Kemi Badenoch statement re GRC recognition 6/12/23

[Signalbox]

From about 1.47

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a62238ef-8cdd-4407-8cc7-66bd96242a46?agenda=True&_gl=1161ausy_gaMTY4ODE4OTg5Ni4xNzAxODY5NzIz_ga_L0NJWDWMGN*MTcwMTg2OTcyMi4xLjEuMTcwMTg3MDIxNi42MC4wLjA.

Well you do invade women's spaces. You have repeatedly said so and, as far as I can tell, you never even took the trouble to ask whether we minded. So excuse me if I don't take a single word you say seriously.

Apologies if this article has been posted already. Julie B...indel? Yes, Bindel.

https://unherd.com/2023/12/nicola-sturgeons-latest-humiliation/

Here's hoping Nicola's cornflakes aren't extremely salty, just a little bit too salty.

@ButterflyHatched
You were not a trans kid.

How can you say for certain that this is true of the people who you are talking to on here? What is the definition of a "trans kid"? I think that's the third time I've asked you this on this thread, and I still haven't had an answer.

Your thesis that it is inappropriate for personal testimony to be provided by the handful of people who have actually directly and personally experienced a treatment pathway and are able to present a nuanced and honest '20 years later' account of outcomes and struggles is utterly bizarre.

Your personal subjective experience is only one tiny part of the whole picture. You cannot extrapolate your own personal experience to all other males who identify as trans, and you certainly can't extrapolate this to any female people who identify as trans. You've said that you have a DSD. This makes you very rare amongst trans-identified people and makes it even less likely that what you have experienced is shared by large numbers of other trans-identified people.

In other words, just because you feel that a certain course of treatment was right for you, it doesn't mean that it will be right for everyone else who apparently has the same symptoms as you. And if you really have a DSD, it makes it even less likely that the the same treatment will be the right one for someone without that DSD.

TL;DR You can't generalise from a sample size of one.

Women don't even care one tiny pissy little jot how men want to identify - we just want our rights, words and spaces back.

That's it. There's no fucking grey area and no middle ground. We need our stuff back. No fucking more. No thank you.

Merry xxmas.

Haha merry xxmas indeed

Well said

Someone with a personal investment in a particular outcome is emphatically not qualified to support a child in a state of distress. Even if they were fully qualified in all other ways to work with children and were working within a supervised framework of professional knowledge, ethics and boundaries.

As we know, this whole 'if you've lived it you are an expert' thing has led to safeguarding advice being given to schools, who blindly and naively trusted in it, when the speakers had no qualifications or even the most basic training in safeguarding. In one case, one of those speakers was found by an inquiry to be incapable of understanding safeguarding, after the fact of children having been placed at risk. And of course a number of well known cases have then turned out to have extremely interesting social media open histories logging behaviours and sexual interests that have to call into question their agenda for wishing to be around children to anyone who is not alarmingly naive, and their suitability to be in schools in any capacity at all.

These advisors are also never qualified in any other protected characteristics or inclusion in general, and have absolutely no knowledge or interest in the impact of their advice upon other children beyond the ones they themselves have an interest in for their own needs.

They further disqualify themselves when instead of responding to this information and wider picture with concern, interest and determination to improve and further their knowledge for the benefit of children, they deny it and dismiss it as 'lies' and any other word to try and make it as unreal as they wish the reality of sex to be. Or claim that those pointing out the issues and concerns, and other people's harm and distress, are being mean to speak this unwanted reality aloud. They voice their distress and anger at those who say there is any concern or risk, or need for caution, or even that this is obviously not the right path for all children. Their interest is only in themselves, their feelings, their need from the experience, and their need for confirmation that their choices are the only right ones. Other people's children are not there in schools to be used in this way.

Neither are women in their spaces.

Safeguarding alerts all over that approach

A child receiving harmful advice is as much able to normalise it as any other harmful act. It’s why cycles of harm perpetuate over generations

I agree with you, it’s a dangerous approach

I remember reading ages ago something by a tra, possibly even a tw or a tm. It was along the lines of 'if you've met one transperson...you've met one transperson'.

