Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 13:17

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:01

MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/09/2026 12:59

😁Do you not remember what you post on other threads? Courtesy of @MyAmpleSheep, this is what she posted to you yesterday @ 21.58 after you dominated the end of the last Sandie Peggie thread with your incessant demands that women stop using accurate and sometimes pejorative language about the behaviour of Upton;

"If you are unable to recognize your own tone policing, here it is, specifically
I don't think .... is acceptable. ...
.... I don't think that is behaviour worthy of respect in a civil discussion, and I don't think it should be tolerated on mumsnet.
I think it should be possible to discuss ... without ....
This is you trying to impose your own standards on others".

Maybe if you didn't post such a stream of demands for women to obey, you'd be better able to recall what you've posted on here? Just a thought.

i was objecting to online abuse of a real , identifiable individual.

That isn't "policing language" it's objecting to how language is being used to bully a person online. I stand by my right to object to / call out online abuse without being shamed annd ridiculed into silence.

Furthwrmore, please note, I have never objected to anyone "policing my language" I was merely pointing out the absurdity of using evidence of someone doing that to me as evidence that I was doing it to them! Utterly ridiculous.

Re- write my posts- an away why should I care?- but please don't abuse real, identifiable individuals online.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 28/09/2026 14:08

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:01

i was objecting to online abuse of a real , identifiable individual.

That isn't "policing language" it's objecting to how language is being used to bully a person online. I stand by my right to object to / call out online abuse without being shamed annd ridiculed into silence.

Furthwrmore, please note, I have never objected to anyone "policing my language" I was merely pointing out the absurdity of using evidence of someone doing that to me as evidence that I was doing it to them! Utterly ridiculous.

Re- write my posts- an away why should I care?- but please don't abuse real, identifiable individuals online.

Edited

Calling out in public a bully for being a bully, no I'm not seeing the problem at all.

OP posts:
Rollingpinofdoom · 28/09/2026 14:08

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:01

i was objecting to online abuse of a real , identifiable individual.

That isn't "policing language" it's objecting to how language is being used to bully a person online. I stand by my right to object to / call out online abuse without being shamed annd ridiculed into silence.

Furthwrmore, please note, I have never objected to anyone "policing my language" I was merely pointing out the absurdity of using evidence of someone doing that to me as evidence that I was doing it to them! Utterly ridiculous.

Re- write my posts- an away why should I care?- but please don't abuse real, identifiable individuals online.

Edited

Ooh can you pop in to Reddit and bluesky and tell them the same thing? Done of the bullying they do is dreadful. I mean, wasn’t it a TIM who said JKR should be raped with a splintery rolling pin? I do hope you called him out. Or is it just women you scold….

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 28/09/2026 14:16

Rollingpinofdoom · 28/09/2026 14:08

Ooh can you pop in to Reddit and bluesky and tell them the same thing? Done of the bullying they do is dreadful. I mean, wasn’t it a TIM who said JKR should be raped with a splintery rolling pin? I do hope you called him out. Or is it just women you scold….

I remain amazed by the reserve that GCs possess and demonstrate, on this forum, in the public sphere.
Observing the Darlington nurses, nurses Peggie and Mellie, be raked over the coals, GCs here constantly harangued by TRAs, the harrasment in public (I've seen it at LWS events).
Yet the quiet determination from this side doesn't vent into uncontrolled behaviour.
Yet <still> the likes of Lacksie wag their fingers in an attempt to tone police.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 28/09/2026 14:25

Well, once you see the dynamics you realise there is no benefit to getting emotionally invested in abusive power games.

You just get resolute, and get organised, and get on with it.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 28/09/2026 14:30

ArabellaScott · 28/09/2026 14:25

Well, once you see the dynamics you realise there is no benefit to getting emotionally invested in abusive power games.

You just get resolute, and get organised, and get on with it.

Being a woman helps here. We face these tactics all the time in real life as well.

We learn fast that an angry or emotional or even exasperated reaction even when justified 1000 times over gets treated as an instant justification to reject anything we say.

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:48

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 28/09/2026 14:08

Calling out in public a bully for being a bully, no I'm not seeing the problem at all.

