Persuading a TA to change her mind

[HalfArsedTerf]

I am passionate about women's fightback against the aggressive gender activists but at the same time I am dependent on my income from running a small business in a small town, so cannot be "out" for fear of TA doing something to harm me. So I do what I can, anonymously on here and on X.

On my FB feed I repost GC news to "friends only". I share screenshots showing the latest madness (e.g. men in women's sports, toilets, prisons etc.) By doing this I have successfully peaked a number of friends. Coward that I am, I never make any comment of my own, so nobody can ever quote me saying something "twansfobic" and then using it to punish me financially.

I found out that a local acquaintance who has for 15 years been on my FB friends list blocked me. When a mutual acquaintance asked why she cited my so-called transphobia. She can only be basing this on my sharing screenshots of news reports on FB.

I don't really understand why a disagreement on this issue means she has to block me. I have a few thousand FB friends and bet we have different views on religion, political allegiance, sexuality, etc. This seems to be the ONE issue which leads to being sent to Coventry.

She is past middle age and (like me) a wheelchair user who is a disability rights campaigner. Her profile declares she is a lifelong feminist, so I find her stance incomprehensible.

I worry that she may poison half the town against me by spreading news of what a hateful bigot she imagines I am and urging other local people to ostracise me.

When I go out I frequently encounter her and although I am nervous I have decided that if I see her, I will confront her, woman to woman, face to face, on this issue. I will try my best to be calm, rational and friendly.

I keep rehearsing things to say in the hope of making her see that agreeing with genderists' demands is not compatible with either feminism or the rights of the disabled to same-sex care. I have seen her advertise for female carers so it's puzzling that she had taken the genderists' side.

Any ideas on what I can say to her that will induce a "light-bulb" moment and make her realise that she is supporting an ideology that harms women, especially the disabled?

Minors offering consent isn't a binary though. It's always contextual. So, no, a 12 year old can't consent to sexual contact with a 30 year old, but a 15 year old can consent to being on the Pill. 16 and 17 year olds would normally make a bunch of decisions about medical treatment, and can do when younger. My sister had a lot of very invasive medical treatment between the ages of 13 and 15 and the doctors and our parents really tried to make sure she had as much control as possible and made a lot of her choices. That's why Gillick competence is a thing.

Thankyou! Some common sense!!

I seriously can't believe people are comparing minors giving consent on how their future is going to be (bearing in mind they are giving consent to something they have actually asked for, not something someone decided they should have and just needs a signature to get their way with them) to CSA and forced sterilisation.

This is why the GC can't have a reasonable conversation with anyone who is actually transgender, or people who even know transgender people just in passing, or actually even just people who have experience things like FGM, CSA or have living memory of people who were forcibly sterilised by oppressive regimes. Because it's heinous to compare the two and shows a failure of logical ability.

To back track by saying "it's not exactly the same we're just saying it's similar" does not make the original statement that transitioning as a minor and forced sterilisation really aren't that different correct or acceptable.

BECAUSE CONSENT MATTERS.

At 10 years old I was perfectly capable of consenting to getting my ears pierced but my mum had to sign the form. At 12 I made my own medical decision to remove a cyst, but my mum still had to sign the form. I had gynae procedures at 14 which I consented to, but mum had to sign the forms. It's just a legal requirement, it doesn't mean I couldn't make my own decisions. To compare medical decisions like these to CSA just shows the tactics GC posters use as a blunt hammer to bash people over the head with until they agree or give up. Of course a 12 year old can't consent to sex. That's completely irrelevant as to whether a 12 year old can consent to their own medical choices. It's also quite telling that you see me pointing out a failure of logical and false equivalences as being desperate to defend the medical mutilation of children @Leafstamp I haven't endorsed or condemned this so I don't know where you got this from. You're just seeing what you want to see.

Can't let those pesky facts get in the way of the outrage though can we! However would you feel superior then!?

At 10 years old I was perfectly capable of consenting to getting my ears pierced but my mum had to sign the form.

Not really comparable with allowing yourself to take hormones that will mean you will be sterilised, is it? Practice what you preach analogy-wise.

Your views about the agency of children for "gender affirming care" are very much fringe ones, hth.

We are not saying the two scenarios are identical, we are saying that both are wrong. They are comparable because of the devastating and permanent impact of the treatments and procedures. Children (and, as Cass has identified, young adults) cannot consent to losing their sexual function and more.

This.

