KJK’s insane rant

[Dontblameitonsunshine]

Kjk’s decision to attack everyone who is not her lapdog is increasingly destructive. It looks like Can-sg put on a great conference. Those doctors who have spoken up have risked their careers. Kjk has become famous and has started a business from LWS. She has benefited way more than any of these doctors.

Her work could be powerful if she just stopped attacking everyone else. But these days she is a demagogue and causes more harm than good by capitalising on vulnerable and timid women and telling them that they need her to speak for them.

You’re quite focused on the business part. I imagine the events she organises, publicity, flights (to be attacked in foreign countries), recording equipment and… legal fees.. are quite expensive. I expect if she were in it for the money there are a lot easier and less risky ways to do it. Oh - those doctors that prescribe puberty blockers? Think they get paid. The private ones? More.

Medical transitioning can alleviate severe distress in some people, and if they are adults and willing to pay, why should we stop them?

On the admittedly tiny off-chance that you are asking this question in all seriousness, I'll give you a serious answer: we should stop them because an individual's health is all of society's concern. And that goes for whether we have a socialised healthcare system or an insurance-funded one.

For example 1: If Individual X refuses to get their child vaccinated for measles, that does not just impact the individual child and individual family. It affects the whole of society because if sufficient numbers make this so-called 'individual' decision, then society would lose its herd immunity to a disease which can maim, deafen or kill.

Example 2: If Individual Y has an eating disorder so severe that their mobility is eventually compromised by their obesity, that is not just a problem for that individual. There's a deleterious knock-on effect to their family and friends, whilst more public money needs spent to care for that individual than if they had been helped earlier on in their lives with psychotherapy combined with weight-loss intervention.

Example 3: If Individual Z has a mental illness so severe that she believes she needs to have a large portion of skin and muscle from her arm removed and fastened into a flesh tube that will be stitched to her mons pubis, and that surgery is so physiologically unrealistic that it requires 3 corrective surgical revisions (the average number of revisions required in the US per WPATH), results in two serious infections (the average number of infections post such surgeries in the US per WPATH), has a total recovery time of 12 months (including the extensive physio needed to regain use of the hand at the end of the mutiliated arm), and doesn't cure the individual's mental illness (as per the Swedish study), then this has consequences for society, not just the individual. Firstly, valuable doctor, nurse, operating theatre, medical equipment, therapist skill and time is taken up for a set of medical treatments that were medically unnecessary and damaged the patient. Secondly, the knock-on effect on the mental and emotional well-being of the patient, friends and family, all of whom may themselves need counselling (watching a healthy loved one deliberately injure themselves can be very traumatic). Thirdly, the patient's lengthy economic inactivity and the possibility that they may not be able to become fully economically active due to possible permanent disability. The knock-on effects to economy and sociaty of that. Fourthly, in a socialised system it ties up resources that others may genuinely need. Fifthly, in an insurance-funded system it pushes up premiums for those trying to fund cover for genuine health needs.

When all that was needed in the first place was decent psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatment of the underlying mental illness which led poor Individual Z to think that an unnecessary experimental surgery would cure her mental illness.

And many of them signed off on it and treated kids for years before they stopped.

If their plan is to experiment on kids (again) and call it a trial, then she is right to undermine them.

I prefer “pretending”. Instead of “transitioning” to be a woman, it would read “pretending” to be a woman.

Or LARPing. Either/or.

Thank you bonfirelady, for a heartfelt and thoughtful post from someone truly on the front line of all this.

It seems to me that anyone whose goal is to prevent harm to children is on the same “side”.

And anyone who sees the conflict - between preventing harm to children on the one hand and the promotion of gender identity theory on the other - as an opportunity to make political capital is on no one’s side except the side of their own individual political ambitions whether that’s for themself, the party leader they have awarded their political allegiance to, or the political tribe they feel most aligned to.

Of course I missed out the most important aspect ‘forcing others to deny reality and uphold your fantasy’

SaffronSpice · Today 14:10

We should stop calling it this, we should use accurate language - ‘using presentation, surgery and drugs to adopt a facsimile of the opposite sex’.

