's a whole other article about this side of it all to be honest. When I wrote it, the school part was a footnote because nobody was really talking openly about it. It was too "niche" for discussion so the focus was on mental health. Then along came Miriam Cates and the doors opened up in to mainstream discussion.

For now, I'll keep the follow-on article in my head as it's still unfolding in real time. I'm currently liaising with the school as part of their review of the RHSE materials. At the time when I started the safeguarding approach, I had no idea about this angle. The school were using my feedback to run their own internal review but, understandably, the people (by this point, more than one person) I was talking to in the school didn't share exactly what their internal review entailed. Nor did I ask. I just sent them information that I thought might be helpful. As time went on I realised my own ignorance on the RHSE materials was pretty spectacular (it was there in plain sight on Transgender Trend's and Safe Schools Alliance websites for example) and I'm also very conscious that they didn't know what kind of parent I was going to be - would I name and shame them?

The school and I have established a mutual trust on this. No, I'll never name and shame them as there is no shame in what they had been doing under their previous practices. They were following what they believed was right, given the information available to them. There were, and still are, strong voices in the school who want to uphold their gender identity belief. It's important that they are heard too, and that they are part of open and reflective conversations. This is a big and positive part of what is happening at the school. The ripple effect of discussions that were specifically about my daughter originally is playing out now. I'm not a Tory voter but I am incredibly grateful to Miriam Cates and Rishi Sunak on highlighting and backing the importance of this one. It's not a party political issue - it's about safeguarding.

Marvellous. So we can ignore the crazies and just need to budge up for reasonable Transwomen?

Err no.

No males in female spaces. No matter how reasonable their performance.

I fully appreciate that this will remain some posters' position, even after reading the whole thread.

Apologies for the direct commentary as I'm not trying to single you out @Dinopawus - I'm aware that there are lots of posts above that echo your views too. I also imagine there will be many who have posted earlier who still feel just as strongly as you even after reading the whole thread too.

But just to illustrate and explain myself, here are my thoughts in line:

So we can ignore the crazies
Can I set aside the places where my views differ (probably immutably) from someone else's? Yes. But I'm not "ignoring" those views. If I don't remain cognisant of them I'll not spot the threshold at which my own views have been challenged. Also, I'm personally never going to call anyone "crazy" even if they hold a totally different core belief to me. I'm an atheist but nobody who believes in God is crazy.

Just need to budge up for reasonable Transwomen
I'm not budging up for anyone. I'm listening to someone who wants to fight for something that I too believe in: children's safety (my primary focus) and fairness in sports (secondary for me but just as important globally). Do I think she's reaonable on these two specific points? Yes. Do I think she's reasonable and right on everything? No. But by keeping everything else off the table, through a mutual agreement to do so, a goal can be achieved. If that threshold is breached, it needs calling out and heels need digging in. But if heels are dug in right from the start, it's a missed opportunity IMO.

No males in female spaces
Totally agree. But for now, the focus is specifically on a different part of a wider conversation within which this important boundary sits.

No matter how reasonable their performance.
I personally wouldn't use the word performance to describe how someone expresses their gender identity belief. I've been told on other threads that my "performance" is too reasonable as well. It didn't feel great being on the receiving end of that and there were moments when I considered dropping out of that discussion owing to the fact that I felt misunderstood (what was the point in me spending time and effort if that was the net takeaway from my involvement?). So to this end, I'm personally never going to use language like this as I would find it too combative and potentially exclusionary. However, I'm not the language police! Everyone should use the language that best represents their own views.

In summary, I want to be a part of maintaining an environment that fosters debate. Not one that grinds to a stalemate with no debate. If someone is reaching out on a particular issue that I also feel strongly about, I want to listen. I hope I'm explaining my thoughts well, but in my view, it's very similar to the point I made earlier up the thread about it being a pointless conversation if an atheist and a Christian spent their time discussing the existence of God before they could tackle other subjects e.g. abortion laws in the US that are predictated in part on a Christian belief. So if anyone fundamentally disagrees with engaging with a transwoman (for totally understandable personal reasons or just on principle), I guess that's the end of the debate on whatever specific subject, such as children's safety or women's sports, is being discussed.

🤣🤣🤣

My comments refer to CJ's performance because I absolutely see their behaviour as performative. It's all about them.

