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:

Spurious safeguarding and privacy concerns were misused to promote homophobic measures and views in just the same way as is happening now to trans people, but of course you won't acknowledge the parallels.

Nothing will persuade me to stop supporting equality for all LGBTQIA+ people, so what's the point?

You don't though. There are fundamental clashes of rights around sexual orientation and transgender ideology that you can't just handwave away. You've picked a side.

You called your male friend a lesbian. Your male friend is not a lesbian, that's a word for female people attracted to other female people alone. Those women need their own word. They're not bisexual.

The fact that you don't think they should have one, points to the misogyny and homophobia which run like a stick of rock through this ideology.

I refuse to engage with anyone who uses that term, like I refuse to engage with anyone who uses the n word.

How convenient.

I can see why you have been exasperated by the use of misogyny. Because you have given a very good demonstration of it here today.

You can support equality for everyone. I believe that people should not be discriminated against unless there is a need for it for safety of female people. You really seem to not really understand the people you are determined to demonise here. It really does seem that it is you who has an entrenched and ideological prejudice that you cannot logically or evidentially support at all.

You have done nothing but emote on this thread. Nothing has been coherent or consistent. Really, it is all based on your version of what is 'kind' as you say. Yet you cannot face the realities of the outcomes of your opinions.

I honestly hoped that you might come back with that evidence that I asked for. But you had nothing. And you cannot even be curious enough to interrogate why and what that means.

Good way to avoid talking about the trans women who openly acknowledge their fetish, like Debbie Hayton.

Not all trans women access women's spaces for validation or fetish purposes but there is plenty of evidence that some of them do.

But you don't want us to talk about those trans women, do you?

I don't think this is this poster's first rodeo, @Helleofabore. Just a hunch.

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.

Spookily prescient of Helen Joyce, no? Thanks for the real time demonstration...

Worth pointing out that you have made homophobic arguments in an attempt to defend your gender beliefs, earlier in this thread.

And that is where your prejudice really shows through.

What part of my post led you to believe that I did not acknowledge illegitimate discrimination that same sex and both sex attracted people experienced? Please point it out to everyone.

Either at this stage you have ceased to read anything and are simply responding on emotion or you cannot understand even the basic concept of illegitimate and legitimate discrimination.

Yes, spurious safeguarding and privacy concerns were misused!!! For example, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUAL MALE PEOPLE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENCES AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THE REST OF THE UK MALE POPULATION. Therefore those 'concerns' were proven false.

Now you? Provide us with the evidence that at any time during transition a male person with a trans identity reduces there risk level of committing sex crimes when compared with the REST of the male UK population. As you say, there has been male trans people now for a long time. Show us the evidence!

Does that make it clearer? Do you even begin to understand what we have spent an entire afternoon explaining.

I thought that earlier this afternoon.

I apologise for not noticing your relative lack of youthfulness earlier.

If you think an adolescent boy’s discomfort with being effectively naked in front of an adolescent girl is toxic masculinity, then you might wish to direct your empathy in a different direction for a minute or two. Adolescent boys are often excruciatingly embarrassed by the ‘behaviour’ of their penis, which seems to have a mind of its own. If a boy is brought up to be aware of other people’s needs, he is likely to experience something of a battle between his better nature and the very strongly felt biological imperative to have sex with anyone he finds in the slightest bit attractive. This is not an easy time of life for a boy who respects women, and there is often guilt over thoughts and sometimes actions that do not fully accord with the respect he knows he should be embodying.

What term?

Fetish?

Are you denying the male people with trans identities that describe themselves as having fetishes the right to self describe? That would be very transphobic of you. You would now be attempting to define transgender people to suit yourself if that is what you saying is the problematic word.

If it is not fetish that you are trying to shame a poster for using, which word please?

"Now you? Provide us with the evidence that at any time during transition a male person with a trans identity reduces there risk level of committing sex crimes when compared with the REST of the male UK population. As you say, there has been male trans people now for a long time. Show us the evidence!"

Asian men make up a disproportionate percentage of those involved in grooming gang activity.

Black men in the uk make up a disproportionate percentage of those with criminal records.

Do you think we should have safeguarding procedures that take these ethnic differences in involvement in crime into account?

Do you think it's reasonable to look on all Black and Asian men in the workplace with suspicion that they're more likely to be involved in wrongdoing?

But it's ok for our starting point with trans women is a suspicion that they're predatory perverts?

It's a starting point with all men that they are a statistically higher risk to women than other women. Not your straw man about "trans" @izimbra

My 70 year old mother and her friends, who came of age as 2nd wave feminists in the 70s, are bemused and horrified by gender critical feminism and it's cruelty. But they probably don't represent all women their age.

They certainly don’t represent me (70) or any of my friends of about the same age, who are appalled by the recent wholesale dismantling of women’s rights, much of it driven by gender ideology largely promulgated to advance the dubious interests of certain groups of men. I sincerely hope that my early teen granddaughters are resistant to it.

The acronym. I won't say it. I'm embarrassed to even have engaged in this debate. The no debate position exists for a reason and I'm returning to it.

The "no debate" position exists because debate exposes the misogyny and homophobia of gender identity beliefs for all to see.

The no debate position exists for a reason

Ain't that the truth.

But it's ok for our starting point with trans women is a suspicion that they're predatory perverts?

Our starting point with transwomen is that they are men, and men should keep out of women’s spaces out of regard for the dignity and safety of women. Black people do not need to keep out of "white spaces", or vice versa, because there is no such thing in this country. There is no such thing as black rape, or white rape, or black or white voyeurism, or black or white flashing. The reason we have women’s spaces is almost entirely to do with the comparative vulnerability of women compared with men, and the huge discrepancy of behaviour between men and women.

That is the biggest own goal I've ever read on here.

No debate exists for a reason!

Because no one wants to talk about the reasons women and girls need to be safeguarded from all males, and why a certain number of trans women are part of the risk, (by their own admission) because they are actively engaging in a fetish.

No debate is the only option for Men's Right's Activists.

The 'starting point' is the risk level of ALL male people because we are discussing legitimate sex based discrimination for the protection of female people. ALL male people are excluded from female single sex spaces.

No one is saying that all male people with trans identities are 'predatory perverts'. No one is saying that all male people are predatory perverts.

What part of this do you not understand? Please, ask and we can try to explain it better.

You have artificially narrowed the parameter to 'grooming gangs' and 'criminal records'. They are not particularly relevant to this question around safeguarding and they are not going to prove any point regarding single sex spaces. At all.

The relevant question is: do either of those groups have less of a risk of committing a sexual offence compared to other groups? AND is that level of risk lower or at least the same as those for all female people?

Unfortunately we've never done #NoDebate here in this particular corner and the time where it worked has long passed, @ForCoralFox

I wasn't making any value judgement as I'd never heard of either Sidelsky or Havel. I simply didn't understand what you meant by, "...which feels like Havel in a university setting rather than a greengrocer's..."

I was attributing my confusion entirely to my own lack of knowledge and was hoping for clarification.

I was probably a bit flippant, but it was a genuine request for a simple explanation with no agenda (and sorry if I gave the impression that I have one!).

Oh. AGP?

Are you serious? Are you comfortable that you have just expressed the transphobic position that you cannot allow a male person with a trans identity to describe themselves according to their sexual activity? ie. Describe their material reality.

Do you honestly not see the issue here? You seem to have a very narrow view of trans people, who they are and what they believe. Yet, you seem to be comfortable in your attempts to shame women who seem to know a fuck ton more than you and can articulate the flaws in your arguments.

While you have now resorted to a transphobic position.