We're going to need a new acronym...

Yes, the repeated use of the word “business” is to hint that KJK is nothing more than a grifter. All the socfems and haters say this.

KJK said just the other day that LWS events cost in the region of £1500 a pop. It covers the audio equipment, livestreaming, covering the travel costs of the stewards, but most importantly: having to hire security to ensure no one attacks her (or indeed anyone else, but we know full well that if anyone is going to be attacked at a Let Women Speak event, it’s Kellie-Jay).

I feel stupid because I believed the women who said she was bad for the movement, too abrasive, too right wing, racist (I believe the Sarah Ditum quote was “Pound shop Marine Le Pen”?). We’ll never get anywhere if all we have to contribute is tediously long blog posts and self-congratulatory feminist conferences.

Anyway, I’m glad the OP’s attempt to start an anti-KJK thread failed miserably.

If their plan is to experiment on kids (again) and call it a trial, then she is right to undermine them.

The protocol for this hasn't been discussed or published yet. It would be interesting to see Simonoff, people from NRCP, NHSE and NIHR interviewed about the study development alongside a call to comment.

A study into the potential benefits and harms of puberty suppressing hormones as a treatment option for children and young people with gender incongruence is being developed through the National Research Collaboration Programme (NCRP) in place between NHS England and the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR). The NRCP joint programme provides a collaborative approach to study development; studies being progressed through this route still have to demonstrate that they can materially build the evidence base for potential future NHS treatment options, while meeting a high scientific bar in terms of research methodology, as well as securing other important research approvals, including ethics committee approval.

It is envisaged that children and young people in both England and Wales will be able to participate in the study with access through NHS children and young people’s gender services. A multi-disciplinary team approach will be taken to identify those children who, with the consent of their parents, may be deemed clinically suitable for consideration of puberty suppressing hormones through the study. Children participating in the study will also continue to receive comprehensive psychosocial support.

The study will measure a range of potential treatment benefits and harms (for example whether puberty suppressing hormones impact in a meaningful way on levels of anxiety or depression, on body image, or brain development) using a range of validated tools, questionnaires and user feedback. Key measures included in the study, and the way data are collected, will aim to bridge gaps in existing research and will also be shaped by engagement with a range of stakeholders, including children and young people referred into NHS gender services and their families or carers.

Professor Emily Simonoff has been confirmed as Chief Investigator for the study. Emily is Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, where she is also currently Head of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Director of the King’s Maudsley Partnership for Children and Young People. She has extensive research experience and is also academic lead for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Clinical Academic Group at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The research will be co-sponsored by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/implementing-advice-from-the-cass-review/cyp-gender-dysphoria-research-oversight-board/

Ta for the alert, op. KJK hasn’t put up videos for a while, and I have caught up. The Part 2 is understandable when you play it in the correct sequence (just after Part 1). You see the vicious mob left to attack those women (or supporters) who stand up for women rights. The police having political agendas and leaving the mob to do their worst. It could be Iran. So many brutal, vicious men physically attacking women that day. It was awful how that fellow who brutally smashed his fist into an elderly woman was basically let off. And the court wanted to keep the brute’s name from being revealed. Good that people got it out there. It really is a dystopian, misogynistic ideological movement which KJK has said ‘no parasan’ too.

She is so effective and an enviably brilliant strategist. She knew how the ‘Adult Human Female’ posters would be so offensive to this rebranded lads backlash, with sadly so many women in service to them. I suppose it is like those women who join in the attack on girls and women in Iran who don’t hide their hair in a scarf. Is it time for a Women’s Pride movement?

I have to say, any garments I have purchased from her shop have been fabulous. She says they are good quality, and they are. She’s not over egging the pudding there. Pockets on the Christmas sweatshirt were such a bonus. T-shirt material nice. The lanyards are good and strong for my chatelaine quantity of keys.

More power to her elbow!

