Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

What is equally relevant in the Telegraph today is the case of Doctor David Mackereth, who was sacked from his post as a disability assessor for the DWP because he refused to renounce his belief that gender is determined biologically at birth, and told his employers he did not want to use the pronouns'he' for someone born female and 'she' for someone born male.
Quoted from the Telegraph. I am well aware of the debate about sex and gender.
Dr. Mackereth took his case to an employment tribunal claiming the refusal to allow him to address a client by their biological sex breached his rights to freedom of thought, conscience and rights to practise his religion.
Apparently the DWP policy is 'that we don't ask questions, we just use whatever pronoun the client prefers.' and also 'his Christian belief is not protected by the Equality Act 2010 but was "mere opinion." '
And a man is to lose his job because of this?

Doodledog
I'm not being manipulated. I can see what it's for, but can also see that words matter, and the more commonplace this sort of thing becomes the easier it is to slip other nonsense under the wire - that's how propaganda works.

Smileless2012
Would you want a clinician treating you, asking if you were a man, if you could be pregnant? I certainly wouldn't; good grief it's basic biology.

The problem was caused back in 2004, when it was decided to abrogate the rights of women to use the word women exclusively for Adult Human Females and allow males to adopt it, as and when they saw fit.
Many trans had were and still are undoubtedly calling themselves men and women, unnoticed and unresented, because they have no wish to cause damage or harm to females or males.

Then some men began to see claiming to be women (*a word which the 2004 act had made meaningless in relation to females*) as a way to cheat in competitions,
have access to vulnerable females
and deny females rights that they had fought long and hard for.

It is those men and their supporters, who, in order to make what they were doing appear right, shout loudly about ‘silencing of trans’ whilst what they are actually attempting to do is ‘*orchestrate the silencing of females.*
And yes, I know I’ve been warned.
Many trans are undoubtedly appalled by the shame those of their number are bringing upon them, but the voices of the wrongdoers and their supporters grow even louder,
deliberately orchestrating the silence not only females, but the genuine trans themselves.

I get so tired of these threads which only ever mention transwomen. Let's admit there are transpeople and transmen, who may well present as men when filling forms in, can get pregnant and deserve as much protection and care as any other human being. Which is better, that 100 men have to answer "No" to a question that is virtualy meaningless for them or 1 transman undergoing a procedure which damages the baby he was expecting because he looked like a man, so nobody bothered to ask if he was pregnant?

repeating them is not ‘demanding’ answers. Refusing to answer suggests that there is no comeback to what has been asked. Of course there is a comeback. You know my POV. So does Mollygo.

Shouting in capitals that others are demanding? Who did that? I'm rarely on here. I make occasional comments and am nowhere near as emotionally invested in posting as others so certainly won't be visually shouting in caps.

You of all the posters on here know my position. Women are made, not born. Not all women were born with vaginas and a uterus. Pretending you don't know that is my belief is disingenuous. I've said it before, you know it, and so does Mollygo. Repeatedly asking the same question will only get the same answer. Which GC posters will then take umbrage at and start to attack, probably with personal comments / insults. It is tedious and as you know, I'm not going over the same ground again and again.

Playing the ‘Poor me, everyone picks on me’ card is not debate, and nor is twisting words or getting comments cancelled when you don’t like them. If comments are being cancelled, it is probably because they were personal attacks rather than on topic. However, I can say, hand on heart, that I am assuming that, because 1) I haven't read most of the long strings of comments on here and 2) I haven't reported any (hard to report what you haven't read).

If you check my OP, I predicted that I would step away from the thread, because we've all said everything we have to say repeatedly. There is nothing new being said. I do pop back now and again, in case there is something new, because it is a topic I'm interested in. But I'm not doing the same thing on repeat.

trisher

I get so tired of these threads which only ever mention transwomen. Let's admit there are transpeople and transmen, who may well present as men when filling forms in, can get pregnant and deserve as much protection and care as any other human being. Which is better, that 100 men have to answer "No" to a question that is virtualy meaningless for them or 1 transman undergoing a procedure which damages the baby he was expecting because he looked like a man, so nobody bothered to ask if he was pregnant?