Repeatedly calling someone names like "pig" and "narcissist" and linking that to their identity, is not "calling out a bully", it's simply hurling insults online. Furthermore, it was determined in a court of law, that this individual - far from "being a bully" - did absolutely no wrong.

Objecting to online abuse is not “tone policing”. It is simply pointing out that abusing a real, identifiable person, online, is not ok.

I’ll leave it there on that particular dispute, as it has nothing to do with this thread.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 28/09/2026 14:52

ArabellaScott · 28/09/2026 14:25

Well, once you see the dynamics you realise there is no benefit to getting emotionally invested in abusive power games.

You just get resolute, and get organised, and get on with it.

Don't get mad, get even.
For me, it's now been 11 years of mental investment in this dead end movement, every day another day as to how fragile the West has become, the lack of bravery and belief in truth displayed by so many.
But also 11 years of getting further and further from any interesting or sane takes.
Not that there were any to start, but precisely none today.
Woman as social construct, gender proclivities set by brain chemistry, those priorities can fit you into the woman social construct...and then, men in women's spaces doesn't turn a single sex space into a unisex space.
I mean, is that the best that motivated TRAs can really come up with?
It looks like there is, because males turning into females producing large gametes <still> hasn't been shown to happen. And no males, or females, can mimic clownfish.
Because short of that medical and scientific miracle, all that's left is "ladyfeelz".
And people genuinely prepared to burn women's rights on that pyre.

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/09/2026 15:10

FlirtsWithRhinos · 28/09/2026 14:30

Being a woman helps here. We face these tactics all the time in real life as well.

We learn fast that an angry or emotional or even exasperated reaction even when justified 1000 times over gets treated as an instant justification to reject anything we say.

Many of us are also parents and are used to parenting teenagers - young people who struggle with hearing the word no and who often believe they're omnipotent and are the centre of everyone else's world - bless them. Most of them mature, develop empathy and understand that others have needs and rights.
Some don't and sadly get attracted to authoritarian ideologies that employ bullying, intimidation and coercive control. Like gender ideology.

Occasionally they arrive on here and start issuing instructions to women.
And often get their arses handed to them on a plate 😃

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 15:29

Rollingpinofdoom · 28/09/2026 14:08

Ooh can you pop in to Reddit and bluesky and tell them the same thing? Done of the bullying they do is dreadful. I mean, wasn’t it a TIM who said JKR should be raped with a splintery rolling pin? I do hope you called him out. Or is it just women you scold….

Oh and- For the avoidance of doubt- if I was participating in an online conversation with someone and they suggested that any person "should be raped", I would publicly draw attention to the fact that their behaviour was not only beyond abhorrent but also criminal. And I would be speechless with disbelief if anyone accused me of "tone policing" , or "scolding" for doing so. Hope that clarifies .

Rollingpinofdoom · 28/09/2026 15:47

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 15:29

Oh and- For the avoidance of doubt- if I was participating in an online conversation with someone and they suggested that any person "should be raped", I would publicly draw attention to the fact that their behaviour was not only beyond abhorrent but also criminal. And I would be speechless with disbelief if anyone accused me of "tone policing" , or "scolding" for doing so. Hope that clarifies .

So that’s a yes you’re popping over or a no?

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 16:02

Rollingpinofdoom · 28/09/2026 15:47

So that’s a yes you’re popping over or a no?

Im on Reddit, haven't come across such a thing in any community I'm engaged in, but if I do, I will be sure to object and report. I'm not going to seek out to join toxic communities for the sake of it- no. Nor am I on mumsnet for such a purpose.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/09/2026 16:36

ArabellaScott · 28/09/2026 14:25

Well, once you see the dynamics you realise there is no benefit to getting emotionally invested in abusive power games.

You just get resolute, and get organised, and get on with it.

Absolutely

murasaki · 28/09/2026 16:51

Good to know FWR isn't toxic 😂😂

MyAmpleSheep · 28/09/2026 16:53

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:48

Repeatedly calling someone names like "pig" and "narcissist" and linking that to their identity, is not "calling out a bully", it's simply hurling insults online. Furthermore, it was determined in a court of law, that this individual - far from "being a bully" - did absolutely no wrong.

