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:

Fuck! No debate? You admit that there is 'no debate' still and that you are fully comfortable returning to a position where no one challenges your opinion?

Well. Thank you for the honesty at last.

That is so transphobic.

I'm embarrassed for you. Educate yourself and do better

The analogy between gay rights in the 80s and trans rights now is false, as has been explained here many times.

Re safeguarding, we are simply wanting to get back to a situation where risk can be properly assessed. That can only be done by looking at and recording correct biological sex. All biological males however they identify, commit offences (especially sexual) at a similar rate, ie way more than women.

Therefore there is no logical argument for giving some special males a 'free pass' to avoid basic safeguarding (just like my lovely old dad doesn't get one - he's a man, and that is enough to justify him having to follow the same rules as other men).

No one is arguing that 'all trans people are perverts'. The argument is 'Some trans people, like some men, are perverts, and we can't tell which is which until its too late'.

It's about risk and statistics. I don't understand how anyone could in good faith argue for a position that puts women and children at demonstrable risk.

That doesn't seem very kind.

At least the 'no debate' position is usually dressed up in some way such as 'I don't care about sport, it's boring' (i.e. I can't think of a single way to justify putting a male body up against a female one in a combat sport) so at least the refreshing honesty has broken the sense that it's groundhog Day.

The only question that I have is "Is ForCoralFox or izimbra really PP82 ?"

That Janes is a question that I think has been going around in several poster's heads today. Or 'cookies'..... I have been thinking about stealing cookies all day too.

Nahhh, neither of them has declared that they are only taking time to tell us they don't believe in anything being separated by sex ever because they are bored waiting for the sex discrimination case they are bringing to get to court. Or that they are a massive rule breaking rebel (or they will be come.the revolution when the rules are abolished).

Have any of the other men's rights activists tried to openly evoke 'no debate'?

I think this is another, perhaps new poster, who's come over to try to scold us. And is shocked, shocked I tell you, that we would dare to mention that for some trans women this is a fetish. And that alone is enough to make many of us say absolutely no, we are not willing to be unwitting participants in that. But all trans women are male and have no place in spaces reserved for females, the decent ones, like every other decent man, stay out.

lol.

you just said, lesbians should have men in their dating areas, and presumably gay men should have women in theirs.

You don't fucking support lesbians or gay men. Transgender ideology actively undermines it.

You think a man is a lesbian.

You vehemently disagree with homosexuality, on the most profound level possible.

Don't leverage sexual orientations that you don't even think exist.

To you, two men actively engaged in mutual fellatio, is lesbian sex!

Course you do 😁

The no debate position exists for a reason and I'm returning to it.

Hahaha!! No shit.

no debate is over. It's dead. Debate reigns absolutely fucking everywhere.

The pretence is over I'm afraid.

datun

I think that some posters are not able to see the full ramifications of their arguments. They have to keep repeating tropish arguments and mantras and empty accusations. But I really doubt the capacity for critically being able to think through the issues, to be able to seek out the original source evidence and information that has not been first filtered through the 'kind' group's test.

And you know, having checked out the 'evidence' that Erin Read posted to 'debunk' the WPATH leaked file report today, I am reminded that extreme transgender rights activists are not listening to best thinkers. I mean a prominent barrister last week promoted Read as being a great investigative reporter on MN. The bar is very low and it is all driven by emotional manipulation not material reality with very deep and solid foundations.

Hi @Waitwhat23 where did these stats come from? I've searched and searched and can't find them on the interweb. Is there a link to them?

I'm not being difficult, I'm just trying to stay real. Because really those stats win the argument that #bekind trans ideology is too easily hijacked by predators and bad players.

I can't find the stats myself (and I have really looked). I'm beginning to wonder whether they're a little too easy, a little too smoking gun... None of the HMPPS stuff I've found offers anything like that graphic or figures that match it.

Happy to be proved wrong in my doubtfulness 🙂

Here's the link to the image you posted

I believe it's HMPS data on imprisoned sex offenders in each of those groups, cross referenced with the number of men women and TW recorded in the last census. And as we know that the number of transpeople in the census is highly likely to be an overestimate, and the number of imprisoned offenders versus actual offenders, not to mention that some male prisoners are recorded as women in prison stats, if anything it's likely to be a conservative estimate of the number of TW who are sex offenders.

I don't think you're being difficult - it's always good to check the veracity of stuff like this. The links in the image used to link to the MOJ stats (I have seen them) but when I recently ran them through the archive site, it comes up link not found.

I do know that some of the data is based on this information, which was a MOJ response to a question asked by Kenny MacAskill in Parliament - https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-11-25/96653

I believe that the information in the graph is an amalgamation of information stated in the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2021-2022, other MOJ documents and the census as mentioned in the second link.

So if statistically, black men are more likely to have engaged in violent criminal behaviour, and Asian men are statistically more likely to have been involved in the group SA of children, would it be reasonable not to employ a black builder or tradesman for your home as a way of protecting yourself and your children from crime?

I'm not being difficult, I'm just trying to stay real. Because really those stats win the argument that #bekind trans ideology is too easily hijacked by predators and bad players.

Just to follow on from this, the following links are relevant regarding self id being hijacked by predators and bad faith players (from a Scottish context) -

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/transgender-sex-offenders-placed-in-womens-jails-in-scotland/

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2022.10.04-232359/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-scottish-trans-prisoners-changed-gender-after-convictions-pftqbbhg6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2022.10.04-232359/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-scottish-trans-prisoners-changed-gender-after-convictions-pftqbbhg6

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/anger-trans-inmates-revert-males-25840252

Your examples are irrelevant to the discussion of single sex spaces. This was explained on the previous page.

And this post is also not relevant to a discussion about female single sex spaces nor is it analogous that I can work out.

To be honest, using Black and Asian men in this way to try to convince women to lower our boundaries into accepting any kind of male into single sex spaces seems pretty racist to me.

We want to exclude all males from female single sex spaces because they are male.

Not because they are a minority of males.

ALL males.

You don't seem to be grasping very basic concepts.

Adding Maycock's study to this.

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239

‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate

To you, two men actively engaged in mutual fellatio, is lesbian sex!

Garam's paradox!

I know that ideologues will put their fingers in their ears and just carry on mouthing whatever they've been told.

But really, this level of denial is quite disturbing to watch.

I thought it was rather racist too.

But then I also thought that the claims were made and not evidenced either. Not only that but they are also irrelevant to the single sex discussion. And if we are discussing 'grooming' risk, then even then the discussion would be on 'all grooming' and not artificially narrowed to 'grooming gangs'.

There is so much wrong with these examples that it is just not worth engaging with them further, in my opinion.

Yep! 🥂

@Helleofabore there is a LOT more I could say about the racism of that post, but I won't because it's going off track which is deliberate on the part of the poster.

The relevant point is that in the provision of single sex services there is no discrimination against any class of male, if we say that the provision is only for females.

That poster seems to be very confused as they appear to understand that trans women are a subset of men when they talk about refusing to contract with asian and black men. But I suppose it makes a welcome change to the awful comparisons made with black women that we sometimes see.

Ultimately it would be discriminatory to refuse to provide a service such as building work to a subset of men but that is not what we are asking for at all when we talk about keeping single sex services single sex.

We seek to discriminate against ALL men/ males because they are male. This is allowed for by law under the Equality Act single sex exemptions.

So the argument of that poster fails without really needing to point the racism out.