Is this how Trans Ideology took hold?

[Brefugee]

Interesting interview with Johann Lamont in the Scottish Herald today.

She makes an interesting point about why/how all this trans stuff really took hold in the Scottish Parliament (and elsewhere) and i wondered if anyone had anything to say about that or add to it? Because for me one of the biggest issues of the whole trans debate is how a "marginalised minority" wield quite so much power, and how total capitulation acceptance took hold so quickly.

She also despairs at the fundamental dishonesty and lack of integrity that underpins Holyrood’s fixation with gender theory. “You have to wonder if there was a financial aspect to this,” she says. “When money’s scarce they’ll favour causes that won’t; cost much. I think trans rights became attractive to them because of this.
“Women’s rights are much more difficult. You’re talking about equal pay; about people changing the way they run their lives and how they manage their families. Men stepping aside for women in consequential positions. Trans rights simply ticked a lot of boxes. It’s why corporations have signed up for it. It’s a no-cost opportunity to flash their virtues.”

I'm including an archive link as well as the original. If you have an account please click via that so they realise people really do pay to read this type of content.

http://archive.today/eH4NC

Johann Lamont on the politics of sex and gender in Scotland | The Herald

People have suggested this before. When all equality and diversity categories are just lumped in together, it's easy and much cheaper to just paint a flag on a building rather than fit a lift or ramp or extend maternity leave or give people paid time off for a religious festival or accept ill health might mean more sickness absences.....

Not to mention more fun and glamorous - photos of your staff wearing glitter and rainbows at pride looks better in the company newsletter and social media than a picture of a new wheelchair ramp....

It's insane really when you think that a quarter of the population identify has having some sort of disability and only about 0.2% as trans....

I've often noticed the disparity in attention given to trans rights (cost to institutions: buy a few flags and pronoun badges) vs e.g. disability rights (huge costs for accessibility, support, etc etc).

thanks, it's one i'd never seen before. and always happy to read something from Lamont, i really rate her as a person.

Johann was the first politician I sent a 'thank you' card to. She is very much missed in the political arena.

oh god that is an argument i keep making.

I am currently applying for jobs and all i see all over the frickin' place is "we are committed to equality and diversity" but it's just trans-flag lanyards, mixed sex toilets and a vegan option in the canteen. Never anything about disability, accessiblity or things that would be really useful. (and, the thing that galls me right now: apparently no interviews for anyone over 50....)

Yes I have been saying this for years. Local government used to be good in terms of employing and supporting people with disabilities, but not any more.

There's definitely an element to that - high profile, low cost.

Giving your staff rainbow lanyards is much cheaper than, say, cleaning up a rat-infested estate in south Birmingham.

Makes a lot of sense. Essentially relies on women being told to move over - no cost to government for that.

Similar to pinkwashing.

The reason I started looking at toilet cubicles and rooms was why the designs had changed to make them more dangerous, especially for people with medical conditions (including a whole range of disabilities). Then I started researching and couldn’t believe what was going on. The needs of whole groups of people being ignored/forgotten.

Yes was just going to say the other group it has h£lpfully deflected attention from is disability rights. Ensuring genuine access across society for disabled people is as expensive as women's equality (and just as important).

And, as with women, it hasn't just taken attention and resources. So called "trans inclusion" actively disadvantages people with disabilities in multiple ways.

Edit to add: obvs genuine trans inclusion, built upon honesty, would not disadvantage women or people with disabilities. It is a shame no big organisation is willing to fight for this.

I'm getting on a bit OP (50s) and the older I get the more I realise that sadly EVERYTHING comes down to money.

Where I work an email came around asking for input on equality and diversity so I responded that every time a woman went on maternity leave she either didn’t return or returned to a lower paid job because the workload in our department is too much, and if people tried working part time they failed because of the demands on them and other people saw them fail and decided not to put themselves through it, so they should look at amending the way we work to make it more family friendly, which would be very doable but would require support from the company. I then bumped into our equality lead who told me before my email she hadn’t considered women, she just thought equality was about ‘transgender stuff’ - this is an extremely intelligent and well educated woman and mother!!! We don’t even have any trans identified employees at our site ffs!

Ironically the toilet designs I campaign for are cheaper BUT the other fully enclosed toilets can need more ventilation, alarms, sinks etc so I think are more attractive for manufacturers to sell. One company discussed how the aesthetics were nicer for Instagram photos 😠

And of course they sell the enclosed designs because they are ‘inclusive’ yet are not. They are least unsafe for healthy men.