Jenner wants to carve out a niche that sets them apart from other transpeople. Look over there squirrel. I'm not like them squirrel. You can trust me.

The agenda is to allow some TW to be seen as women - as long as they meet Jenner's rules. But it's not for Jenner to define who meets the breed standard for women. (Incidentally it would probably require an aesthetic code lots of actual women couldn't be arsed with, but I'm parking that argument for now.

I understand your argument for reasonable discussion and support you here absolutely. My concern is that Jenner isn't reasonable. I can't remember who said it but the poster who said that they have seen the future and are pulling the ladder up behind them was on the money for me.

I completely get your desire for pragmatism and as a senior HCP involved with mental health professionals & Safeguarding, I can only imagine how challenging you have found the culture and practices and admire you for finding a way through to support your child in the best possible way. At a delivery level teens should be treated as individuals in ways that secure their engagement with services. This often involves compromises and gentle navigation.

But stopped clocks and all that. Just because Jenner is against medicating teens, doesn't make them a genuine ally. I don't want to wake up and find that compromises I disagree with have been made in the name of feminism. And I'm heartily sick of males telling me how to be a better feminist.

I absolutely see their behaviour as performative. It's all about them.
Ah, I'm with you. Yes, it does come across this way and I missed the nuance of what you were saying in the short sentence.

My concern is that Jenner isn't reasonable. I can't remember who said it but the poster who said that they have seen the future and are pulling the ladder up behind them was on the money for me... Just because Jenner is against medicating teens, doesn't make them a genuine ally. I don't want to wake up and find that compromises I disagree with have been made in the name of feminism.
Yep. I totally get that concern. But also there will be many people who back Jenner on children's safety and women's sports who can articulate why this doesn't mean her views should be taken as a holistic manual. Any "boundary breaches" on other topics in the wider discussion need to be nipped in the bud as they appear, and ideally shut out of the specific conversation. I'm not a Julia Hartley-Brewer or Piers Morgan fan (different concentration required to expand that fully) but they spring to mind as examples of people who will do just that. Plenty of people will do so in different styles. Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce too. I've seen all of them shut down tangential conversations from either viewpoint, not just their own (less so Piers Morgan on that one).

And I'm heartily sick of males telling me how to be a better feminist.
I get this. And I'm very glad it didn't come across as though I was doing this too 😬😬 Thank you for taking my comment in the spirit I intended it.

I guess one thing that's changed recently is that this whole subject is much more widely (even if nowhere near fully) in the public arena, even though it's still relatively nuanced. It's brought new people in to the overarching debate. It's certainly not what I imagined myself doing on a Saturday morning this time last year!

☝️☝️ Sorry @Dinopawus I meant to tag you.

"I do believe that there are many education and health professionals that would either have the same conviction as me already on safeguarding in respect to gender identity exploration, or who would on reflection".

I agree. It's important to see how skilled professionals have been silenced & their professional skills undermined. Trans activist groups (many with state funding that gives them a "credibility" that's immediately undermined by their ignorance about children and education) have gaslit teachers into believing that these vulnerable group have no need of protection from their families who are likely to be bigots. The activists are profoundly ignorant of decades of evidence showing that children in care / alienated from their families do terribly in all life measures - more likely to be involved with drugs, crime, low achievement, homeless etc. The fact that only the courts can remove parental rights is ignored and teachers urged to keep secrets & position parents as the enemy.
Good schools know how to work with parents - the angry, difficult, homophobic, abusive etc and to retain a respectful relationship - because it's in the interests of the child. Children rely on teachers being alert, able to support, able to respectfully challenge parents where necessary and referring externally when their safety depends on it.
The actions of trans activists in seeking out schools and children to gaslight in this way is unforgivable. Thousands of children actively harmed - psychologically and many physically.
It has to stop.

In totally agree with every word @MrsOvertonsWindow

I would personally only add that there are many non-extreme transgender people (gender dysphoric and not) and allies who have been force-teamed in to being on the hook for this too i.e. they are judged to be all of the same mind on all of it.

