Jolyon jumps the shark - is trans a cult?

[CantDealwithChristmas]

Jolyon 'fox killer' Maugham has been on one for 6 days straight now. It all started with Streeting's PBs ban and ratcheted up when JoMo sent Streeting a list of 25 questions which Streeting ignored - and on a Sunday too. As of yesterday JoMo, a KC (though Guido Fawkes reported his licence expired in May), was encouraging people to break the law by accessing banned PB drugs from abroad. As of today he has well and truly jumped the shark with the below, horrible post on X.

My question to this board is why do TRAs feel the need to ratchet up the emotional temperature of the debate so high? Why do they so quickly devolve the conversation to death and suicide? It's an ugly strain that runs right through all TRA talking points. I personally think TRA is an eschatological cult and the focus on death is a intrinsic part of that. Others may think it's all about emotional blackmail.

Either way, please use this thread to discuss JoMo, Streeting's unaccounably cruel ignoring of him, and TRA emotional hysteria / threats in general at this crucial time just after the PB ban was announced.

EDIT - could not upload the screenshot of JoMo's post but it reads as follows:

"And don't underestimate the political tail of Wes Streeting's decision. His colleagues will slowly be coming to terms with him locking them into a future of bereaved parents tipping ashes outside Number 10 and a revival of mass die-ins wherever they go."

Make it a pot!

Appreciate the share token, that was a very satisfying read on a Sunday morning.

This is all so sad for the kids involved. There must be some way back for them. We need to be hugely supportive of detransitioners to make it easier for others to change their minds.
Whatever happened to gender fluidity? Is there a risk that the GC movement is seen as too entrenched in the opposite stance to TRAs which they can use against kids to harden their positions?
I've never liked the term 'Gender critical' tbh and don't really understand it - I don't feel critical other than of people who knowingly encourage children and vulnerable people down a medical one way street.
Should we be called Gender biologists or something, or Biology fixed, gender free? I wouldn't give two hoots about calling a man in a dress Brenda as long as he accepted his biology and peed with the other males.

The problem with 'gender free' is that the genderists would turn it into something like their 'agender'.

I don't think 'gender' as it has been used since the 1980s has any positive value as a concept. It is a grammatical term - put it back there and leave it there. Living humans don't need it, and I will continue to criticise attempts to force it on us - particularly when its use strays beyond fashion and presentation, and starts to impinge on and harm sexed bodies.

I don't think 'gender critical' is about being critical of people. It's about being critical of gender stereotyping and gender as a concept. It's about being critical of the idea that gender should be in any way important in people's lives.

That's what it means to me, anyway.

Yes, what @OldCrone said. Replace "gender" with what it means in this context - sex role stereotyping. It shows just what the genderist movement is about: forcing people into the old stereotypes, the old roles, and claiming those roles are what makes a woman, and therefore any woman or girl who doesn't fit must not be female, and any man or boy who doesn't fit must not be male. It treats the role as dictating the sex. (Even worse, a lot of this is pushed by men who don't have the slightest discomfort with their sexed bodies or roles, but are AGPs).

A few years ago I saw a bloke dressed in female fashion with hairdo to match doing a sort of model's walk down the street. All the women out and about were walking normally.

It looked like a performance to me, which is what it was, because I never see women behave in that exaggerated fashion.

People who post here seem to be both sex realist and gender critical. GC doesn't follow inevitably from sex realism but IMO is going to be needed for us to peacefully coexist with trans people.

Sex realism = sex cannot be changed and trying to do so is medically dangerous. Sex differences necessitate treating men and women differently.

GC = men and women should only be treated differently to the minimum extent required to guarantee fairness, safety and decency. Trans people don't need these concessions and shouldn't claim them. Any other customary sex norms (eg relating to appearance or expectations of behaviour) are arbitrary and trans people should be allowed to adopt cross-sex norms if they want to, as should everyone else.

Men have to deliberately do the model type ‘sashay’ because the difference in male and female skeletal structure means they will can’t walk like women do without making a big effort to “perform” it

I suspect there will be a lot of disagreement about the meaning of these terms. For me sex realist just means sex is real and immutable. It doesn’t say anything about how women and men should be treated. It’s a belief (or knowledge) that is probably shared by billions of people worldwide that men are AHM and women are AHF and there’s nothing you can do to change your sex.

This made me smile … the reliably ill-advised Anneliese Dodds
Sums it up succinctly.

the reliably ill-advised Anneliese Dodds

I think Hadley has previously written about her beefs with AD dating back to university days.

I don’t mind Dodds in general. I think she is well meaning (although she has been slow off the mark and put in some hapless performances) but I think she will get there in the end.

It's not really an endorsement of her intellect and ethics is it? That she might finally get there and understand that changing sex is impossible, that children shouldn't be groomed that they've been born in the wrong body and that women are entitled to rights, including privacy from men in certain circumstances. 🙄

"It's not really an endorsement of her intellect and ethics is it? That she might finally get there and understand that changing sex is impossible, that children shouldn't be groomed that they've been born in the wrong body and that women are entitled to rights, including privacy from men in certain circumstances. 🙄"

I think it's overly simplistic to say that anyone who takes up a TWAW approach and advocates for TW inclusion in female spaces is unethical and lacks intelligence. I have robust disagreements about this with people who are bright and ethical. I find their thinking to be flawed but they say the same about mine.

It's not really an endorsement of her intellect and ethics is it?

No, not really! But if things are going to change we need to be charitable to people willing to change their position even if hesitantly and less than satisfactorily. If you genuinely believe that mental illness results from not supporting trans identities then it must be very hard to move beyond that for fear of driving more people to despair. Once you have, the histrionics and emotional manipulation are so bloody obvious that it’s difficult to understand why it isn’t obvious to all.

Fair point (as is @Brainworm).
Think I'm just exhausted at seeing so many intelligent women caught up in all this and either too scared or too uncaring to use some critical thinking.. Post Cass I suppose I'd naively hoped that more politicians would do a Streeting and acknowledge that they failed to see the full implications of all this dangerous nonsense on children and women.

Makes me think of the swap of Batman and Catwoman's movements?

Agree Mrs OW. It is exhausting and I think it's to be expected that sometimes we just get tired of calmly pointing out the emperor is in his altogether - especially as there are wide ranging motivations behind those admiring his suit.

Intelligent people don't think that people can change sex.

Ethical people don't think it's OK to groom children to believe that they've been born in the wrong body.

Decent human beings don't think that women should be forced to undress in front of any man who wants them to.

I'm genuinely surprised at the number of intelligent, ethical, decent people who do. For many of the reasons discussed on FWR across many thousands of threads, this seems to be a topic with its own rules and contagion.

Jolyon has flounced off X now. He's going for a fortnight in the wilderness.

We currently have a Foreign Secretary who has publicly stated that men can grow a cervix.

I don't believe that David Lammy is actually stupid but he's just an egregious example of someone with power having influence on this issue without having devoted to it one second of thought.

So what I would really, really like to know is about the TwiX screenshot of the fawning letter that Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g posted up thread.

Which one of you was it?

Right now, you know I'm desperately researching a German/Latin/Greek word that translates to, "One who runs with the foxes and hunts with the baseball bat hounds"…

I'm less than two years on MN forums, but remember when the thread title's final word, even with a question mark, resulted in instant deletion. There is much more free discussion now. Even the place some of us got expelled is less doctrinaire than it was. It is interesting watching history spool by.

I hope the openness will help save some non-conforming people, particularly very young people, from physical damage.