I've experienced the ageism thing too. It's appalling.

Agreed. Companies want to boost profits and still get social kudos from virtue signalling so the easiest thing to do is rainbow lanyards trite soundbites and nothing practical. In a lot of cases they'll pump millions into something splashy like NHS EDI stuff but fail to make meaningful changes in the workplace to improve conditions. The millions on rainbows is still cheaper than decent pay and conditions.

In addition, the people who gender ideology (and other virtue signalling) harms the most are the poorest and therefore most vulnerable, who have little opportunity due to lack of money to access the law, to fight the poor treatment.

The people imposing it are rich, so insulated from the consequences.

That's why the only way this will stop is via job losses. Those imposing this really do need to face consequences or it'll never end.

I suppose it is easier to put a rainbow flag on your website than to develop alternate language literature for marginalised community groups, or put real effort into understanding why vulnerable groups don't access services.

“What does it say about the state of Scottish and British politics that it takes a grassroots women’s organisation to go to the Supreme Court before they’ll even acknowledge there’s an issue."
Bloody well said!
However, I believe there is something deeply sinister behind transactivism as yet to be uncovered. It's not a grass roots movement is it? It's being applied from the highest levels upon the people.

So what did she do all day for work? If there are no trans people at your site, and that is where she saw her job, did she just sit and twiddle her thumbs all day? That is honestly one of the most bonkers things I have seen from a DEI perspective. And no wonder women and disability are shoved out of the way.

The influence of Stonewall must have had an effect too although I think it was a bit of a chicken and egg situation. (Someone more knowledgable must have the facts) Once the notion that trans inclusion was a worthwhile area, Stonewall declared itself an expert and created its champions programme. Companies found an easy way of showing how inclusive they could be and none of them wanted to be the last to the party. Once large and influential institutions such as the BBC and the NHS were signed up, the message became all pervasive.

at the risk of painting the activism really much blacker than it really is (at least for a lot of the "useful idiots" who go along with it all) i trace a lot of it back to people like Michel (very very sinister) Foucault and the PIE stuff of the 70s/80s.

I think people nod and "agree" (with a lot of chin stroking) with Foucault really don't understand what they are agreeing with because his prose is (intentionally?) very dense and difficult to parse and it gives kudos to chuck his name around willy nilly. Because as ane fule kno Foucault is difficult to understand - ergo if you "understand" you are Very Clever Indeed

There's an enormous financial benefit to the promotion of gender ideology if you're an American healthcare company, pharmaceutical company.
The ideology took hold in North America first and foremost.
I wouldn't be surprised if Stonewall was captured by the pharmaceutical and medical industry before their mission to capture every corporation in Britain with their ideology.

Creating the idea of a "trans child" was a sick move and every stock exchanger who invested in that idea was gambling on it paying out for them in the long run. It was a huge new money maker at the expense of women and children.

She had an actual job, the equality stuff was something she’d volunteered for as an extra role.

Have you written a paper that you could send to the RIBA? Not explicitly dealing with the gender issues but for member CPD if changes are going to be made at least understand what the needs are? It’s very much a “gentleman’s” profession so the do need reminders

Agree. When we have these people shouting about disability rights and women’s rights, I’ll agree with rainbow flags.

I have written a paper but unfortunately they wouldn’t like it. It focuses on design and the problems of what happens in reality in schools.

‘The school specific brief is for technical professionals involved in the design and construction of school premises. It will initially be populated at Feasibility Stage (RIBA stages 1-2 (part)), developed and refined during Procurement Stage (RIBA stages 3-4), when it will become integral to the Building Contract as Part C of the Employer’s Requirements.’

The school specific brief says:

(won’t add photo I will try again)

This is why some schools have unisex toilets only. And washing hands in the circulation space (bloody hands or washing period stains out are obviously not considered). You have to justify why you are not having standard floor to ceiling cubicles (there will be children with diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions in every secondary school so I think the justification should be the other way round).

This has been the specification for years for new and refurbished toilet blocks in schools.

Interestingly I found out it is non statutory but it’s listed under ‘Employers requirements’ so it sounds like it is.

I have never come across any risk assessments for these designs. The DfE say they don’t hold them. Safety is never mentioned within toilets sections. It’s all about privacy within the cubicle.