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.

Yep.

Especially as it’s the not questioning medics thing that got us into this sterilising gay and autistic kiddies thing in the first place.

A very pertinent point.

One of the most uncomfortable things about the scandal is that it's thousands of children and young people who have been impacted irrerversibly by it. When the world fully wakes up to the horror that has been hiding in plain sight and championed by so many (not just the medics but celebrities, schools, EDI workshops etc), it's going to get even messier to navigate in the public discourse than a thread like this.

It feels like it's on its way to breaking in to the mainstream. Michael Shellenberger (of the WPATH files) now has his sights on the BBC and even though the Observer isn't the Guardian, I'm not sure I've seen anything as overt as this before (my italics) published it it:

"What they questioned was whether the NHS service they worked in was providing safe, evidence-based care for thousands of vulnerable children, or whether they might, in fact, be witnessing a medical scandal unfold."

The above quote is from this Hannah Barnes article:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/31/why-the-tavistock-gender-identity-clinic-was-forced-to-shut-and-what-happens-next?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I thought that was a good article. There were some quite pointed remarks about the people who might object to the changes to NHS services:

There is an opportunity to change the way gender-questioning young people are cared for – with compassion and underpinned by research and evidence, just like other areas of healthcare. This approach will no doubt be challenged, while private providers and NHS GPs alike continue to do their own thing.

What sort of person would object to healthcare being "underpinned by research and evidence"?

What sort of person would object to healthcare being "underpinned by research and evidence"?

Off the top of my head……

A person whose income comes from selling hormone treatments and surgeries, which cause long term harm, to vulnerable individuals.

What sort of person would object to healthcare being "underpinned by research and evidence"?

Well quite.

You do understand, don't you, that the way in which healthcare becomes underpinned by research and evidence is by clinicians being given access to research and the opportunity to openly discuss and digest it, for example at events exactly like the one CAN SG held?

I mean, it should be the medical institutions themselves that are holding such conferences, GPs really shouldn't have to take it on themselves to organise them in their own time, but it is at least a significant step in the right direction.

But such an event makes KJK angry. Why?

What sort of person gets angry about clinicians meeting to discuss research and evidence? If you can't see how toxic KJK is, I can't help you.

You do understand, don't you, that the way in which healthcare becomes underpinned by research and evidence is by clinicians being given access to research and the opportunity to openly discuss and digest it, for example at events exactly like the one CAN SG held?

I understand perfectly, thank you.

What an odd response to my post.

Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender

Their aims from their website

1 Enhance professional and public understanding of the nature of sex, gender, gender roles and identity, with respect to medicine and healthcare
2 Improve knowledge about the causes, consequences and treatments of gender dysphoria, drawing on best evidence
3 Promote free and respectful discourse on sex, gender and gender identity between healthcare professionals

They want to promote the idea of gender, gender roles and gender identity.

The increased number of children diagnosing themselves with it is a social contagion, so why add to the contagion by promoting it?

If someone believes that no child is born in the wrong body, why would they support a group who are promoting gender ideology?

'What sort of person gets angry about clinicians meeting to discuss research and evidence? If you can't see how toxic KJK is, I can't help you.'

Yeah, tell us you didn't understand KJK's video without saying you didn't understand KJK's video. Probably didn't even watch it. Considering what you wrote, no, I don't think you can help us actually.

If you can't see how toxic KJK is, I can't help you.

All the evidence you’ve presented so far is bollocks.

That's a bit OTT. Pp made a good point about whistle-blowers, Keira Bell etc.

It is a bit odd how protective some people are of KJK on here

What’s a bit OTT?

The poster being responded to has made two posts on this thread, neither of which contained any evidence that KJK is ‘toxic’.

It is OTT to call KJK toxic? Yes. I think it is. I think calling KJK toxic could well fall into the realm of personally motivated attack.

And it is surprising how any attempt to point out that the personal attacks rather than simply addressing what was said is still be commented on as being framed as 'protective' rather than posters simply continuing to point out that the attacks are personal and seem to be rather disproportionate. But, I guess we all recognise that there are people who need to label others into simplistic 'good' and 'bad' labels and who will then also simplistically mischaracterise what has been happening on this thread.

People who are in the public eye get personal attacks all the time. See the threads about Jon Ronson. Keir Starmer. Just to name a couple of recent ones I"ve been on. It comes with the territory of having a public presence.

There are various indicators that KJK isn't that great. PP listed some. OP listed some. At the end of the day it's an opinion based on what they've seen of KJK.

I'm sure she's grown up enough not to care if an internet rando calls her toxic.

I think we can see quite clearly what is happening, thanks.

Yes well I agree with that. The debate is polarised. You can't hear a point of view that disagrees with yours without attacking the person who holds it.

