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?

Because having an abortion they don't want may cause lasting psychological damage.

Have you ever had an abortion? Do you imagine it to be consequence free?

It is a medical, potentially surgical intervention. It is serious. It has consequences.

Saying, "no, you can't be a boy" is very different.

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

Because it has zero to do with "trans". You're just (badly) attempting to use it as a gotcha.

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.

Exactly.

Pregnant teenager - abortion or no abortion? Both options are a possible "solution" to an actual physical condition.

Trans is, until medical intervention, NOT a physical condition, but a mental one.

Now I realise we offer pharmaceutical help with mental health conditions, and I'm sure some of the recipients are, indeed, minors. Other risky medical interventions are offered to minors with conditions such as cancers. I'm also pretty certain that harm is indeed caused to some of these kids by the medical intervention. Chemo leaves kids infertile. The difference is that the physical illness condition is expected to be fatal without treatment.

Now I know, as I type this, that the same old statistics will be trotted out, the ones that have been debunked a gazillion times (self declared, tiny sample group, etc etc) and I'll be told that it's a matter of life and death here, too. But should a tiny survey of, what, 27 people, determine the treatment protocol for thousands, maybe more, after? Because that seems to be what has happened.

I'd class that as medical negligence, although I actually think it's deliberate so that's, what? Malpractice?

So, the medical situation I referred to in my post was Turners Syndrome. My sister had a bunch of pretty invasive surgery to find and remove her ovaries so she could start taking hormones/start puberty earlier. She could have not had the surgery until she was 18 and able to consent as an adult- it wouldn't have hurt her, but it would have meant she spent her teens looking like a pre pubescent child (which she obviously was desperate to nor do) plus she wanted the treatment to help her grow a little taller.

I don't think it was abusive of my parents to let her have that surgery at all. Sometimes your teens are a time to start taking control of your body and building your bodily autonomy.

What’s your point @Occasionalnamechanger ?

Nothing that you have said justifies blocking normal puberty or giving children wrong sex hormones or surgery as treatments for whatever “gender” issues they appear to have.

Earlier comments (sorry if yours wasn't one) seemed to suggest they couldn't and anyone under 18 receiving any kind of gender affirming care was analogous to an enslaved person having castration forced on them.

I am not convinced this is a very compelling argument, especially in the context of it being fairly well established that teens get to have opinions on their own medical treatment under lots of circumstances. They can consent.

Your sister's medical care wasn't "gender affirming", was it? It was a medical response to a physical condition. Turners syndrome wasn't in her head.

Oranges and apples.

I am not convinced this is a very compelling argument

I'm not convinced your analogy is particularly relevant, either.

Fair. I was using it as an example of teens having the right to consent to elective treatment, but you obviously have the right to disagree. 😊

Your assumption, like others is that hormone based gender identity treatment is justified and evidence based.

Your sister's medical care wasn't "gender affirming", was it? It was a medical response to a physical condition. Turners syndrome wasn't in her head.

Oranges and apples.

I notice you haven't addressed this point @Occasionalnamechanger

No it wasn't in her head. But she was allowed to consent, as a minor, to surgery that left her infertile for life, when the alternative was to not have surgery which would cause her no physical harm whatsoever and only have mental health effects because she didn't want to be short or look prepubescent.

Aren't those the exact points people are using to argue that a minor can't consent to gender affirming care?

Too young to be able to actually consent to infertility for life

Other course if action - do nothing - causes zero physical harm. Just accept it and get over it.

Using the logic GC posters are arguing with here @Occasionalnamechanger s sister should have been told, you're fine, you're just going to mature later than usual and be short. Get over it.

I think there is a difference between a treatment for a diagnosed difference of sex development and a treatment to modify someone's body to fit their philosophical belief.

I don't believe the two are comparable and I am not sure why someone's difference in sex development has been used as a comparison.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but turner's syndrome results in undeveloped ovaries, hence the lack of puberty.

So.....the chances are, a child with turner's is already infertile, with or without her ovaries being removed.

Edit - just looked it up. A very small number of girls with turner's are able to have kids naturally, so yes, there may have been some possibility of fertility. No mention of numbers, just the words "very small number" on the NHS website.

I'm assuming surgical removal is to ensure nothing nasty occurs in the underdeveloped ovaries, and to allow hormone replacement therapy to go ahead safely, to allow for growth.

Still.
Not.
The.
Same.
Thing.
As.
Trans.

Why are some adults so keen to push that children can consent to procedures that will keep them pre pubescent and make them infertile to fix a non-physical and potentially (and realistically) not even medical condition?

What are the benefits to those children? Why do we think this is a good solution?

Don't engage.

She's entrenched. She's not someone you can get to change their mind. She's irrelevant.

The people who are relevant are all the people who haven't defriended you. They are not closed minded.

The game is to win receptive allies not to go to war with someone who will never listen.

Just out of interest what would you do if your beloved adult DC was trans? Would you banish them from your lives forever? Because you sound so fanatical I fear you would.

Why would anyone banish their adult child from their lives ? Is that how people expect families to deal with differences in philosophical beliefs?

You are right. There is no comparison between a teenager making a decision about their diagnosed physical medical condition that has a bank of knowledge behind it to give some evidence based advice about and one making a decision about their personal identity that they wish to modify their body to fit their ideal.

That's really below the belt. You don't know anything about the OP other than what she's posted on here.

And OP presumably doesn't know anything about this woman's life yet she wants to accost her in the street and try to force her views on her. The woman may have very good reasons for not wanting to engage with OP. She's made it clear she doesn't agree with with OP by blocking her so OP should respect her and not try to convert her unless this woman herself wants a discussion about the subject. I

Yes I mostly agree with you on that, but that wasn't what you said in your previous post which was an unfair and unfounded statement.

Fair enough. I just think it needs a bit more nuanced thought, OP wanted to go in all guns blazing, without it seemed, considering possible reasons why this woman might have blocked her. And I do wonder what people would do if they were actually faced with this issue when they hold such strong GC views. A bit of give on both sides would be helpful.