How do you handle gender identity disagreements within a long-standing social group?

[GuinevereOfTheRoyalCourt]

I am very firmly of the opinion that no child can be 'transgender', and that instead we should just embrace the fact that some are gender non-conforming and allow them to express themselves however they choose. I view the use of puberty blockers, x-sex hormones and 'gender-affirming' surgery on children as immoral.

I have participated in a club (my hobby) for many years which mostly includes middle-aged women of a similar age with teenage children. I have been aware for some time (at least 4 years) that one of the women probably had a trans child because of snippets of conversations that I've overheard and generic WhatsApp posts about trans rights.

Anyway, during a recent social gathering - one of the other ladies enquired about the child and it was clear that they have been transitioned for some time but are still only mid-teens. The mother of this child (who I've always got on with well in a superficial small-talk way) is clearly of a very similar mindset to Susie Green. I was quite horrified about what she was saying, but I sat in complete silence. All the other ladies were being really sympathetic and supportive.

This has really played on my mind. I hate confrontations and I really don't want to have any fallings out as this club is really important to me. However, I feel terrible that no other opinion was being expressed and that my silence effectively makes me complicit in the harm of a child.

How do other people deal with this sort of situation? I can't help feeling that most people don't even give much thought to this issue (hence the supportive voices from everyone else) and that we'll only stop this happening if they get to hear the 'other side'. But how can that happen if people like me feel too afraid to speak up?

I imagine that “dressing down” would be short on facts and logic and big on emotional blackmail.

Most of these people don’t have any clue what people think outside of the rarefied air in their filter bubbles.

In my opinion you should never criticise anyone’s parenting (or driving) if you want to stay friends.
If you feel that your opinion will have any influence at all and that they genuinely won’t have struggled with this horrible situation at all they by all mean tell them your opinion. However, if you want to keep your hobby which seems important to you, probably best to say nothing

One's benign opinions can be another's dressing down particularly when they have deluded themselves into believing that:

A. They are an 'expert' when they are spectacularly unqualified
B. They know everything about the person they are attempting to lecture
C. That their own personal subjective values don't qualify as facts & lastly
D. That their uninvited opinionated inexpert judgements on highly volatile matters are appropriate or welcome at social gatherings.

This can come quite as a 'shock' to the system to the terminally arrogant…

Yes… But this is where conversation comes in. Being genuinely curious about people’s opinions and what they are grounded in.

Yes people have ‘opinions’ where by rights they don’t have enough information to validly hold one, but by asking open questions we can genuinely find out what’s going on - which might be “ I’m just focused on doing what needs to be done to get through this.”

Well, no, a “dressing down” is a reprimand, a telling off, delivered aggressively.

I assume you would feel justified in delivering “the dressing down of someone’s life” because you are certain that your point of view is correct, and their opinions are invalid.

So that's how works does it?

A virtual stranger should be able to exploit a social situation to ignorantly accuse another parent of incompetent dangerous parenting & waltz off into the sunset with nary a whisper back?

They should be able to unjustifiably aggressively attack another parent on the rearing of their children according to their own subjective uneducated beliefs & not expect any vigorous push back all because 'opinions are sacred'?

If you can dish it out….

The irony of this thread being a big cry about censorship is breathtaking.

As the OP says she has known these women fir many years, they are not "virtual strangers"

They are acquaintances not personal friends so no they don't each other well.

Yes, what with Bailey appearing to imagine that those of us who understand how evidence works, or science, or our own history, or that the evidence is overwhelmingly against gender ideology, and also understand UK equality law and the history of women's rights and have spent the last decade or so actually following the facts, the multiple court cases, know anything about child psychology, care about vulnerable kids or women, or understand class dynamics and abuse dynamics, have "just read a couple of social media posts" and are "spectacularly" uninformed. Which Bailey couldn't possibly be themselves, of course. Nor is Bailey displaying any of the arrogance of which they complain or making completely false assumptions. Naturally.

At the same time, in the OP's situation, I don't think going into a long lecture about your opinions in a social setting would be helpful as any parent of a trans identifiying child is going to be in a difficult situation. Again, I wouldn't avoid giving elements of my opinion if asked, but unasked for opinions are, in general, a social no-no and likely to result in doubling down, because why wouldn't it. It's not your job to 'educate' people you think or know are wrong. The cancer analogy is a good one.

I'd probably, if it came up, sympathise with the difficult situation she's in, look for any possible points of genuine shared agreement if pressed for my opinion (there should be quite a lot; after all, "gender critical" in the UK and what it actually means has been wildly misrepresented by TRA activists). Like "Yes, pressure to fit sex stereotypes is awful isn't it?" or about the difficulties or being a teen or parenting teens in general, without sounding like you're giving a lecture series. It's not your job.

If, however, you've got a Bailey type who will be tripping over themselves to falsely accuse you of 'bigotry and hate', lie about you and get you bulllied and ostracised, yeah, I'd probably keep my views to myself. People like that do not behave in rational ways.

YOUR arrogance is breathtaking, tbh.

Also your assumption of others' ignorance. You don't have the first clue of what other people know.

Have you always behaved like this towards people who disagree with you on things they may actually well know WAY more than you about?

As I said. People heavily involved in genderwoo do not necessarily behave in rational ways.

I 'know' because the OP isn't a professional expert in the field nor does she appear to have any knowledge of the woman's journey she's so keen to lecture on so I'm afraid the arrogance is all hers.

And yeah Ive always been a stickler for deferring to expertise rather than arm chair dilettantes.

I'm losing track.

Who's dressing down who and who's lecturing who? I don't think either is appropriate in a social setting.