I think it was intended as an admonishment, obviously to someone who wasn't trans. But I think transpeople should apply it to themselves and not think they can speak with authority for every transperson. Especially as we're, repeatedly, told they're just a tiny number. I think it's reasonable to assume that generalisations will apply less over small sample sizes.

ah the irony of a man lecturing women that as they’re not trans they can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be trans whilst simultaneously saying they totally understand what its like to be a woman better than women do

That perspective in pp has made me think even more on how we are failing children

We shouldn’t be promoting any gender ideology in schools

I can’t believe people are ok with it, I mean I know we’re not and many are kept in the dark but what an absolute failure

the handful of people who have actually directly and personally experienced a treatment pathway and are able to present a nuanced and honest '20 years later' account of outcomes and struggles is utterly bizarre.

What makes your direct and personal experience of a treatment more significant than other people's direct and personal experiemce of it and the years that follow, such as Sinead Watson or Keira Bell or Ritchie Herron? It went well for you? Well good, but it has been utterly disastrous for many other people. And long before them, Az Hakeem was treating men who regretted their medical transition.

And without meaning to be rude, I haven't seen any nuance in your postings. They've been very much "four legs good, two legs bad" so far. If you want to see what a nuanced discussion looks like I recommend the "Gender A Wider Lens" podcast number 90 ("Tomboy at the Tavistock") with Ellie, a young woman who was at the Tavistock in the early 1990s, and has a DSD.

Thing is, the Tavistock did not take the trouble to follow up outcomes systematically so your (and Ellie's mainly) positive experience can't be weighed against anyone else's negative ones. Especially the appalling outcomes for some of the young people who passed through NHS gender clinics not so long after you did - Sinead Watson, Keira Bell and Ritchie Herron among them. So there is no way to compute the likehood of good and bad outcomes, and there seems to be no way to identify who will have bad outcomes and nowadays it's considered transphobic even to propose such a filter.

“I can see why you've switched from contesting minutiae to outright character assassination and pantomime levels of 'oh no it isn't' when encountering someone who Badenoch's core argument requires not to exist on multiple levels.”

Oh dear. The hyperbole and emotional manipulation is growing. It is now so ludicrously clear that any reader who missed it before must be able to see it now.

“character assassination” AND a genocidal denial of existence.

No one is denying your existence mate! We ARE denying that you have any concept of what female people experience though as you are male. Have always been male and always will be male. And you have been very clear with us all that you will ignore female people’s boundaries to get what you want.

I can repeat it as many times as you like. Everytime a new reader will see it and the truth will click into place.

“Every time you claim that I lack sufficient context or experience with an ever-shrinking narrow portion of a cohort, I then either provide information to support cases where I do - or freely volunteer that I do not where applicable. I do not lie or exaggerate. I simply provide the truth where it is safe to do so.”

What cohort are you referring to here? It is not clear. It is an incoherent paragraph.

You are not female. You have no concept of what a female child or teenager experiences. You have tried to compare your experience with that of a female child or young person. That is misogyny because you do it and cause them harm by that comparison. Your experience cannot be just easily transferred to being comparative to a female child or young person. Fuck. The fact you have attempted to do so on this thread is a huge red flag for safeguarding. No male who does this should be in a position of influencing the decisions of a female child or young person.

What ‘truth’ do you provide? And who are you providing it to? What ‘cases’ do you feel you have any qualification to give support to? At all?

What fucking part of you being completely biased and unable to even acknowledge facts do you not understand? You seem so immersed in being validated by these young people you have no perspective at all on the harm that you potentially, and likely, cause.

At this point, after numerous posts telling you this you either have very much shown that narcissistic tendency you are denying or you understand the safeguarding risk and ignore it. Which is it?

“You then fall back on saying I'm a narcissist or am invading female spaces for...challenging a harmful mythology that directly contradicts my personal experiences and those of many of my friends, family and colleagues?”

Your posts are clearly showing your ‘true’ self. I am merely pointing it out. You have already stated on numerous threads that you do indeed ‘invade’ female single sex spaces. You have proudly told us. You hated us pointing out that girls and women will not tell you the truth in your presence. So, yes. You are using female single sex spaces.

What am I challenging? The ‘myth’ that you are welcome there that you have tried to tell us you are? And that no one has ever said no to your presence?

Again, it must be very hard to realise that you can never trust a female person’s reaction to your presence when you are in their single sex space. But be assured, we female people will cover our reactions in various ways, including fawning over a potential abuser. We have told you this, do you still use female single sex spaces? Or have you stopped out of respect for the needs of female people? Yes? Or no?