Objecting to online abuse is not “tone policing”. It is simply pointing out that abusing a real, identifiable person, online, is not ok.

I’ll leave it there on that particular dispute, as it has nothing to do with this thread.

Edited

I don't want to leave it here on this particular dispute.

If I think someone is a narcicist, and sexist to boot, I presume it's ok with you if I say so? What form of words is acceptable in your eyes?

"DU is a narcisist sexist pig" - not acceptable?
"DU is a narcisistic sexist man" - acceptable?

MarieDeGournay · 28/09/2026 18:16

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 14:48

Repeatedly calling someone names like "pig" and "narcissist" and linking that to their identity, is not "calling out a bully", it's simply hurling insults online. Furthermore, it was determined in a court of law, that this individual - far from "being a bully" - did absolutely no wrong.

Objecting to online abuse is not “tone policing”. It is simply pointing out that abusing a real, identifiable person, online, is not ok.

I’ll leave it there on that particular dispute, as it has nothing to do with this thread.

Edited

The fact that you can write
Furthermore, it was determined in a court of law, that this individual - far from "being a bully" - did absolutely no wrong.
suggests that you didn't follow the tribunal or read all the evidence.

For one thing, he made up a bunch of lies about a colleague neglecting patients, which would be serious professional misconduct - that is sneaky, underhand malicious and surely absolutely very wrong in anybody's book.

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:19

MarieDeGournay · 28/09/2026 18:16

The fact that you can write
Furthermore, it was determined in a court of law, that this individual - far from "being a bully" - did absolutely no wrong.
suggests that you didn't follow the tribunal or read all the evidence.

For one thing, he made up a bunch of lies about a colleague neglecting patients, which would be serious professional misconduct - that is sneaky, underhand malicious and surely absolutely very wrong in anybody's book.

The tribunal cleared DU of all wrongdoing. the tribunal did not find Dr Upton dishonest, malicious, threatening or discriminatory towards Peggie; it found DU's account of the key confrontation more reliable and found DU responded entirely appropriately.

Heggettypeg · 28/09/2026 18:21

A question:

I don't have a Twitter account, never have. If people discuss me on Twitter, I wouldn't know.
So if they discuss me rudely, am I being "bullied"? If so, how?

murasaki · 28/09/2026 18:35

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:19

The tribunal cleared DU of all wrongdoing. the tribunal did not find Dr Upton dishonest, malicious, threatening or discriminatory towards Peggie; it found DU's account of the key confrontation more reliable and found DU responded entirely appropriately.

He did however lie when he said he was a biological woman.

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:43

murasaki · 28/09/2026 18:35

He did however lie when he said he was a biological woman.

No , that was deeply meant, sincere and honest . DU is trans- speaking from a trans perspective

GailBlancheViola · 28/09/2026 18:45

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:43

No , that was deeply meant, sincere and honest . DU is trans- speaking from a trans perspective

DU is a trans ideintifying MALE, he is not female and never will be by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any Law or Statute.

Honest? You have a bizarre idea of honesty.

Helleofabore · 28/09/2026 18:46

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:43

No , that was deeply meant, sincere and honest . DU is trans- speaking from a trans perspective

It is irrelevant how deeply meant it is.

It is not a true statement describing material reality.

CassOle · 28/09/2026 18:47

Dr Upton is medically trained. He knows full well that human beings cannot change sex.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 28/09/2026 18:48

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:43

No , that was deeply meant, sincere and honest . DU is trans- speaking from a trans perspective

So, just to be clear, as long as ones words are deeply meant, scincere and honest from ones own perspective, ones words cannot be criticised no matter how deeply offensive others may find them? Is it the same with actions, out of interest?

murasaki · 28/09/2026 18:51

Lacksie · 28/09/2026 18:43

No , that was deeply meant, sincere and honest . DU is trans- speaking from a trans perspective

It was a great honking lie and you know it. He didn't say transwoman, he said biological woman. He lied.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread