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.

Trans people that I know don't believe in gender dysphoria. They think it's just a consequence of society's failure to treat them as the correct gender (analagously to the views of some disability activists). And they see medical treatment for it as analagous to treatment for pregnancy or menopause (it's not an illness!). They would find the CAN-SG declaration transphobic.

I suspect that they are in a tiny minority, and that we, KJK, most gender medics, and the rest of the sane world, are all broadly aligned in our view of the situation. She is preaching to the choir.

Most of that seems good, but the emphasis in points 1 and 2 about 'gender identity' is where there could be a problem.

I'd be interested in seeing what they come up with as 'precise terminology about gender identity'.

Recording of biological sex in all healthcare settings and data, alongside optional recording of gender identity where relevant.

'Recording of gender identity where relevant'. Where would that be? Why would someone's delusional belief about their fictional 'gender identity' be relevant in a healthcare setting.

Saying this implies that they think that 'gender identity' is real and something which needs to be recorded.

I'll repost as maybe you misread what I wrote:

I don't think there are many medics who believe gender dysphoria isn't "a thing" and gender dysphoria is only possible if there is such a thing as gender identity for some people.

That's an overly simplistic view of what's happened.

Teenagers are getting "identities" pushed onto them by social media. They are at an age where they are egotistical and listen more to peers than adults. They live in a world dominated by "influencers" where their online selves are as relevant as their real world selves.

Online, people are adding filters. Using make up and angles to make themselves attractive. Talking about souls, gender, magic in a very introspective teenage way. In my experience they are very into "identity" and labels. They spend hours chatting about what neurodiversity they have, whether they will be a "boy mum" blah blah.

In the real world teenagers are confused, depressed, self harming on a scale that we don't fully appreciate because its very new and very different. Medics are trying to stem the tide.

I'm not denying that the narrative of adult male transitioners has been used to inappropriately treat particularly teenage girls. But what's happening to our teenagers is more than just that. Pandora's box is open and just saying "gender identity isn't a thing" is not going to make it go away.

Meanwhile attacking professionals who are on the front line trying to deal with these distressed children is at best ineffective and at worst destructive. Of course they need conferences like this. So they can share research and findings and come up with the most effective treatments.

Telling kids who thought they had Tourette’s that actually, they didn’t have Tourette’s made their tics spontaneously resolve.

So why not at least try telling kids that they don’t have a gender identity disorder because gender identity isn’t a real thing?

You really hate her, don't you?

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

Do you have any evidence for this belief of yours, or is it purely based on opinion rather than evidence?

and furthermore, that person was attacking those who were genuine, plus pitting activists within that movement against each other for their own personal gain

I'd like you to explain why you think that KJK is responsible for "pitting activists within that movement against each other". She has been excluded by other activists for years, starting with WPUK in about 2018. You are attributing a lot of power to her if you think she is solely responsible for all the disagreements between different groups fighting against transgender ideology.

You might find this link useful to get an idea about what some of these differences involve.

https://hiyamaya.net/2023/02/09/on-gender-critical-disputes/

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.

You say you have 'seen evidence'. What is this evidence? Which actions do you think are 'damaging'? What do you think 'the movement' is and what do you think it is aiming for? Are KJK's events where she invites ordinary women to stand up and speak about their experiences part of her 'toxic actions'?

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

That would be the Men’s Rights Activist movement then?

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

Your concerns for the movement are duly noted, you could have mentioned this before?

There needs to be gender clinics because, to get a GRC, an adult needs a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Its more socially acceptable to give men GRC if its a condition they have had since birth/aged 3/pre puberty, then if its a condition they have aquired as an adult.

Therefore gender dysphoria has to exist in children.

If clinicians say that children dont have gender dysphoria, its just a contagion, where does that leave adult transitions, the government, the whole trans medical profession?

I imagine clinicians involved within the gender clinics arent ready to be that much of a whistle-blower.

That article is interesting. I'd say Maya fundamentally misunderstands "the patriarchy" as illustrated by the fact she says: The idea that these features of “patriarchy” did not co-evolve with our big-brained, creative, flexible, language-using species is as improbable as people being “born in the wrong body”.

Of course the patriarchy co-evolved with humans. It's our social structure. But it evolved when tines were different. Humans do lots of things today that we aren't "evolved" todo, because we are very good at changing our environment to suit ourselves. The point of "the patriarchy" is to name the social structure, so we can change it.

There is also a lot of biological essentialism/evolved psych stuff in there about the role of mothers, I see that a lot in GC people. Unfortunately a lot of it is not strictly accurate and is viewed through the prism of how male researchers interpreted human behaviour.

I agree with cats that KJK has pitted activists against each other. It's why this whole thread is full of emotive language about "hate". It's why we get threads about JCJ etc. It's undisputable that KJKs impact has caused schisms in the GC movement. I wonder why it's so important to you to dismiss that? Seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

KJK is reflecting the ideas that were talked about on MN years ago.

As trans is talked about in the media, its being taught in schools, lots of people are assuming that there must be something to it - the experts wouldnt lie, would they?

