Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

[RethinkingLife]

A bracing read. I am still in a state of some despair about how long this will take. As several people have observed, in the last 10 days, the BBC (in common with other media) disseminated unscientific propaganda that male galactorrhea is better than mother’s milk, repeatedly called a deeply disturbed killer a woman while disdaining to acknowledge the alternate reality as a cat, and has publicly reprimanded Justin Webb for plain speaking that was probably helpful to many listeners.

What will it take to bring bigoted employers to heel? Part of the answer is time. During the past decade, the trans lobby has been stunningly successful in selling false analogies to HR departments: that separate toilets for men and women are like racial segregation; and that insisting people can change sex is “gay rights 2.0”.
Lazy, power-hungry HR managers and staff working in “EDI” (equality, diversity and inclusion) pronounce that the arc of the moral universe is bending towards denying sexual dimorphism, and relish imposing their will on others.
…
Imagine you’re an HR professional belatedly wondering if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on the whole sex-gender thing. You might turn to A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by two barristers, Nicola Newbegin and transwoman Robin Moira White.
But that might not save you from serious missteps. The first edition, published before the binding Forstater judgment, enthusiastically endorsed the faulty lower court ruling. The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t.
Even before the recent string of judgments to the contrary, that was obvious nonsense. The law about freedom of belief expressly includes “manifestation”. And anyway, it takes but a moment’s thought to realise that the law can’t possibly concern beliefs that are never manifested, since it can’t reach inside the privacy of our heads.
…
At bottom, the mindset of the narcissistic identitarians joining in workplace witch-hunts is that of the Crusaders, who made converts at the point of a sword. They do not respect other people’s sovereign consciences, nor accept that their belief system is just one among many. And like the Crusaders, they need to be consigned to history.

https://thecritic.co.uk/restoring-sanity-takes-time/

Adding in a good read about the Meade and Phoenix rulings:

Sometimes a Lack of personal boundaries will result in women thinking they have no choice but to get naked in front of men.

Fortunately, there are many women who will help to provide them with those boundaries.

Speaking of safeguarding. This is for fox.

Safeguarding is based on assessing the risk associated with the sex of the person in question. There is a valid reason for this. It is based on the risk of male people committing sexual offences.

Can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less risk of committing a sexual offence than any other male person in the UK?

Then, can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less or the same risk of committing a sexual offence as any female person in the UK?

If you cannot, why can't you?

Mumsnet is a useful resource for many issues, but this particular corner of it has been responsible for a lot of harm. I'm sure you are delighted about that. I wish I'd never commented. What's that quote about trying to administer medicine to the dead?

I suspect you will have less success under a new government. Maybe move to America, where things are definitely going to start going in a direction you approve of much more quickly.

ok. My questions are relevant to this.

Safeguarding is based on assessing the risk associated with the sex of the person in question. There is a valid reason for this. It is based on the risk of male people committing sexual offences.

Because of the actions of some male people, ALL male people should be treated at the same level of risk for robust safeguarding.

Can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less risk of committing a sexual offence than any other male person in the UK?

Then, can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less or the same risk of committing a sexual offence as any female person in the UK?

If you cannot, why can't you?

So not engaging with any of the issues. No answering any questions. Not addressing any of the points.

Sounds about right.

Do you wonder why we call it an ideology!

You certainly have some preconceived notions about the women on Mumsnet standing up against gender identity ideology, Fox. So Mumsnet is responsible for "a lot of harm" but misogynistic men who ignore women's boundaries aren't. Right. And a nasty little gloat about what will happen to women's rights under Labour. As expected.

Maybe you should accept your daughter for who she is, rather than assuming that you know her better than she knows herself? And support her should she choose to medically transition.

"If you cannot, why can't you?"

Do you carry this over to other groups?

Like should we design public policy around safeguarding on the strength of the likelihood of offending by age, gender, ethnicity, religion? Or just gender?

Yes.

Irritating and repetitive though it is, these people who come on repeating you're all wrong, and men should be allowed to do what they want, are quite a useful demonstration of what trans ideology is.

It always starts with I'm gender critical, or I'm a feminist, and it ends with well, we're gonna show you!

And the flounce, of course.

Not one single genderist, ever, has tried to convince me why I should believe in their male centred ideology with anything more than a glib platitude or a gotcha. There is no earnest, rational argument because they know it's all complete fucking nonsense, really.

You must not question. You must simply obey. It's just misogyny.

Do you work for WPATH!

Safeguarding has nothing to do with sex. I've worked with at risk children (and their parents) and sex has never been the basis for assessing risk.

No, you haven't.

Sex is the biggest indicator of risk.

98% of all sex offences are committed by MEN.

90% of all violent crime is committed by MEN.

It's the single biggest indicator of risk there is.

Hence...

... sex segregation

Ta da!!

@ForCoralFox your experience appears to have been limited if sex has never been a basis for assessing risk. If you believe that sex isn't a basis for assessing risk, you'll have no problem with @Helleofabore's questions, will you?

" the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less risk of committing a sexual offence than any other male person in the UK?

Then, can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less or the same risk of committing a sexual offence as any female person in the UK?"

And yet, you have actually given a marvellous demonstration of what is misogynistic about demanding male people access female single sex spaces.

Gotta thank you for that.

You also seem to have a flawed concept of what feminism is and what it has achieved and how. Plus you have not been able to provide any coherent or consistent argument to defend your position.

And you certainly have no evidence to link us up with to see why you have reduced the standards of safeguarding for society with your ideological arguments plus you don't seem to be able to come up with any coherent examples of how a society would reduce maternal mortality with redefining female people to not include their sex category.

If you had a well thought through and consistent theoretical position, then we would listen. All ears. It wouldn't mean that you would not be challenged on it though. I don't know too many spaces on MN that you would not be challenged to explain your thinking that are boards used by the majority of MN users to be fair.

I just want to say how proud I am of this "little corner" of Mumsnet. Amazing that though we're such fringe thinkers we have been so influential according to genderists.

Not on the basis of gender on the basis of SEX.

Really. So you have worked with at risk children. Would a male team member be able to be alone in a room with a female child?

Would you, if you are male, be allowed to take that female child to the toilet or shower?

@ForCoralFox maybe let's look at it another way - is there any circumstance or situation where you believe it would be acceptable to exclude all males?

If so please could you describe what they are and your reasoning.

@izimbra - so if your child said they were an apotemnophile, you'd be ok with them wanting to have a leg amputated and support them all the way? You wouldn't consider therapy to address this need if a 17year old expressed it? But if they want to have their penis amputated that's a different issue?

Safeguarding has nothing to do with sex. I've worked with at risk children (and their parents) and sex has never been the basis for assessing risk.

That is such bollocks.

Does a religion get its ideas out of thin air? It seems to me that religions are to quite a large extent the outcome of generations of philosophical thinking. A religion comes to many of its conclusions by observing the reality of the world around, including the very obvious distinction between male and female, and it tends to come up with legal and ceremonial frameworks intended to regulate society. Sometimes a religion’s rules and assumptions need challenging, but to deny their biological basis seems strange.

To exclude trans women, no. Not in public spaces, by which I mean any space that is accessible to the general public, and to which denying access on the basis of any other characteristic would be illegal.

So what if it was on the basis, which sex segregation is, that they are denying all males?