Soup throwing again

Of course we can tell the difference.

I can't answer your questions, * Glorianny* unless I know what you think a woman is. I know what a woman is (an adult human female) and I can recognise one when I see one. It's not unlike being able to recognise a wolf, whether or not it is wearing sheep's clothing.

Pretending we cant differentiate between the sexes is ridiculous. Everyone knows that. It's why there was such a reaction to the Isla Bryson incident.

Doodledog

*Well he obviously thinks he knows what real women are. I'm just questioning his assumption. Not assuming anything. He keeps telling me only real women have a right to speak so he obviously knows something. Quite what I'm not sure (mind I'm not absolutely certain he is either)*

Ah, in that case he probably means female women. The ones with XX chromosomes, female organs and female bodies. The ones with lived female experience who want the right to talk about that experience without male people butting in? HTH.

The sudden inability of so many to say what a woman is has coincided with a sudden urge of others to become a woman, and a certainty that they really are women, in the face of biological evidence to the contrary. I don't have the figures, but an educated guess would suggest that these things are happening in roughly equal measure. Odd, isn't it?

So how do you suppose he applies that in real life Doodledog and how does anyone for that matter? The women you meet every day may or may not fulfil your criteria. Some of them may not want to talk about their lived experience, are they then not real women.

It is so funny that you use the expression "without male people butting in" as we were discussing a man's viewpoint.

Everyday I meet people who present as women. I accept them as women. I don't look at their chromosomes. I don't look at their organs and only look at the bits of their body on display.
So as a definition in everyday life that's a pretty useless one.

Any one who says they know what real women are is either talking about females as described by DD above or is a liar.

Well he obviously thinks he knows what real women are. I'm just questioning his assumption. Not assuming anything. He keeps telling me only real women have a right to speak so he obviously knows something. Quite what I'm not sure (mind I'm not absolutely certain he is either)

Ah, in that case he probably means female women. The ones with XX chromosomes, female organs and female bodies. The ones with lived female experience who want the right to talk about that experience without male people butting in? HTH.

The sudden inability of so many to say what a woman is has coincided with a sudden urge of others to become a woman, and a certainty that they really are women, in the face of biological evidence to the contrary. I don't have the figures, but an educated guess would suggest that these things are happening in roughly equal measure. Odd, isn't it?

Doodledog

Nobody is asking you to prove anything, but since you brought it up, on what is your assumption that 'he wouldn't call them women' based?

Well he obviously thinks he knows what real women are. I'm just questioning his assumption. Not assuming anything. He keeps telling me only real women have a right to speak so he obviously knows something. Quite what I'm not sure (mind I'm not absolutely certain he is either)

MerylStreep

Graham Linehan is only a red flag to people who’ve had a sense of humour bypass.

Father Ted and The IT Crowd are very funny. However, rather like Neil Oliver he seems to be having some sort of mid-life crisis and he's lost the plot.

No sense of humour by-pass here; humanity by-pass in Mr Linehan's house, that's for sure. I see he's indulging in a wee bit of holocaust denial this week, just for light relief.

Nobody is asking you to prove anything, but since you brought it up, on what is your assumption that 'he wouldn't call them women' based?

Doodledog

Who are the 'women he wouldn't call women'? Men?

Just women- no idea what he would call them or how he proposes to identify real women. You'd have to ask him that. I know I'm not going to prove I'm really a woman to anyone.

grannydarkhair

Video of yesterday’s Let Women Speak gathering at Speaker’s Corner. Much bigger crowd than usual, lots of policemen and only three visible TRAs.
After last week’s disruption by the TRAs and total lack of action by The Met officers who were present, Venice Allan and (I think) Julia Long had a meeting with The Met.
Various reasons have been posited as to why there was no large TRA presence yesterday -
After last week’s disruption, one of the regular male attendees at Speaker’s Corner (not connected with LWS) was enraged by what had happened, he said he and hopefully other men would stand with the women if they moved back to Speaker’s Corner. The LWS events had originally been held at Speaker’s Corner but because of the disruption/noise there always was, they had moved to another part of Hyde Park so as not to disturb others.
English Universities are now on holiday, lots of students will have left London.
The TRAs knew there was going to be a police presence who would react appropriately. There was a TRA protest held elsewhere in London yesterday, I’ve no idea if that was peaceful or otherwise.
The recent events in Australia and particularly New Zealand have made many people who were either unaware/unconcerned about Trans Ideology have now become very aware.
Posie Parker was not there today, but will be next Sunday. The Hyde Park gatherings used to be monthly, it’s planned to be a weekly gathering from now on. There are individual clips on Twitter from a few of the “well kent” faces who have been fighting to support women’s rights for a long time - e.g. Graham Linehan, Mr Menno, Aja.

