Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

[MarcTheGenderSkeptic]

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

Not for the first time I tip my hat to those who have the patience to deal with the genderborg and the eloquence on this topic that I lack. And although I appreciate why @FlirtsWithRhinos said "(S)he", I'd lay money down that the (S) isn't necessary.

I mean, one of them the other day as we perused the Ed Sheeran MackleLess debacle, checked out Omnicause after hearing about it for the first time, came back and pretty much accused me of every crime on humanity going.
I have terrible taste in music, and still haven't written that romantic poem I promised my wife, but 100% Omnicause crim? Really?
As the culture war both embeds and expands, and it becomes more and more impossible to reconcile with the other side, maybe I'm going to finally learn the most important lesson, and say "fuck it!".
Right now, whether trans, or even borders/foreign criminals, any nuanced view on the Gaza war etc, there's no oxygen to even breathe, let alone discuss.

If you're ever tempted to believe that there's some "nuance" you may have missed because you're not clever enough, just remember Dr Upton making nasty little notes to himself about any nurse who dared to wait outside the room until he had finished changing.

I've been searching for "nuance" from the TRA side for over 11 years now, if it's there, I missed it.
Maybe the nuance is as non-existent as the explanations for TWAW.
There's no nuance, and no big idea. Leaving nothing.
Certainly not even a middle ground.

Me too. Occasionally I'll bite, and point out the anti child safeguarding beliefs involved in their posts etc but generally I can't be bothered.

One interesting thing to do is to select one of the tedious phrases posters use and run it through AS. It quickly identifies the other posters who've used it and gives you a name change history. Just in case you're tempted to buy into the "I'm a GC mother of 3 cake baker" narrative. 😀

Well, doctors are always writing notes.
But normally, only during a consultation. Not in his spare time.
Imagine that, you stay away without saying anything or complaining, and you <still> go in his Little Black Book, like something out of the Cultural Revolution or McCarthy witch hunts.

Oh, there's plenty of nuance, it's just it all goes one way.

Every time nuance is invoked, you know it's going to be another hypothetical scenario we where we need for some reason to be more nuanced than a simple "men aren't women, not unless you change what the word woman means, and that has follow-on consequences that are not great for the female half of humanity" and agree that some men of course should be exceptions and treated as women.

Because they've have surgery, because they act as much like a woman as a woman does, because they are too pretty to be safe in the men's, because if we don't we are agreeing with a bioessentialist view of women, because there's so few really so what does it really matter if we all pretend a few men are women and it means so much to them, because they were puberty-blocked and never developed into adult men, because if you knew my friend/child you'd never agree they should be forced to use the men's, because it's only local sports, because because because...

because women don't really matter in our own right, not enough to have a firm boundary. Everything must be up for negotiation in case a greater need arises.

Nuance is another word that has lost meaning in discussions about supporting female single sex provisions. It is just like ‘inclusive’, ‘tolerant’, and ‘kind’. Add in ‘complex’ and you are getting the ide.

I find too often the person using the term is someone demanding that we accept a group of male people into female single sex provisions. For reasons just like those that Flirts mentions.

Sometimes we see people who are proposing that philosophical theories are considered based in material reality when they are not at all based in material reality. At this stage, I can only believe that the idea that it is ‘nuanced’ is to wedge open concepts that are not nuanced in any way to destabilise that concept so that a group of male people can get their demands met.

Handy. I can usually spot the posting style but I never thought of this. Thanks 😁

There is its called 'twin studies'.

Your turn to provide causal evidence that behaviour is exclusively the result of social conditioning.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2899491/

Still waiting for evidence that gender, socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions, and identities that a given society considers appropriate for men, women and other gender identities doesn’t exist…..

Remember, the stuff GC's like to bang on about as 'stereotypes'.

https://www.sex-matters-news.org/p/sex-lies-and-statistics

You forgot JK Rowling in that illustrious list of 'feminists' enabling/ushering in the ascendance of the New Right & all their feminist friendly policies.

A thing is what it does….

And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It’s quite funny really, it’s like this some of these posters are on transmit, but forgot to turn the receive function on.

What do I "learn" from her? That female is the natal sex class but women is the social construct class, open to those males who ID as women.

You 'interpreted' incorrectly as usual. As already linked upthread 'woman' is BOTH a sociological & biological sex concept because it carries both social associations of behavioural & reproductive biology. Female is a biological sex concept.

woman
noun
uk
/ˈwʊm.ən/ us
/ˈwʊm.ən/
plural women uk
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/ us
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/
Add to word list
A1 [ C ]
an adult female human being:
She's a really nice woman.
A woman and two men were arrested the day after the explosion.
Women first got the vote in Britain in 1918.
She is Ireland's first woman (= female) president.

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been considered to have a different sex at birth:
Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
transgender woman Marie is a transgender woman (= she was considered to be male at birth).

Lol, 'nuance critique' has long been a right wing talking point. When your bread & butter relies on over simplified thinking (read: appeals to emotion/agit prop) 'nuance' kinda gets in the way.

TBH @Northernlightsss the people I know who tend to over use the word nuance are left leaning. I had a friend who is very ‘left leaning’ -her words to describe her self - who uses the word nuance about most things. Most recently about the Jason Arday case. Apparently it was complex and nuanced.

She does the same about the small boats - apparently we need to understand the nuance as to why they are desperately wanting to come to England.

