Every element of the current situation was planned

[colourmystic]

I realised today, reading about a Japanese rape crisis centre being shut down because its chair is 'transphobic', that none of this is accidental.
Every supporting element was selected and implemented to make women more anxious, more at risk, more disempowered, more isolated, more ashamed of critical thinking, more focused on survival, and less likely to self-advocate, to report rape or abuse, less likely to hold positions of power.
The architects of current gender ideology are doubtless very satisfied with how it's going.
*I probably don't have the details of the Japanese rape crisis centre specifically accurate, it doesn't really make much difference. The end result, planned, is the same.
This has been a bit earth-shattering for me. I was told years ago that the foundations were laid ages ago in the Yogyakarta Principles, and I thought the teller was being a bit wild. They were absolutely correct, and now I'm two years behind where I should be in this work.

Fuck.

Have you read the Dentons report?

They didn't plan for Maya, JKR (and many others) or Mumsnet though did they 🥰

No. Been inactive for a while (homeless, working, child and dog). Could you give me a real quick orientation?

I'm glad that you seem positive :) That's cool and I like it.

https://whatisawoman.uk/TheDentonsdocument/

To give an example, this was being pushed in the shadows by a multinational law firm with considerable reach:

In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection

Wonder if Dentons or Yogyakarta was first. Will research. Thanks :)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

James Kirkup in the Spectator

His final sentence:

I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/

'Two years after the GRA was passed, a set of 29 guiding rules on recognition and treatment of LGBT people were laid down at a meeting in Indonesia. The “Yogyakarta Principles” demanded that a person’s self-defined gender identity be legally recognised without the need for medical treatment, transforming the GRA from obscure British legislation to a minimum standard for the entire world.

The Principles were drafted and signed by a group of lawyers, human rights experts and trans rights activists, including Robert Wintemute, professor of human rights law at King’s College London. Since then Wintemute has had second thoughts. He says women’s rights were not considered during the meeting and that he should have challenged some aspects of the Principles. Admitting he “failed to consider” that trans women still in possession of their male genitals would seek to access female-only spaces, Wintemute, who is gay, says: “A key factor in my change of opinion has been listening to women.”
...
'Having considered the Principles’ implications for women, Wintemute says he should have challenged references to “self-defined gender identity” and to “changes to identity documents [being] recognised in all contexts” in Principle 3. “If I had thought through the implications of Principle 3,” says Wintemute, “I would have had to consider the potential for conflict with women’s rights, but I didn’t.” Neither, so far as he knows, did anyone else at the meeting at which the Principles were drafted. “Women’s rights weren’t raised.”'

Yeah, found that. Kirkup good?

Ooh. I note that Wintemute has a book that's due out imminently.

https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Robert-Wintemute/Transgender-Rights-vs-Womens-Rights--From-Conflicts-to-Co-Existence/30372784

Kirkup has been sound on this issue for years.

Gee, Wintermute. Your staggering obliviousness to the idea that maybe women could have been consulted, is marginally less rage-inducing than your mealy-mouthed chagrin. Also, Wintermute, I sure hope you wouldn't knock back a transman as a potential partner. We all learned that that's transphobic in our mandated work Thought Reform camps.

That said though, I don't think there's an overriding conspiracy. I think that for a number of reasons culture and society has undergone sudden and wide changes, with some of them overshooting what the public would be happy with, and in this chaotic situation there are many many abusers who have been thrilled to exploit gaps and sought to erode safeguarding, and because it's happened over a relatively short timeframe, and separate efforts appear to have worked in concert, it can sometimes look like it was all planned.

Yogyakarta was certainly a significant moment, but those pushing through the GRA in a form which deliberately created confusion did so in 2004. They have also openly admitted, even at that stage, to having an agenda of deliberate secrecy and of pushing to give the broadest possible brush they could for expansion of who could get one. This attempted coup has been very thoroughly planned.

Their attempt to get self-ID pushed through in the UK was where it started to go wrong. They had lied about the EA for years, effectively bringing in self-ID through the back door, and bringing the law into line with their “getting ahead of the law” as they called it, was meant to be the coup-de-grace for women’s rights.

They reckoned without us though. Grassroots women objected so effectively that self-ID was sidelined. We’re not out of the woods yet, but it’s a lot better than it could have been.

Of course. The Supreme Court (contrary to what has been said) is the ultimate arbiter of the law in the UK and its judgement is very powerful. Politicians make the law and can change it but I think it's extremely unlikely that they will. All the noise about removing "transohobic influences" at the EHRC, interpreting other acts differently and overruling the Supreme Court is just that - noise.

No 💪

One massive benefit from the Supreme Court case is that with all of the shrieking against it, and off-the-scale demands to make it go away, when the genderists start producing a more coherent message they can be asked, in front of the public, "OK, you want something else, tell us what it is you want?"

There's been precious little of them presenting their demands openly and I'm not convinced the public will be that keen if they get to hear them.