www.youtube.com/live/Yun3tGCljME?feature=share

So the discussion seems to be if people turn up and protest they are stopping our right to free speech as women and if they don't it is because they are all students and off on holiday somewhere. So women are only silenced in term time????

Incidentally the old concept of Universities closing and everyone going home is a bit outdated. Lots of London students come from abroad and lots of universities now run semesters which take little account of traditional holidays

Who are the 'women he wouldn't call women'? Men?

No sense of humour bypass Graham Linehan was a funny writer and still is sometimes. He seems to have got himself embroiled in the "only some women are women" argument. Which is amusing I suppose, as I doubt very much that his perceptions of who is a woman can have been properly tested, and he may have met quite a few people who didn't meet his definition of woman. He's a bloke how would he know? And actually that is funny
A bloke who might have met women he wouldn't call women, telling women they have a right to speak, and a right to safe spaces (which they have always had anyway) That's truly mansplaining for you!!!!

Graham Linehan is only a red flag to people who’ve had a sense of humour bypass.

Graham Linehan.

Red flag right there.

Video of yesterday’s Let Women Speak gathering at Speaker’s Corner. Much bigger crowd than usual, lots of policemen and only three visible TRAs.
After last week’s disruption by the TRAs and total lack of action by The Met officers who were present, Venice Allan and (I think) Julia Long had a meeting with The Met.
Various reasons have been posited as to why there was no large TRA presence yesterday -
After last week’s disruption, one of the regular male attendees at Speaker’s Corner (not connected with LWS) was enraged by what had happened, he said he and hopefully other men would stand with the women if they moved back to Speaker’s Corner. The LWS events had originally been held at Speaker’s Corner but because of the disruption/noise there always was, they had moved to another part of Hyde Park so as not to disturb others.
English Universities are now on holiday, lots of students will have left London.
The TRAs knew there was going to be a police presence who would react appropriately. There was a TRA protest held elsewhere in London yesterday, I’ve no idea if that was peaceful or otherwise.
The recent events in Australia and particularly New Zealand have made many people who were either unaware/unconcerned about Trans Ideology have now become very aware.
Posie Parker was not there today, but will be next Sunday. The Hyde Park gatherings used to be monthly, it’s planned to be a weekly gathering from now on. There are individual clips on Twitter from a few of the “well kent” faces who have been fighting to support women’s rights for a long time - e.g. Graham Linehan, Mr Menno, Aja.

www.youtube.com/live/Yun3tGCljME?feature=share

Book of poems written by Mumsnet members, all profits will be donated to For Women Scotland.

amzn.eu/d/2UHszZT

Unsurprisingly, I agree with all of that, Rosie.

Doodledog Personally, I wouldn't let Stonewall anywhere near any of it, but as I say, I'm not an expert. I'm not an expert either but agree, and furthermore don't let Mermaids within ten miles either. Mermaids who constantly lobbied for an affirmation only route. No looking to see if there were other mental health issues that needed addressing. At least it seems the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation trust has cancelled the Mermaid training sessions it had planned. With Susie Green as their CEO and the two trustees who had to go, there has to be distrust as to its ethics and vetting processes.
You don't persist with a harmful treatment plan just because you are having trouble developing a good one. Isn't the guiding principle "First do no harm"? The lie that puberty blockers are reversible and do no harm is one of the greatest scandals. Even when a child is suffering a precocious puberty, blockers are rarely administered and then only for the shortest time. The vast majority who were started on puberty blockers went on to cross sex hormones. The reinforcement of 'born in the wrong body' was strong. Why when there was a discord between mental perception and the real body was it decided the body should change to match the mental perception? Any mention of CBT was just dismissed as transphobia. For some people, a tiny percentage, transition is absolutely the right choice whether that is full SRS or just hormones and social transition.
That no follow up records were kept or even considered necessary is a total disgrace. Nobody knows the true number of de-transitioners . The only good thing is the explosion of 'non-binary' people involves nothing permanent, so they will be able to desist and not have life altering changes to contend with.