On the contrary. I ask questions to clarify and then point out inconsistencies in the views being stated. If the poster doesn’t like their inconsistencies and disconnected thinking pointed out, they should perhaps reword their posts until people can understand and see a coherent and logical position.

I don’t know if anyone has linked to this thread yet.

On point 3, my understanding of this is that they want to be able to talk about supporting people who believe that they have a gender identity, where those people's (perceived) gender identity differs from their sex.

It is also likely to be the case that many doctors believe that they themselves have a gender identity. So it would be important to understand how to support people/patients/clients with this belief in an environment where some doctors also hold it. That will be especially challenging because the people/patients/clients who are feeling distressed will need to have their belief indirectly challenged (possibly involving discussion amongst teams or staff who believe that everyone has a gender identity), as part of a full differential diagnosis, to unpick the origin of the distress.

You asked one question, and it read as rhetorical and nothing to do with "clarification".

Then wrote a whole paragraph about "personal attacks" and mischaracterisation based on your opinion that PPs characterisation was disproportionate.

At the end of the day people can have different opinions about KJK. You seem unable to accept a negative opinion and are insisting that we all align with your world view.

It's not reasonable to demand that posters "reword their posts" until you can "understand their logical position".

Hellofabore, if you genuinely belived (as I do) that a person had styled themself as a leader in an activist movement, but actually their motives were selfish, and furthermore, that person was attacking those who were genuine, plus pitting activists within that movement against each other for their own personal gain, not to mention inviting in the far right, and ultimately working against the aims of the movement, would you not think toxic a fair word to use?

I do belive KJK's actions are incredibly damaging to the movement.

You don't need to agree with me to appreciate I am sincere in my belief, based on the evidence I have seen.

Yes, I think KJK's actions are toxic. No, it's not "personally motivated" - I used to support her back in the day, before her actions over many years demonstrated she's not the person I thought she was.

They want to promote the idea of gender, gender roles and gender identity.

This is ill informed, perniscious nonsense.

Dr David Bell is involved with CAN SG and spoke at the conference.

Do you have any idea who he is? If not, I strongly suggest you google him, and maybe read Hannah Barnes's book on the Tavistock.

The idea that he's involved in an organisation promoting gender ideology is ludricous. CAN SG is the opposite.

You seem to be confusing talking about a topic with supporting it. CAN SG are supprting respectful, evidenced based dialogue. If you're against that (and KJK appears to be) then you're in the same boat as the TRAs.

How are clinicians supposed to move forward if they can't discuss the evidence?!

KJK's rant against CAN SG is the other side of the coin to the TRAs. Clinicians meet to discuss evidence in a respectful way and she's angry? WTF?! This is what we've been asking for, for years, and now it's actually happening, KJK is painting it as a bad thing. Please ask yourself why she might do this. The answers are not good. The most charitable reason I can come up with is she's a bit dense, but I don't personally believe that to be true.

The whole thing is nuts, and KJK is leading her supporters on a merry dance.

It seems to me that website is trying to sit on the fence in order to include everyone in the conversation. I can see why that may seem a sensible tactic.

However it’s a bit like a conference about addiction and misuse of drugs talking about safe drug use culture, or understanding the interplay of uppers and downers for clubbers.
Or managing weight loss in bulimics. Or something. There was an article about ozempic in the queer scene, talking about chemsex. There was no mention of chemsex being problematic, just lots of ‘how do we help people do this safely, and how can we help people use ozempic inappropriately and still get to have anal’.

From an outside perspective, it’s madness. And that’s KJK’s perspective. This should be nowhere near kids, there is no safe way to play with this, anyone who discusses that is contributing to the issue.

This is the CAN SG declaration, i.e. this is what they are trying to achieve:

We are calling for medical and healthcare institutions to commit to:

1. Agreed, precise terminology about sex, gender and gender identity.
2. Recording of biological sex in all healthcare settings and data, alongside optional recording of gender identity where relevant.
3. Ensuring their policies are sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment sensitive, Equality Act compliant and Equality Impact assessed.
4. Developing and testing the safety and efficacy of a range of therapies to support all people who have significant distress around their sex or sense of identity, within a nationally approved research programme to address uncertainties in the field of gender dysphoria.
5. Avoidance of medical interventions in young people undergoing normal puberty and development until they reach brain maturity.

--

From an outside perspective, this is utterly reasonable and should be applauded.

I do belive KJK's actions are incredibly damaging to the movement.

Which movement?

The movement to carry on treating 'gender identity' as if it was a medical condition?

Or the movement that wants to stop treating 'gender identity' as if it was a medical condition?

I suggest people spend a bit of time on the CAN SG website learning about what they're actually about. Their blog is here, for example: https://can-sg.org/spotlight/

Also, look up Dr David Bell if you're not familiar with him.

The idea that they're pro-childhood transition is ludricous.