“Your thesis that it is inappropriate for personal testimony to be provided by the handful of people who have actually directly and personally experienced a treatment pathway and are able to present a nuanced and honest '20 years later' account of outcomes and struggles is utterly bizarre. I'm very much not the only trans person who has walked this road by any means - but everyone else I know with direct experience of this would rather gnaw their own arm off than try and engage with you in earnest.”

I think I have been very clear about what I consider appropriate or inappropriate?

Again, you do not have the same experience as any female transitioner. In numerous threads you have dismissed the needs of the current majority of the cohort of early transitioners registered at gender clinics, those being female.

Please, be very clear, in what way is YOUR experience relevant to a young female person with a trans identity.

Now is your chance. List the exact ways your experience is relevant to the current processes, and the decisions facing a young female person

“You are not trans. You were not a trans kid. You do not have direct experience of engaging with the NHS adolescent gender identity development service as a patient. You have no direct experience of this treatment pathway. You are, however, a part of a movement that is shamelessly taking advantage of a lifetime of righteous anger and earnest concern for young people in order to weaponise it to fight a culture war.”

No. I am not a ‘trans kid’. But I bet I can fucking discuss the issues facing young female people today with accuracy, evidence and actual insight. Or do you think that no woman on this board, or thread has experienced gender dysphoria as a child or teen?

OR has daily or regular contact with female children and teens, some of whom may have trans identities?

Do you seriously not understand this? Or are you so prejudiced and arrogant in your presumptions that you cannot comprehend this.

The thing is, you believe you can give advice from your biased perspective based on your experience. Which even you admit is unique. What you are doing is projecting your unique experience to a group that your experience is not all that relevant to. You have the experience of an adult male transgender person.

Or do you disagree with the gender clinicians who have pointed out that there is significant differences between the current majority cohort and previous cohorts?

“It is frankly embarrassing to see serious politicians having to engage with yesteryear's ascended fringe conspiracy theories, and even more embarrassing that the mainstream media has been promoting them. I have seen several of these grow out of myths that run rampant in this forum.”

Are you talking about Kemi’s statement, or the statements from others such as Bryant, Dodds etc? Considering what you have attempted to use here on this thread, about people either wishing you ‘didn’t exist’ or ‘deny you exist’, you have now slipped further into hypocrisy than hyperbole.

“I will continue to challenge lies and myths when they are repeated here. You will presumably continue to call me a narcissist who invades women's spaces for doing so.”

Great. Keep on going. We will keep pointing out the tactics you use, the flaws in your arguments and the misogynistic tone of your posts.

You are doing a great job, but not the one you think you are doing .

Thanks cake!

Julie has nailed it.

“But this ruling does not make the case that devolution is a problem. What it does make clear is that the only thing ensuring Scottish women did not lose all of their sex based rights under the Equality Act was the UK Government.”

Though, if this had taken place a year later, and Annaliese Dodds had been in Badenoch's position, I think we know how things would have gone.

Scary, but true.

I was going to start a new thread with this, but thought it could fit in here. And they’re off: Kemi Badenoch takes an early lead in the Tory leadership stakes | The Independent

Interesting that according to this article that KB seems to be favourite to replace Sunak.

Although I think that Kemi Badenoch might not be that interested in being leader of the opposition party, which barring some sort of miracle seems likely for whoever is or becomes the Tory leader. But doubt she would win the vote because the ERG want Suella. (Its funny isn't it that the papers loved to write about Labour tearing itself to shreds for having infighting factions within the Party, but seem totally at ease that the ERG - a minority grouping - seems able to dictate policy o the Tories.)

On another thread someone who is in KB's constituency thought she wouldn't get back is as she is hardly ever there doing the bread and butter work of a constituency MP.

Maybe when Sunak is pushed out he will send her to the HoL so she can still be a politician but not bother when local politics and demands.

That might well be so, @IwantToRetire , but it only accentuates the fact that, barring some sea-change, Labour seem overwhelmingly likely to win the next election, so whatever happens to KB seems less important than the people who will be deciding policy. Which doesn't fill me, or, I expect, you, with much optimism.

It's great to see such enthusiastic support for the notion that one person cannot speak authoritatively on behalf of every other member of their cohort. I agree, and I'm glad everyone here seems to as well. I'm sure anyone else reading this thread is glad to see that too.