I am certain that there will be many who are implicitly on the hook by ignorance (very much like the teachers who haven't looked in to it fully) rather than by malicious design. And dare I say it, even some of the extremists will be acting on ignorance because they don't want to listen to something that undercuts their core belief - who does? If I'm telling a Christian that they are "wrong" that God exists (I would not do this), I would never then expect them to listen to any of my views on difficult subjects which may interweave with their belief after that (e.g. my US abortion legislation example from above). And if I start throwing my evidence at them, after I've undercut their core belief, they can grab hold of their evidence to throw back at me. It's irrelevant at that point that I don't think their evidence is sound because they are thinking exactly the same about mine.

This for me is why Caitlyn Jenner is important. She breaks through to the issue at hand from a position of shared core belief: that gender identity is real. She'll be vilified for it by extremists but listened to by many.

Ps random additional thought fart:

I'm scrolling past the posts that are laughing at transwomen wearing wigs and pink leggings because they don't impact me or my core belief. It's easy for me to ignore them. But if a thread fills up with comments like that, why would anyone who does believe in gender identity bother reading anything else on it?

And on that point, a small language clarity from me: by ignorant/ignorance I mean "didn't know something" (i.e. you don't know what you don't know), not stupid. I don't think that teachers are stupid and I don't think that the majority of transgender people or allies are stupid. Obviously there will be some who are highly questionable on that front.. just like the extreme end of religion (I'm thinking specifically about a flyer that I was handed recently when I was in London - I think most Christians would have also thought it very odd to say the least).

Thought fart over.

I imagine many Teachers like Health Professionals have an instinctive be kind tendency. Shaped by education and career development into putting patients/children at the centre of their practice.

And that's where the activism has been so clever. When it's "only" pronouns or preferred names it's hard to argue against if you believe in child/person centred care. No-one wants to be the team bigot.

But if you look at the bigger picture, you can see that it's about acceptance without question.

If you believe it's only about pausing puberty while a distressed child makes their mind up, you don't ask about the consequences of those meds, or why adults might be encouraging children to reach legal adulthood with pre-pubescent bodies. And if you genuinely believe the cause of a child's distress is gender dysphoria and that there is a magic cure, you don't look at other reasons for that distress, including neurodiversity and sexual abuse.

So I don't want Teachers and HCP misled to think acceptance is OK as long as there is no medication. I want them to understand AGP and to step up and be adults. There is no fluffy, safe, acceptable version of this movement and we need to be alert to its poster boys and girls.

And while the jokes about pink leggings might not to be everyone's taste, it's a reminder that we don't actually know who the good ones are. We protect women and girls by saying no to all TW.

Paying attention to the "reasonable ones" was what led to wigs and pink leggings.

Nope. No negotiating boundaries any more.

There are some who are just beginning their journey who just need to hear from the "true trans " or "rational trans" or "not extreme trans" or whatever is the kind expression. sure, knock yourselves out.

Those of us who have realised what the boundaries look like, know when a man has come with his confident foot already in the door.

No negotiating boundaries any more

Agreed. I don't think there is anyone on this thread who is advocating that the boundaries on children's safety or sports should be negotiated. They are firm and need protecting from any attempt at negotiation. From what I've read so far, that's also what Caitlyn Jenner is saying.

And @Dinopawus I totally agree with everything you said in the 14.51 post from yesterday. This is the key bit:
But if you look at the bigger picture, you can see that it's about acceptance without question.

There is no fluffy, safe, acceptable version of this movement and we need to be alert to its poster boys and girls.

Gender identity is very real to the people that believe in it. Gender dysphoria is also very real and very distressing to some of those people. However, boundaries can still be put in place IMO where there is a place for the kindness to help anyone who is distressed, while also safeguarding against the impact of an "all in allyship" with a poster person.

Those of us who have realised what the boundaries look like, know when a man has come with his confident foot already in the door.

Agreed. I think that describes the majority of people posting on this thread, myself included. I just happen to have a different style from some when it comes to progressing the discussion to get the right boundaries reaffirmed. My style is clearly not to everyone's taste and we all bring something different to how boundaries can be protected.

I don't believe it's impossible to achieve the firm boundaries for children's safety and women's sports by aligning with Caitlyn Jenner on these two specific ringfenced issues alone, any more than I think it's naive to believe that this approach is possible.

yeah lads, make your career and money as a man before you indulge your woman fantasy.

don’t get me wrong, I’d be glad for every teenager and young person he persuades away from medicalisation with his message, but his self-serving hypocrisy is astounding.