Canadian PM Mark Carney's child attended Tavistock

[miri1985]

https://www.junonews.com/p/exclusive-mark-carney-sent-daughter

Also references in an article about this board on Mumsnet
(available here as a PDF, pg38-40
static1.squarespace.com/static/598d52a0cf81e004ba34a0a2/t/5fae93991c7089551ac8fbfc/1605276602695/smaller.pdf )

I think this attitude perpetuates the problem you claim to care about tbh.

This is a UK feminist forum so actual Trump fans are thin on the ground thank fuck. Feminists recognise that the choice isn't a gender stereotype loving, male centric binary between Trump or gender ideology. There are other approaches. I favour a socialism based in material and class analysis myself.

I'm intrigued to know when is the right time for women to care about women's and children's rights? I'm all too aware that the powerful men of this world can't seem to play nicely, but day in, day out women and children still exist and are living the one life they get. Even if you're not concerned over their vote (you should be) since when is it acceptable to stop caring about the ordinary lives of oppressed people simply because the big men can't exist peacefully? Many of us are capable of caring about - and campaigning on - multiple issues!

Does this apply to leaders (general) you're not ideologically teamed with too? If Carney is under what are arguably harmful influences it shouldn't be hidden.

Thanks OP for the link to the self indulgent twaddle written by Sasha Carney.

If I had a daughter that asked "So where does that leave me? Am I a cis woman pretending? A trans man running from my own identity? A nonbinary person finally expressing my “true” authentic self?,

my response would be "Sorry you are not special, you are just like millions of other humans that have managed to negotiate life without all those stupid labels. You obviously have too much time on your hands so I'll be removing your allowance. Now go out in the world, meet real people and get a proper job"

All the OP did was to link to an article. She wasn't nasty or judgemental. But merely linking to an article provoked a bunch of aggressive and unpleasant posts making baseless accusations.

The truth is, this stuff is public knowledge. It's not a secret. We're allowed to discuss it.

Thanks for the link OP. I've just read Sasha Carney's piece.

I found it quite thoughtful. Yes self indulgent but I think that would be hard to avoid in a piece about authenticity in a Yale student (?) publication. She is trying to move away from polarised binary thinking it seems. She seems to be almost there in some ways, but also somewhat attached to the word "trans" to describe children.

I think it's good to read around as a previous poster said. In the past I would have dismissed Mumsnet as having nothing worth me reading. It's rare to ever find it mentioned by someone who has actually spent time finding out what it actually is. I would be surprised if Sasha Carney has which is a shame because if she did she might learn that her projections are just that.

Enid Blyton could probably do with her own thread.

I don't personally see it as relevant to wider politics.

Agree Carney’s child is none of anyone’s business, and should be left alone.

But as Helen Joyce has pointed out, parents who supported their child’s transition can never retreat from a pro-trans stance - it’s just not possible because that would be to acknowledge what has been done to their child and their part in it.

So the fact that Carney has a trans child is relevant to understanding his opinions. As Canada’s PM, this will influence what happens to a lot of Canada’s kids, particularly if gets elected as opposed to just stepping in to the position as he has done now.

Enid Blyton could probably do with her own thread.

Ha ha, that's true! Could end up being very controversial though! I found some of @GarlicStyle 's comments upthread interesting, like this one: Enid Blyton's character George doesn't have to be trans, nonbinary or what Sasha calls a boygirl. She's just herself: a female child preferring those activities which, in the 1940s, were stereotypically ascribed to male children.

I suspect a lot of us here had a "tomboy" childhood.

On a completely different topic, the article reminded me how much I love 1930s and 1940s children's book illustration.

If the leader of the country had some other anti-science views, say, being anti-vax, would it be reasonable to be able to discuss them? Or would we have to say that, well, it's his personal beliefs and we ought to respect them but it's not nice to talk about them?

Or what if the leader had fringe, and potentially harmful, views about curing autism in his child, would we also have to remain silent about that?

I'm always a bit reluctant to bring powerful people's children into it, even when they go public themselves.

But you remember there was a long-running issue of Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools while wanting to restrict choice for parents without their resources. It wasn't going after the kids to bring that up.

(It's less of an issue now, because the workaround is to send them to "comprehensives" in nice areas of north London that are grammars in all but name.)