Glorianny the important time is between being seen and the treatment starting. Children on the waiting list are not being damaged (other than insomuch as they are not getting the psychiatric care they may need) but it is the ones who are seen, affirmed and then referred for puberty blockers or have surgery recommended for when they are 18 who are in danger. It is the treatment that needs to be deferred until the questions I raised above can be answered. Until then, what are the children transitioning to, and how can the staff know what it is that they are affirming?

I have not said (and do not believe) that the children should simply be left to rot until a more suitable form of treatment is found. It is clear that something is affecting the mental health of a significant number of children, and whatever it is is relatively new. I think it is very important that the nature of this problem is determined, and that the reasons for it are understood, as the well-being of so many children is at stake.

Personally, I wouldn't let Stonewall anywhere near any of it, but as I say, I'm not an expert.

I think reading the accounts of many many of the children involved they needed a range of support, most of which was not about gender identity, it was mental health support and in some cases social care involvement that was needed. I think it must be almost impossible for them to decide how the new services will 'look' due to lack of follow up, data, research, etc.

Doodledog

I guess that depends on how you are defining 'help' and 'treatment', really.

You are saying that children are damaged, but stopping that damage is somehow 'despicable'? I can't follow that logic, to be honest. Even the most ardent evangelist would usually stop short of advocating damage, particularly to the defenceless, unless they could explain what good could come of it.

IMO it is better that such 'treatment' is put on hold until those 'helping' the children are better able to answer the very basic questions that they persistently avoid.

The current waiting time for an appointment with the service is 4 years. So children who contacted the service in 2019 are just getting their first appointment.
If that isn't sufficient "holding" time I wonder how long you want

I said using inaccurate information about underage operations was despicable, as there were no underage operations there could be no damage from them.

Galaxy

My professional work is children with learning disabilities and children with autism, there is currently a two year waiting list for assessment for autism in my area, the provision of short break services is severely lacking, etc etc. I can think of a number of services that were shut down because of dangerous practice. I was relieved when those services were closed as they were a risk to children.

And was there any provision proposed or suggested to replace the shut down services? People seem happy to accept the closure of Tavistock but it was also suggested that 2 regional services be introduced and that isn't happening.
Would you also be relieved about that?

My professional work is children with learning disabilities and children with autism, there is currently a two year waiting list for assessment for autism in my area, the provision of short break services is severely lacking, etc etc. I can think of a number of services that were shut down because of dangerous practice. I was relieved when those services were closed as they were a risk to children.

I guess that depends on how you are defining 'help' and 'treatment', really.

You are saying that children are damaged, but stopping that damage is somehow 'despicable'? I can't follow that logic, to be honest. Even the most ardent evangelist would usually stop short of advocating damage, particularly to the defenceless, unless they could explain what good could come of it.

IMO it is better that such 'treatment' is put on hold until those 'helping' the children are better able to answer the very basic questions that they persistently avoid.

No one has said children were not damaged. I have simply asked how having no service at all will be of any benefit to the children who are presenting with problems, or their families. To my mind the system that failed children then has only been further depleted. I can't think of any other condition where anyone would celebrate or welcome a reduction in services which left vulnerable children without help or treatment.
It shocks me that anyone would think such a position is at all acceptable.
That people find inaccurate statements about under age operations necessary to justify their views is in my opinion despicable.

Galaxysome accounts say that the endocrinologists were instrumental in driving the use of puberty blockers. I have no doubt that some doctors are sometimes interested in researching and assessing treatments.