Today it's Amnesty Internation on Woman's Hour to discuss the Supreme Court judgment

[nauticant]

With Anita Rani. I am not expecting much in the way of challenges.

@Christinapple Hello again. I previously invited you to comment on the linked thread but you ignored me. Why not take a look & see what all the fuss is?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5332492-why-arent-you-getting-changed-man-asks-female-darlington-nurse-this-3-times-in-female-changeroom

It ought to be illegal.

Spot on. I always remember something I read or heard from Dr Az Hakeem who said he didn’t believe gender dysphoria was a MH condition in its own right but rather a symptom of something else. Everything I see, hear or read from trans people themselves only confirms this belief for me. It is well documented at this point that there are numerous co-morbidities and contexts which go along with being ‘trans’ in all its different flavours. Autism, depression, anxiety, OCD, eating disorders, trauma, internalised homophobia, body dysmorphia, and of course paraphilias. There is ALWAYS something else going on which is what makes all the hormonal and surgical treatments so horrifying. This approach should surely be an absolute last resort.

Wow Sacha doesn’t like women much does he? I had stopped donating to Amnesty International a few years ago when I became of their views on this topic as well as prostitution. This has further strengthened my resolve to advise anyone I know to stop giving them money. What a sorry excuse for a human rights charity.

I know a couple of girls who later identified as boys who came from families with domestic violence. Both also had mothers who seemed unable to always do what was in the best interests of the kids or had personality disorders.

The thing is, affirming their feelings of alienation from their female bodies is neither kind, nor good medicine - it won't help them heal, quite the opposite. It's really setting them up for bigger emotional problems later on and then they will have the physical effects of transition to deal with.

That kind of thing is also an extremely common story at the detrans reddit if you are interested in exploring further.

JK seems to be not a stupid person and recognizes from experience that males and females have radically differernt bodies.

Their certainly are other trans people of both sexes who understand and acknowledge that they are their birth sex and that creates limits.

KJ is also likely an AGP motivated transitioner, and a lot of women think that it's an outlook that essentially sees womanhood as a kind of sexual costume and is in itself misogynistic, or that in any case sexually motivated cross dressing needs to be kept private.

People are often complicated. Someone can be basically trying to be fair without much insight into his own sexual behaviour, IMO. Especially when society is really encouraging the self-delusion.

Stephanie Davis Arai of Transgender Trend, who has received thousands of emails from worried parents and children, has said she has yet to see a child who doesn't want to transition either because of past sexual trauma, homophobia, or they are autistic.

We know the Tavistock whistleblower said they were 'transing away the gay'. We know that autism is massively over represented amongst trans people. It's not much of a leap to realise that this is being marketed as a solution for a whole slew of problems.

It's fucking cynical. And it's actually disguising all the problems. Deliberately.

Adult transitioners need 'trans children' to justify their adult status.

Every word of this is the truth. A generation of kids have been manipulated in the most sinister way and so many now with permanent damage. I just cannot understand how the medical profession and successive governments allowed this abuse in plain sight and for so long.

And

a) how did all the late transitioners we now see (‘oddly’ almost all male) survive to their 50s and 60s before getting access to hormones and surgery?
And

b) why do there appear to be no suicides linked with ‘trans’ by kids prior to the 2000s?
and bonus question

c) where are the equivalent numbers of female late transitioners that correspond in proportion with the huge current cohort of young girls?

Having separate threads for the different days seems to have worked well so I've set up a separate thread for LGBA today:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5337804-its-monday-and-so-its-lgb-alliance-on-womans-hour-to-discuss-the-supreme-court-judgment

Maybe we could ask nicely for a new programme on R4. Cis Woman's Hour? As long as we promise to be kind...

Only just heard that interview. Oh my God it was dreadful! Really thick, incoherent, inconsistent, deliberately vague, utter jumbled thinking nonsense.

And when he came out with crap like, ' well we need proper safeguarding in place.'
Does he not realise single sex spaces ARE a safeguarding measure? Are all these men too dim to realise that?

I wish she had pointed that out to him and asked him EXACTLY what alternative safeguarding he thinks will just as effectively replace it - both in terms of physical and mental safeguarding for women (such as avoiding inducing flashback and trauma in victims of male violence).

All so depressing. But then AI’s stance on prostitution equally depressing and equally misogynistic.

I recently put c) to a friend of mine who works in HE and has accepted the TRA position on all this by default, as part of the general academic left wing political opinion package. She thought for a moment and said ‘Well there was no option to transition when they were young’. ‘No’, I said, ‘there wasn’t — the question is, why are they not transitioning now, in numbers that are at least to some degree proportionate to the numbers of teenage girls who seek to transition?’ She thought again. ‘Perhaps they don’t want to anymore.’ ‘Ok, so in that case, perhaps it’s good they didn’t in the first place given that now they have fully working reproductive systems and don’t require lifelong medical intervention?’ She got upset and said it was awful they weren’t being true to themselves. Tbh it felt like a hopeless conversation.

Well, it appears that this Sacha Deshmukh chappie who is now at Amnesty International used to work at Stonewall. If this is the pro men’s entitlements (irrespective of the cost to women) chappie from the link below. These chaps’ chappies who promulgate this anti scientific ideology do seem to be on the merry go round from one org to another.

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/sacha-deshmukh-charities-drift-negative-cultures/management/article/1862610

She needs to understand that trying to fool or coerce everyone into thinking you are the sex you aren't is the exact opposite of being true to yourself.

Gosh, he’s full of it. A career in various org’s ‘patter’ making apparently right noises, but only sounds plausible when isn’t examined too closely. Or at all really, in the case of this interview.

In fact, it is worse than that. He misrepresented things. Very confidently creating a narrative.

“Charities drift into their growth. They drift into a culture often. They drift into that culture being very negative. And then I think there’s a lot of stasis,” he says.

Says the ex-Stonewall guy. Well, he should know; they wrote the book on mission drift.

Well, it goes to the heart of the basic questions about self more broadly, doesn’t it? Is being true to one’s self a question of doing what one wants and following one’s ‘passions’ and ‘feelings’ to their fullest extent (which I think has been the philosophical drift in the west generally, and has certainly been at the core of the trans movement)? Or is rather a matter of accepting what we are more objectively and trying to make a happy life based on that truth? Which is healthier, imo, but is not the dominant framework currently.

Although I note there are groups of people excluded from being allowed to do what they want or self-identify. It's all just class privilege, IMO.

Those on disability benefit 'they should be working' etc.

Middle-aged women. Generally invisible and whose unpaid labour is assumed.

Older people 'bigoted dinosaurs who need to catch up with other people's values'.

Working class people 'the economy would collapse if salaries increased in line with cost of living'.

The people who have time for identity navel gazing are always a) middle class (or higher) b)privileged and relatively wealthy and c) have no compunction at all EVER about unilaterally imposing their views people who are working class / more vulnerable.

Absolutely. Not to mention that self identifying into alternative racial categories is forbidden, but it’s acceptable to alienate people out of their actual racial category for wrongthink by terming your offender a ‘coconut’ or similar.

Kind of interesting how on this SC ruling WH has only interviewed women for the pro-woman side and only interviewed men for the anti-woman side.

And that all women interviewed have been so well-informed, eloquent and armed with facts and evidence. Not so much for the men.

TBF he was at Stonewall for a year in the very early 2000s when it was still a charity doing sterling work for the LGB community (as it was originally set up to do). He’d left very many years prior to Ruth Hunt’s about turn on the LGB and making it all about the T.