She is a very lovely person but sits on the fence about so many things, including the trans situation. When I say she sits on the fence what I mean is she goes along with what seems to be the ‘right’ or popular thing to say.

She used to be a raging quite angry man hating feminist. Then the trans phenomena came along and she is uber sympathetic to all the men who now present as women. She works with one who she will defend to the hilt including using the women’s bathroom. Apparently there are very ‘nuanced’ reasons he cannot use the men’s room.

This 'nuance' is never actually explained apart from 'you're all too stupid to see it'.

It never is nuance though is it? It is just 'let me/n do what we/they want and shut the fuck up about it'. Every time.

Reading this again, there really has seemed to be, yet again, an inability to read and consider the links that have been posted to check even fhe basic logic and veracity of the papers.

The paper discusses ‘growing confidence’ in papers that now have shifted from merely exploring a relationship to positing reasons why something happens. But having read this one where it really is still distancing itself from drawing conclusions, I wonder if it isn’t a group of academics simply bolstering each other’s efforts with overstatements.

For instance, observations on female people with CAH is being used as a blueprint for this theory. I don’t see any indication in the paper of understanding that one of the significant health side effects of CAH is reduced fertility. So, making this observation :

”First, androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems)”

rather dubious. If they are measuring this group of female people against the general female population, an immediately obvious need for verification is to determine the impact for fertility.

I don’t believe I read either where the author team did more than acknowledge that socialisation for female and male children began as soon as a child realised what sex they were. For example, the female twin of a male and female set of twins may well also be mirroring not just the significant older people in their life, but also their twin. The supposed control being family situations with non-twin brothers. Yet, twins are treated together a great deal more than non twin siblings and I don’t see any acknowledgement of this. Describing an interest in things over people in female twins will no doubt be influenced by interaction with the twin, yet is being theorised that it must be testosterone influence in utero.

So to the generalisations about female people being attracted to particular occupations. A statement such as “sex differences in occupational choices (e.g., male-predominance in science and engineering, female-predominance in social service) appear to be driven in part by androgen effects on interest in things versus people” is interesting but until socialisation of children can be considered identical and not influenced by sex based differences, they will never come close to being proven. Having read much over the decades about the split between the sexes in occupations, I have never really seen an adequate analysis of the nature vs conditioning and sexism from birth.

Yet, here is a team who is very happily making observations that they really have not evidenced.

But apparently, this is an excellent source of information and a solid support for ”cognitive & psychological traits”* *being biologically influenced by the sex of a human rather than environmental influence.

I think again this poster has again failed to produce evidence that supports the theories they seem desperately to want to be true.

Another paper just plopped down. Do you ever read them and analyse them, or do you just grab them off an AI search and hope that the study says what you want it to?

If we don’t have a list of them, how are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion about them?

If you cannot provide a list, how then is society intended to define whether some person’s subjective belief about their personal identity is at all valid, or just a wish to be this gender they have claimed?

You keep mentioning these traits as something of substance to defend your position, yet can never provide anything more than an abstract concept. Yet society is expected to embrace this concept as if it is material and evidenced.

It became "prominent" for the same reason the gay movement became prominent, because there's a consistent minority of people who are trans and they started to demand legal recognition, better health care and freedom from discrimination. This was building for a long while and no one was really bothered in the UK until the moral panic sparked by proposed reforms to the gender recognition act, and the birth of the "gender critical movement". The GC movement was very successful in gaining cross political support since it united right wing social illiberals (anti lgbt in general) and many left wing feminists concerned about the impact on women - feminism being already very mainstream at that point.

You realise that the first women discussing this issue were feminists particularly left leaning ones.

The reason there is support across the political parties is also because it is a deep and wide ranging issue that impacts female people from all political views.

This group of male people have the same rights as everyone else in the Uk. Can you articulate the ‘rights’ that this group lack? Of is it a list of additional privileges that that believe they should have that are not available to anyone else?

In the UK it became 'prominent' because Stonewall ran the risk of not being funded any more after equal marriage was given in law. The then CEO Ruth Hunt made a decision, against many of the people in Stonewall at the time, because it was a lucrative market for them.

They then hit upon the 'Diversity Index' to sell training on diversity, and to grade companies that signed up; against their own set of objectives and then awarded them prizes for being top. Hence companies removing the words Stonewall wanted removing from all their documentation as it gave them extra Stonewall Points.

This implementation went on in different ways across different countries but all with the same points based agenda.

The benefits of the points is that the national government organisations and charities giving out contracts and funding were also signed up because of the requirements of people like Blackrock, who dished out money in turn to governments who also had to tick diversity boxes to carry on getting funding.

This is not a grass roots movement, it is a corporate funding and money driven operation that is backed by many men who hate women, do not want womens rights, and some who pretend they are women. Like the Pritzers, who originally funded Obama who implemented it in the USA. Backed in turn by the people who make money selling drugs which include puberty blockers and cross sex hormones.

It is a very neat way of limiting womens rights whilst pretending to be 'right on' and 'down with the kids' and 'progressive'.

Its like you've not read any threads on here in the last decade.

I already listed several key rights in my post — for example, legal recognition, access to healthcare, freedom from discrimination. respect for human dignity would be another.

These aren’t additional or special rights being claimed for trans people. They are basic rights that apply to everyone. The point is that securing those rights in practice may require different protections or provisions for different groups, because different minorities face different barriers.

Equality doesn’t mean pretending everyone has identical needs. It means ensuring that universal rights are genuinely accessible to everyone.