And anyone who sees the conflict - between preventing harm to children on the one hand and the promotion of gender identity theory on the other - as an opportunity to make political capital is on no one’s side except the side of their own

When you're a "name" and a "brand" in this, I should imagine it's very hard to entirely separate the ego from the purpose when things get tough.
What's very clear in KJK's voice is a passion for saving people from the harms of gender identity belief. She is a name, a brand and a face. She has an incredible reach and, understandably, a lot of well-deserved respect.

By contrast I am anonymous with a small "reach" and no desire whatsoever to be a "leader" or member of a "tribe". If all we had was just lots of rudderless people like me OR just lots of strong no-nonsense voices, we would get nowhere on collective hearts and minds beyond the echo chambers that we're in.

Personally, I think this whole conversation was a moment of genius from KJK, bearing in mind the tension in advance of it:

BB was completely superfluous to the conversation - and recognised it. Despite his peacocking and goading ahead of the conversation (his tweets re The Dress were awful IMO), he put his own ego away during it. Stella and KJK appeared to mostly do the same. The discussion around the Málaga Airport phenomenon was brilliant and potentially game-changing if it has led to anything further from a safeguarding in Genspect perspective (I hope so). This is what collaboration WRT a shared goal can achieve.

Reported this time. Are you incapable of taking advice?

Same old shit,different thread.

Exactly and that is why the best response is not to reply.

It only means yet another thread is hijacked with the intention of making it boring and uninteresting and a complete waste of time and energy for those who respond because it only encourages more of the same old shit.

Dont acknowledge, pass on by.

Not denied though. I think we can all see what you are. More concerned with protecting the men from, well, anything than the girls being raped.

You give it and yet can't take it. Like most bullies.

In other, related, news

https://x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1773007641368838183?s=20

Stealth

I don't see people questioning health care professional's history and their stance as a negative thing. I see it as something that is healthy. That there are no people beyond questioning. I also do not see posters condemning 'all' those there. I see people qualifying their answers to only be those there who continue to advocate for medicalisation for children.

And I agree 'Simpering idiots' is not collaborative language. However, I also don't believe she made this video to be collaborative. You can be disappointed in her actions, but none of us get to shape her work. She has never allowed that.

Has her video created conversation? Yes. Would it have created conversation if it was not controversial? I doubt it.

Do you honestly believe that conversation should not be had? Do you honestly believe that those presenting should not be questioned in any negative way?

Alison can we have a recap (within the guidelines) of what your answer was relating to please.

Gosh, that is incredible. It’d be handy for any court case.

And there you are with the mental health slurs again! I'm starting to think that you have a very limited vocabulary, most of it based on insulting people who you disagree with.

If KJK is "strategically stupid" as described by the OP then she has somehow been remarkably lucky to have gotten women out on the streets saying things that can't safely be said anywhere else. Just by selling t-shirts!

That's women all over the world, and month after month for years now.

If left to socfems those women would have been too busy disentangling convoluted sub clauses in laboriously over-written essays to even get their socks on.

Just watched this and don’t agree with OPs description. I am naturally one of life’s moderates and think the conference was a good thing.

I also completely understand KJKs points, and understand her frustration.

I also think all movements need challenge and debate like this. Otherwise you end up with the mad extremities like you see in gender ideology. That incoherent craziness is where not listening and engaging with challenge gets you.

I just watched the whole video and she is absolutely right.

Doctors should have stopped this bullshit in it's tracks. They deserve the heat. It's their entire job to deal with very vulnerable people and children and help them and not harm them further. They failed spectacularly.

What I am surprised about is that not more women and men are furious.

If there's one thing that characterises whatever the 'gc' or women's rights movement is, it's dissent. Yes of course we criticise each other, it's healthy and mostly productive. Movements that consist entirely of people agreeing with each other no matter what are called cults.

Another thing though, if people question whether the medical professionals are actually now choosing the evidenced pathway, isn't this the opportunity for the experts to fully explain their reasoning for any medicalisation of children. Considering the current questions around this?

And if medical professionals are not advocating to medicalise children, then naturally what she has said won't apply to them.