This does make the wholesale rejection of this sentiment when it comes to the occasional detransitioners who happen to support GC talking points quite confusing, though.

If you believe this, why are you claiming that the tiny slice of the tiny proportion of the small number of people who have historically transitioned and discovered to their great frustration that it can indeed be a complex, frustrating and nonlinear journey rather than a universal panacea - a point that our community and support services have been consistently and firmly making since long, long, long before I first encountered it - are representative of the wider whole?

The tiny handful of binary detransitioners who have become a vocal part of the anti-trans culture war do not in any way speak for all detransitioners who are a wide and massively varied group with complex and often extremely different needs, many of which eventually includes retransition (but which does not invalidate those who don't). There are plenty of personal accounts available online confirming this. It is particularly horrifying to see how many detransitioner communities serve as dogmatic cults of personality organised around a tiny group of culture warriors - this is a recurring theme reported amongst those who have escaped them. I can't speak for them directly - my journey has in many ways been the polar opposite of theirs, but their experiences are real things that occurred and they deserve to be unconditionally supported rather than paraded about as trophies.

I have never claimed this is not the case, though I will cast a decidedly critical eye over anyone who seems to be trying to blame others for their own decisions, especially ones that they made at or beyond the age of 16, rather than owning them. My first few posts on this forum years ago made it very clear that this is my stance and it has not changed in the years since - yet you are once again Strawmanning me as an 'Extreme Trans Activist' for saying that young people who benefit from socially and medically transitioning a. can exist b. are capable of living happy lives with positive outcomes and c. deserve competent and extensive support.

Badenoch's bizarre and incoherent argument is that there is an 'epidemic' of gay kids in the UK who are being 'transed straight' and sterilised as some kind of sinister new conversion therapy strain - conveniently neglecting to account for the fact that bisexual people exist, non-binary people exist, treatment pathways are absolutely non-binding, nobody gets surgery or hormones through the NHS before the age of 16, waiting lists were already historically ludicrously long before GIDS was rendered completely incapable of functioning as a service at all by the disastrously botched closure which has predictably failed to produce any functional replacement so far, and huge numbers of trans people actively protested the government's cowardly reversal on a conversion therapy ban - many of whom are survivors of actual conversion therapy.

A miniscule handful of people who have sought to reverse decisions they made - when over the age of 16 - are being painted as representative of every young person who has ever sought treatment, and yet here you are admonishing a counterpoint which has been overwhelmingly statistically represented across every study that has been made about transition outcomes.

Glad we got there in the end.

Badenoch's bizarre and incoherent argument is that there is an 'epidemic' of gay kids in the UK who are being 'transed straight' and sterilised as some kind of sinister new conversion therapy strain

This isn't something Badenoch made up, it's is what clinicians working at GIDS said.

You might find this discussion informative. Dr Az Hakeem worked at GIDS as a psychiatrist. He says that the people running the service were openly homophobic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=No1ux09kPwY

More about the culture of transing away the gay here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

non-binary people exist,

Do they? What exactly is a non-binary person?

And what do you mean by "trans kids"? (I think this is the 4th time I've asked now)

I will cast a decidedly critical eye over anyone who seems to be trying to blame others for their own decisions, especially ones that they made at or beyond the age of 16, rather than owning them.

Why 16? 16 and 17 year olds are not adults. These children did not make these decisions in a vacuum. There were adults around them who facilitated this treatment, including doctors who prescribed the medication. I blame those doctors for what happened to those children. The children are just victims of a poisonous ideology.

I also have sympathy for all the other young people who have fallen victim to this ideology. Most embarked on their treatment before the age of 25, when the brain reaches full maturity. Every single young person who has transitioned then regretted what they have done has been failed by the doctors and psychologists who should have helped and protected them. It is right to blame those doctors because this is negligence on their part. But you just want to blame the victims.

You really have shown us now how little you care about anyone who doesn't 100% support your ideological view. According to you, even children who were swept up in a social contagion and harmed by ideologically driven doctors only have themselves to blame. And I've just noticed that you said "especially" those aged 16 or over. So you even want to blame younger children for the harm that has been done to them.

I note no response to that or an opinion on why the pp is right to enter female only places. Not one person has ever explained coherently what non-binary means IME.

I know right! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bloody tragic for all the children sucked into this ideology by these sorts of activists.

On the bright side, #OperationLetThemSpeak is going fantastically!