But the same people, twenty years ago would never believe that a child could be born in the wrong body, they would just assume tom boy or theatrical boy.

We've just be sold of the idea of a trans child over time, its not something we have always known. These experts have been part of that narrative.

Yes, I did miss that you'd mentioned gender identity. But I disagree with you on this point. It is possible for people to be distressed about their sexed body without holding a belief that they have a gender identity.

Gender identity used to be defined by a belief of being born in the wrong body. This is from the earliest archive page (2008) I can find for gender identity on the NHS website.

A person with gender dysphoria experiences anxiety, uncertainty or persistently uncomfortable feelings about the gender they were born with. They believe their gender identity is different from their anatomical sex. For example, a man with gender dysphoria feels that he is a female, but was born into a male body.

Since the people who were once talking about being born in the wrong body now say that gender identity is nothing to do with this and never was, we no longer have a definition of gender identity. So if having gender dysphoria requires having a 'gender identity', and gender identity is simply an indescribable feeling, what is gender dysphoria?

This is what the current NHS page says about gender identity.

For example, some people may have male genitals and facial hair but do not identify as a male or feel masculine.
Some may have female genitals and breasts but do not identify as a female or feel feminine.

Which is utter nonsense. What does 'feel masculine' or 'feel feminine' mean? Why should it matter?

It's why this whole thread is full of emotive language about "hate". It's why we get threads about JCJ etc. It's undisputable that KJKs impact has caused schisms in the GC movement. I wonder why it's so important to you to dismiss that? Seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

I think you’ve got the causal factor arse backwards - threads on JCJ tend to be started by JCJ supporters (which are subsequently disagreed with) whereas threads on KJK tend to be started by her detractors, like this one, over and over again (also disagreed with). Seems to me that the exact same posters start pro JCJs threads and anti KJK threads.

If you start a thread on a forum that calls forum users ‘lapdogs’ it’s unlikely to be a pleasant read with everyone nodding along in agreement 🤷‍♀️

I agree with cats that KJK has pitted activists against each other. It's why this whole thread is full of emotive language about "hate". It's why we get threads about JCJ etc. It's undisputable that KJKs impact has caused schisms in the GC movement. I wonder why it's so important to you to dismiss that? Seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

I'm not dismissing it, just pointing out that for there to be a schism there have to be (at least) two sides.

People like JCJ and WPUK felt that KJK wasn't ideologically pure enough for them. You can read more about JCJ's side of this debate in the issue of her 'Radical Notion' that Maya linked to in her article.

https://theradicalnotion.org/gender-critical-disputes/

KJK on her own couldn't cause a schism. There had to be input from the other side(s). She has taken a different path from the academics like JCJ and the left-wingers in WPUK, both of whom seem to think ideological purity and discussing theory is more important than direct action. KJK is the opposite.

"If you start a thread on a forum that calls forum users ‘lapdogs’ it’s unlikely to be a pleasant read with everyone nodding along in agreement"

Yes. It is remarkable how any poster who enters a thread and disparages a group of people with a different opinion with negative generalisations believes that the group should just accept that negative generalisation.

People like JCJ and WPUK felt that KJK wasn't ideologically pure enough for them.

What I've read suggests again that's an overly simplistic view.
Some of them felt personally betrayed. Some objected to her islamophobic language. Some objected to her connections with the right. Boiling that down to "ideologically pure" suggests that people can't have their own boundaries about who they associate with and what behaviours they tolerate.

One of the concerns that people seem to have is that KJK is harming the GC movement. I don’t really consider there is a GC movement at this point. What exists is an acknowledgment that sex is real and immutable and then a whole range of opinions on the best way to deal with the phenomenon of people who claim to be the opposite sex.

Seems to me that the exact same posters start pro JCJs threads and anti KJK threads.
Not from what I've seen based on posters names. That's just a way to discount perspectives you don't agree with.

OP did use inflammatory language but actually not directed at anyone here, you chose to wear that as your own badge of honour.

I am beginning to feel sorry for those people who feel that they joined 'a movement'. Because I have never really seen evidence of this being a unified 'movement'. I think that even amongst feminists (and those who have rejected the feminist label) that there was always differences in motivation and differences in desired outcome.

I also think that people who join movements are prone to be the ones who seek leaders.

You do know that name-changing on Mumsnet is a thing, right?

Obvs didn’t have this name until
this thread.

Cross posted with signal

That makes sense.

I’ve never thought of this as a movement, just a bunch of individuals trying to do what they can to stem the tide, occasionally working together on short term projects.

Everyone has a different entry point.

Gosh....

"The majority of women on this thread seem to be mostly KJK’s lapdogs who just want to fangirl their leader."

"I must admit I had no idea that this board was so insane"

Seemed pretty clearly aimed at people on this thread to me. But maybe others will explain how we got that wrong.

What are her 'connections with the right'?

yep. Maybe we are supposed to be more reverential to others? Is that it?

I personally don't hold any person beyond being criticism, I expect to be criticised myself. That is the point. When something is worth getting right, it is worth the discomfort of constantly having to evaluate the outcomes and how we can get there.