Hi colourmystic, it looks like you've had a lot on your plate and I hope things are going well for you now

I think you've picked a reasonably good time to engage with this again - there was a time when it seemed bleak bleak bleak but Kinsters is right, there have been some heroic pushbacks, and some significant legal decisions, so it feels like the tide is turning at last, in the UK anyway. Having the highest court in the land ruling - 88 pages!- that 'woman' means 'biological woman' is both ridiculous [that they even had to🙄] and great [because it backs up the gender-critical line].

I'm really impressed that they managed not to write 'DUH!' every time they wrote 'woman' means 'biological woman'

Dentons is spooky - OK so maybe the trans thing wasn't a conspiracy dreamt up in a nerve-centre carved into a cliff somewhere, but nonetheless when you read the Dentons document it is uncanny how you can practically tick off the tactics used.

nauticant is probably closer to the truth. 'Stuff happens', and there have been points in history where a number of things happen at once, and they combine to produce an unpredictable outcome. Sometimes that gives an opportunity for people with an agenda to move in and take advantage, and the trans campaigners certainly did that😠

The only disappointment I felt with the Supreme Court ruling was the conflation of people with a GRC and those without, regardless of how long their transition journey has been. Although perhaps that is deliberate and actually emphasises that a. Some trans people could be at day one and have done nothing except move into opposite sex spaces, and b. no matter what has been done, or how many years ago, no one changed sex.

Yes, I don't have evidence that it was all designed. I mean, such evidence would be all but impossible to obtain, for hundreds of reasons. I don't consider it a conspiracy, but rather a strategic, multi-stage, planned operation with the end goal of removing what human rights women have managed to carve out in the last hundred years.
I consider its secondary goals to include: the justification of gross medical experimentation on a large, vulnerable, live test population, satisfying the medical backers; the creation of permanently infantile and infertile young people, satisfying the p.phyle backers; the silencing of a massive cohort of troublesome citizens, satisfying the political backers; and the opportunity to further separate reproductive choice and capacity from women, making all those men who lost custody of their kids for being assholes feel a bit better about themselves.
There are other, collateral outcomes desired by various other parties. In my view.

Wintemute has since publically and vocally stood up for the rights of women and gay and lesbian people.

It must have taken an enormous amount of courage and integrity to do so.

I am worried that in NZ the ‘global conspiracy’ angle to all this in the more visible GI protest groups is getting a lot of traction. There is all sorts of guff about the UN and how this was all orchestrated by them etc etc. A lot if the Covid conspiracists have moved onto this issue. Our government was text book in passing self ID unanimously through parliament in the middle of the Covid storm and women who spoke at select committees warning about the implications for our rights were laughed out of the building by some very ignorant female MPs. Now that the effects of medicalisation and men in women’s sports and changerooms are being felt, people are feeling very betrayed that the debate was never properly had - because the media shut down all the moderate voices on the GC side of this.

Yogyakarta was certainly a significant moment, but those pushing through the GRA in a form which deliberately created confusion did so in 2004. They have also openly admitted, even at that stage, to having an agenda of deliberate secrecy and of pushing to give the broadest possible brush they could for expansion of who could get one. This attempted coup has been very thoroughly planned.

Some more background here: this is an excerpt from Christine Burns' book 'Pressing Matters' (Burns is a male transsexual whose group Press for Change was largely responsible for the GRA being passed in 2004.)

‘Our successes as a campaign were grounded in progress made for people who fitted the clinical definition of transsexual. At the heart of this was a tacit understanding that people in positions of power might be persuaded to change laws for people with some kind of clinically underwritten status – something they couldn’t help being. This is why ‘Transsexualism – The Medical Viewpoint’ was seen as strategically important and why all the key court cases had rehearsed the developing scientific understanding of a basis for us being born or developing this way. It was also why the government would expect to include a medical definition of ‘transsexual’ in the forthcoming employment protections they planned to consult upon.

‘We knew in our hearts at that time that policymakers and judges weren’t yet sophisticated enough in their understanding to contemplate rights for people whose difference appeared self-identified or impermanent or maybe even optional. That didn’t mean we weren’t going to try where possible. There was a valid freedom of expression case to be made for people to be able to present in whatever way they wish. But we were also pragmatists, careful not to frighten the horses at this early stage. (Note, however, that in the Equality Act 2010 – which replaced the Sex Discrimination Act – the requirement for having been medically diagnosed was finally removed).

I found this excerpt here (it's worth reading the whole piece):
The Trans Umbrella Is Older Than You Think – Women Speak Scotland

Interesting. Am I to infer that you also think this colossal shitshow was all very intentional, and that its current state is the result of long machination?

Wasn't there something about the Obamas and the Pritzkers that meant that the Democrats were completely on board with this movement right at the start? And the Beaumont society in the UK? More knowledgeable people than me should be able to add info.