We similarly get a recurring question about how many members of Keir Starmer's cabinet have trans-identified children. It's a live topic in Labour gossip. Depending on who you believe, it's anywhere between three and six. I wouldn't want to out any individuals - just to note that, as Helen Joyce says, it only takes one parent of a trans-identified child to chill discussion in a whole organisation.

The article reads to me like “this is how I feel/felt, so give me what I want”.

This is the entire basis for transitioning children.

Anne= annoying
George= me
Dick= best mate to have a laugh with
Julian= the one my parents wanted me to be friends with
Timmy= actually scrap Dick, I’d rather be with Timmy

Didn't every girl want the above or just me?

We similarly get a recurring question about how many members of Keir Starmer's cabinet have trans-identified children. It's a live topic in Labour gossip. Depending on who you believe, it's anywhere between three and six. I wouldn't want to out any individuals - just to note that, as Helen Joyce says, it only takes one parent of a trans-identified child to chill discussion in a whole organisation.

We all know about Stephen Kinnock's child. If one is enough, there's at least one.

We vote for politicians, they are supposed to represent us. I don't see the harm in knowing a bit about their background as long as it's not overly intrusive. This article can hardly be said to be intrusive, the daughter wrote it herself for publication.

Very odd article. She's almost there - yes, there have always been girls who defied stereotypes. What she doesn't do is explain why they now need medication and surgery. They didn't need medicating in the past.

What on earth is 'gender affirming clothing'? And why is it lumped in with harmful medication? If she just engaged her brain for a second she'd realise this is all about reinforcing stereotypes, which is the opposite of what girls like George were doing in the past.

1. Tavistock wasn’t/isnt just about GIDS. It is a very well established service with a broad offering.

2. Naming ANYONE’S kids is appalling.

This might thread might look "unkind" but we've had many years of trans activists using "transkids" as human shields and by doing so having some success in stifling discussion.

I don't want to see the same kind of tactic being used to shield leaders of countries from having their views examined. Or others having significant power in shaping what happens in law or the implementation of laws.

Really? Why? Sasha Carney is an adult. She's been completely open about being transgender. It's hardly as if anyone has outed her.

Naming ANYONE’S kids is appalling.

She's 24 years old and she named herself!

Trans children deserve support, love, affirmation of their identity, and access to resources like puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming clothing. They also deserve to have all of this on their own terms, without the legitimacy of their transness being interrogated, over and over, by transmeds and TERFs.

This is interesting, thanks Grey. By "transmeds", am I right in thinking they mean "old fashioned" transexuals who have had full surgery?

It reminds me of the Action for Trans Health list of demands - "we demand free full body laser hair removal and an anaesthetic of our choice for it"

The "bigger problems" have been partly caused by democrats insisting e.g. that people can change sex (and all the surrounding consequences) - I believe this had a contribution to Trump getting into power, as people were voting against the reality-deniers.

+1 on this.

I hope Mark Carney wins the election, Canada really needs him as PM with all the economic craziness Trump is throwing out there.

I looked up "transmed". Apparently it means "A person who believes that medically-diagnosed gender dysphoria or medical transition are essential traits of being transgender."

So, those are the bad guys now, apparently.

So a willful misunderstanding of the courtesy some women historically extended to full op transexuals is now thrown back as being unfair because all males of special identity aren't let in?

And this position of accepting post-op males is lumped in with so-called "TERF"s despite the fact that a feminist position would be that expensive elective surgery isn't really the answer for anyone's issues?

Genderism sure works hard to make sure the one thing nobody criticises is our capitalist, patriarchal status quo! God forbid anyone actually attempt to change this society that leads to so many unhappy people.

No, by "transmeds" she means:

'Transmedicalists, or “transmeds,” are those who fixate on acute gender dysphoria as a litmus test for “true” transness.Transmed Youtubers mock nonbinary people and gender nonconforming trans people as “transtrenders. ”The message becomes clear: the only “authentic” form of transness is one that can be diagnosed by rules set out by cisgender medical professionals.'

It's in the article just before this (which she means sarcastically):

'If we can only objectively prove, with clinical diagnoses and data science, that childhood gender dysphoria does or does not persist into adulthood, is or is not alleviated by medical intervention, then we can prove the “truth” of trans identity.'

As if clinical diagnoses and data science are bad things! Why would someone not want to be 100% sure about the efficacy of medical intervention before they embarked on that path?