Ears piercing is hardly comparable to organs being removed. I know here in the UK that's not happening, but I've read of 13 year old having their breasts removed in the USA. I don't understand how anyone could ever compare ear piercing or cyst surgery to the removal of healthy organs. That's such a bizarre juxtaposition. Jarring, actually. 10p versus £1 million.

Ears piercing is hardly comparable to organs being removed. I know here in the UK that's not happening, but I've read of 13 year old having their breasts removed in the USA. I don't understand how anyone could ever compare ear piercing or cyst surgery to the removal of healthy organs. That's such a bizarre juxtaposition. Jarring, actually. 10p versus £1 million.

Exactly. Look past the "you lot" bluster and it's just a bizarre, special pleading DARVO post.

I genuinely don't understand the anger directed at women raising concerns about life-changing hormones and surgery in children were the risks are so high and benefits are unclear.

Why isn't everyone on both sides advocating for a therapy solution? If the problem is distressed feelings then this should be the focus, surely?

If a child can live a happy life without hormones and surgery, in a gender non-conforming life style, why wouldn't we want this for them?

Oh good, you're here to add the characteristic sarky HTH to comments as usual.

Once your posse turn up to bring the sark and performative camaraderie over how everyone else is stupid and wrong and the FWR crew are superior intellectuals I'm out. It's just a bin fire from there.

Bringing forced sterilisation and CSA into a conversation about gender affirming care is wild and inappropriate. It's basically trying to lump in anyone who doesn't think everyone who transitioned as a minor is not permanently damaged and living a terrible life and paedophilies. And is absolutely DARVO. HTH.

I think I see why we are disagreeing @Glitterknickerbockers but please correct me if I am wrong :

You seem to think that transitioning a child is a valid medical treatment.

I think it’s child abuse.

To add, @Glitterknickerbockers

You say you’ve not endorsed or condemned medical mutilation of children, but you have said “perhaps not EVERY SINGLE transgender child or person is irreparably harmed and live happy lives.”

This suggests you think that there is such thing as a transgender child and also that some children remain unharmed by being labelled transgender.

I disagree with both of those things.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the consequences of filling a young person with wrong sex hormones. (They're not replacement hormones. What are they replacing?)

If sterilization is the biggest concern, do members of this board also oppose young mothers having the right to keep accidental pregnancies?

Rates of complications that lead to death/permanent sterility are very high in 12-15 year old mothers, so should they be forced to abort pregnancies because of that risk? Should it be their parents' decision? Or should Guillick hold and the decision be up to them?

The situations are very different. Both terminating and keeping the pregnancy will have profound effects on the mother so support will be needed whatever is decided. With transgender medicine, not intervening with drugs or surgery is by far the safer option.

Both are about medical consent. An abortion is undoubtedly the safer option, both for the mother's health and future prospects.

The question is can the average12-14 year old reasonably understand and consent to the risks?

What a weird analogy. Those things aren't even remotely similar.

A pregnant 13 year old is faced with a binary choice between two potentially harmful options.

A 13 year old who wants puberty blockers and a binder should just be told, no, you're a perfectly healthy girl.

Why shouldn't pregnant 13 year old be told no carrying a pregnancy to term will permanently damage your young healthy body and possibly kill you if not ruin your future?

You are too young to make permanent decisions about your sexual health and body so your legal guardians have the final say. And if they affirm you continuing the pregnancy they are guilty of child abuse.

Why are you flogging this dead horse @Riality? It's not the same thing.

Because forcing a 13 year old girl to have an abortion will most likely cause her long term psychological harm.

If a 13 year old is already pregnant then she has no choice but to make a permanent decision affecting her reproductive health. She can't just "do nothing" because that is also a choice; a choice to remain pregnant and have a baby.

The pregnant 13 year old doesn't have the option to just "not get pregnant", which is equivalent to the position the 13 year old who wants hormones is in. The 13 year old who wants hormones has the option to "do nothing" and remain healthy.

Either Guillick applies to all teenagers of all genders or it applies to none of them.

Underage pregnancy is an incredibly dangerous condition that ruins lives yet no one seems concerned that naive mothers are allowed to consent to it.

I think you'll find most underage pregnant girls, unless a crime has been committed, did have the option to 'not get pregnant'

Because they are already pregnant... Turning the clock back and not getting pregnant isn't an option.

They did have that option before they were pregnant but they no longer have that option once they are already pregnant.

Do you agree that the medically sound thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and allow the girl to continue growing into a healthy adult body?

But they have the option to no longer be pregnant quickly and readily accessible. So why should they be encouraged to destroy/kill themselves?