Who is being berated for thinking they know better than medical experts? The parent who is making reference to medical experts by e.g. mentioning Cass? Or the parent who is going to a clinic abroad to get their child treatments that the medical experts in this country, after an in depth review of the evidence, have banned outside a clinical study?

If they actually are. OP says Susie-Green-esque which would suggest this sort of thing, but asking some open questions if they bring the topic up again you might find out more about where they're actually coming from. If the parent in question is also concerned about the results of the Cass report then they for sure won't take any offence at its being mentioned. If they think Cass is biased they probably won't mind the opportunity to say so either. But they've shown everyone in the room that it is them ignoring expert medical knowledge. Retreat to common ground like asking how the DC is feeling now. Job done.

Who is being berated for thinking they know better than medical experts? The parent who is making reference to medical experts by e.g. mentioning Cass? Or the parent who is going to a clinic abroad to get their child treatments that the medical experts in this country, after an in depth review of the evidence, have banned outside a clinical study?

The Cass report like most European countries did not ban puberty blockers but restricted its usage to research candidates who are more likely to maintain their trans identity long term. They all effectively agree there's enough evidence to justify further usage under research conditions not to mention many esteemed medical associations globally are highly critical of the report that's clearly been subject to politicisation. So no its not the slam dunk you think it is.

Misinformation by the unqualified is the reason why advice on contentious medical issues is best left to the experts. See: vaccines.

I keep my opinions to myself, even though I am GC. Because I have not gone through their traumatic situation and have no idea how I would cope with it in reality. Theory is fine until faced with real life.

I know a few transparents and they are all very supportive of their children's. They are good, intelligent people and I can only assume that they made the decision not to confront their child because the alternative was even more drastic. I have not walked a single step in their shoes so I am in no position to judge or comment.

Interestingly I know the trans son of one mother who I've never met, but her ex-daughter ranted to me about how transphobic the mother was. The mother behaved exactly as I think I would behave. Carefully explained to her daughter that it's fine to crop your hair, live in jeans and DMs, love wild camping and geology, hate makeup and skirts, change your name if you like. That none of these define your gender. But her daughter was insistent that these proved she was a man. No amount of reassurance altered her state and she became estranged from someone who seemed like a reasonable and loving parent.

Like I say, banned outside a clinical study. Cass says very clearly and multiple times that there are few good quality studies and no good evidence base of either benefits or detriments of the treatments. Yes she recommends a study to get some better data. Can't find the quote, but I believe she said at some point that this is despite the poor evidence base because some people feel so strongly about it. She also says the data linkage study should be pushed through. Neither of these things have happened yet. (I say she because it has her name on, I know it's a whole team's work really.)

Cass on puberty blocker prescription in the UK:
"The adoption of a medical treatment with
uncertain risks, based on an unpublished trial
that did not demonstrate clear benefit, is a
departure from normal clinical practice."

That is the medical equivalent of a judicial expression of "surprise".

No one in the scenario of the OP is dressing any one down

Baileys suggested that if they were faced with someone expressing an opinion on the subject that opposed their own (presumably RSOH and virtuous) opinion, they would deliver to that person the “dressing down of their lives”.

Not everyone agrees that delivering a dressing down to others is helpful to discourse.

OP, I’m not sure why you feel being silent would contribute to the harm of a child.
Do you really believe that the mother truly can stop it? She does need support , not silent criticism

This is what I mean about laymen misinterpreting the nuances of scientific research.

"In an interview with The New York Times in May 2024, Cass said that US doctors were 'out of date' on gender care. However, she also expressed concern that her review was being weaponized to suggest that trans people do not exist, saying "that's really disappointing to me that that happens, because that's absolutely not what we're saying." She also clarified that her review was not about defining what trans means or rolling back health care, stating "There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access — under a research protocol, because we need to improve the research — but not assume that that's the right pathway for everyone."[31]"

Ultimately, the systemic review of one country doesn't make for scientific consensus particularly if there's political interference involved & methodological flaws. It is simply another piece of the puzzle to be considered that experts are positioned best to draw conclusions.

Depends on the scenario. Is there social utility in reprimanding bullies rather than just looking the other way & pretending their oh so civilised weaselling ignorant attacks on the vulnerable cloaked in concern & faux expertise qualifies on the same level as constructive discussion or 'support'?

If there's no social cost for anti social behaviour then it just perpetuates. That's why social costs exist: Social utility.

Calling out unhelpful & bad faith approaches is a necessary part of maintaining enlightening discussions. Without that we regress into the animal kingdom.

That none of these define your gender. But her daughter was insistent that these proved she was a man. No amount of reassurance altered her state and she became estranged from someone who seemed like a reasonable and loving parent.

Perhaps the point you were missing is this individual was making a categorical classification based on social associations. That is, his personal presentation/expressions/inclinations/behaviours have more in common with those of men than women on average & as such considered themselves more associated to the category of men than women.

The problem with GC ideology is that it assumes this isn't a values based discussion when it is. That material facts exist doesn't necessarily give them primacy over the non material when it comes to categorisations because they are arbitrary human constructs often based on values. Individuals being individuals understand the world in different ways & as such form their values according to that. Whilst gender critical proponents consider reproductive characteristics as a defining feature of what distinguishes men from women some others don't & they wouldn’t be wrong because sexual characteristics aren't the only way men are distinguished from women socially.

Ultimately, its values that decides a category here so there's no right or wrong.

Like I say, just mention Cass and people's positions become very clear.

The blind faith in some people’s perception of how important others view their opinion makes me chuckle.