Not just transmen trisher. Butch women too. I know a couple of butch lesbians who are more masculine than most of the men I know. Could easily pass.

If you check my OP, I predicted that I would step away from the thread, because we've all said everything we have to say repeatedly. There is nothing new being said. I do pop back now and again, in case there is something new, because it is a topic I'm interested in. But I'm not doing the same thing on repeat.

What would you like to be said? What could possibly come out of these discussions, unless someone changes her mind, which to be honest is not going to happen any time soon?

If the point of this thread was to show that there has been 'deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN', I would say it hasn't achieved any sort of agreement that this is the case.

If the point was to reach a consensus that TWAW however, I think that was always going to be a vain hope, and there are several live competing threads with exactly that intention.

If it was to make the point that transmen rarely feature in the discussions, the point has been made (regularly) that this is because they don't present a threat to anyone, and as non-transphobes posters on here are not really interested in commenting on them in general terms.

Nobody is saying that transpeople shouldn't have as much protection and care as any other human being. I have yet to hear of any rights, protection or care that are denied to them. I do, however, think that they should take a certain amount of responsibility for realising that they are a minority group, and as such might have to think for themselves when it comes to things like childbirth or gynaecology. Not that they shouldn't be entitled to care, but that they can't expect terminology or procedures to be altered to accommodate them - they need to do some of the accommodating.

Well I never expected to see such a clear demonstration of discrimination
I do, however, think that they should take a certain amount of responsibility for realising that they are a minority group, and as such might have to think for themselves when it comes to things like childbirth or gynaecology
So once one minority group have been left to fend for themselves who comes next?
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.

Just putting it out there DD. I believe it, and a few others agree.

No, I don't think there'll be a consensus. Is there ever in life, about anything?

trisher

Well I never expected to see such a clear demonstration of discrimination
I do, however, think that they should take a certain amount of responsibility for realising that they are a minority group, and as such might have to think for themselves when it comes to things like childbirth or gynaecology
So once one minority group have been left to fend for themselves who comes next?
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.

Well, if crediting people with the sense to take responsibility for realising that they need to think for themselves counts as discrimination to you, there's not a lot I can say, is there?

We all do it. As one example amongst many, I am asthmatic, but I don't expect to see signs at the bottom of every steep hill reminding me to take my inhaler - I take responsibility. Should I be starting threads to complain that I am being discriminated against?

GagaJo

Just putting it out there DD. I believe it, and a few others agree.

No, I don't think there'll be a consensus. Is there ever in life, about anything?

No, there's not, and in some things (including this one) there is no real room for compromise - tolerance yes, but compromise isn't really possible.

Ah well, that is where the mutual respect breaks down, isn't it? No room for compromise.

Unfortunately, the world moves on and society changes, so even if some feel compromise isn't possible, change happens.

But again, I understand our perspectives just differ in this area.

But how can we (you or I) compromise? You believe TWAW, and I don't. Neither of us will change her view.

We can tolerate one another's difference in perspective, but compromise would involve changing a basic belief.

I don't think that compromise is always a good thing anyway. I don't compromise with racists, for instance - where would I start?

Doodledog

trisher

Well I never expected to see such a clear demonstration of discrimination
I do, however, think that they should take a certain amount of responsibility for realising that they are a minority group, and as such might have to think for themselves when it comes to things like childbirth or gynaecology
So once one minority group have been left to fend for themselves who comes next?
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.

Well, if crediting people with the sense to take responsibility for realising that they need to think for themselves counts as discrimination to you, there's not a lot I can say, is there?

We all do it. As one example amongst many, I am asthmatic, but I don't expect to see signs at the bottom of every steep hill reminding me to take my inhaler - I take responsibility. Should I be starting threads to complain that I am being discriminated against?

OK Doodledog Which group comes next?
Shall we choose the deaf? I've been to quite a few signed events lately. Should we get rid of them?
Or what about mobility? Who needs wheelchair access? Not that many people.
Or those bumpy pavements and the noise at pedestrian crossings- only there for the partially sighted -they must be. a minority.

As for your asthma analogy. Asthma and the drugs taken is a very personal experience. Some asthma sufferers may need medication to climb a hill others won't. You are posting to someone with 3 generations experiences of asthma- all different.

We know radiation damages foetuses. We know anyone pregnant needs to avoid them. How that person presents shouldn't be a barrier to that.

No, I don't think we should get rid of signed events. Why would you think I would?

I forgot that you struggle with analogies - maybe I should have taken that into account when assuming that you would be able to understand that the asthma reference was simply that.

Why do you think that a pregnant person would think that radiation wouldn't affect their baby because they 'present' as male? Please answer that instead of picking invisible holes in everything I say?

Doodledog

No, I don't think we should get rid of signed events. Why would you think I would?

I forgot that you struggle with analogies - maybe I should have taken that into account when assuming that you would be able to understand that the asthma reference was simply that.

Why do you think that a pregnant person would think that radiation wouldn't affect their baby because they 'present' as male? Please answer that instead of picking invisible holes in everything I say?

The discussion was about if warnings or forms should aim questions about pregnancy purely to someone who is a natal woman. It isn't a question of what anyone thinks. It is a question of what information needs to be given or gathered before a procedure and in the case of dealing with any radiation the question "Are or could you be pregnant?" should be asked however the person presents.

I seem to remember in the past being accused of being too fond of analogies, apparently now I struggle with them. Only if they are inappropriate. As I said not every asthma sufferer would need to use an inhaler before climbing any hill. Whereas any wheelchair user needs step free access and any foetus can be damaged by radiation, no matter what minority the parent might belong to.

If you check my OP, I predicted that I would step away from the thread, because we've all said everything we have to say repeatedly. There is nothing new being said. I do pop back now and again, in case there is something new, because it is a topic I'm interested in. But I'm not doing the same thing on repeat.
Hello again. Glad to see you haven’t been silenced or chestrated. You’re quite right about there being nothing new.
There can’t be whilst people refuse to use the word female.

More asthma sufferers would struggle with hills than men are likely to be pregnant ?.

A pregnant transmit knows that they are pregnant because of their female body, just as an asthmatic is aware of the triggers of their asthma. That is the parallel.

As I am sure you know.

The discussion was about if warnings or forms should aim questions about pregnancy purely to someone who is a natal woman. I think you'll find transmen are natal women, and if their medical records have the correct sex marker on them then they will be asked if there is a possibility they're pregnant.Except in an absolute emergency no medical treatments are given without the patient's medical record in front of them. Everything is computerised, they can see in an instant what sex the patient is registered as, which is why they should always be accurate with a note attached if the patient prefers to ID as the opposite sex.

trisher
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.
So please do explain your equality, because I really don’t get it. You only need give a one word answer to each question if you’re short of time, or even ignore them, so I can understand your answers as Yes but I’m not silencing you.

1. Does your equality mean transwomen should be allowed to complete against females in competitions where the fact that they are male has a benefit?
2. Does your equality mean that the TW who, (whilst blatantly demonstrating that he was male, even when asked to cover up,) terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to remain there because he said he was a woman?

3. Does your equality mean that because there are only a small number of trans who are cheats or mean harm to females it’s more important that trans rights are recognised than it is to protect females from such events?

What it all boils down to is that women are not born with a penis & testicles.

Sorry - just read my last post back, and 'transmit' should have been 'transman'.

GNHQ has removed a quote

1. Does your equality mean transwomen should be allowed to complete against females in competitions where the fact that they are male has a benefit?

My equality means that women's sport gets a complete overhaul and those men who have spent decades subjecting women to degrading and intrusive examinations are told to step away and not permitted to ever again deal with women (ditto the women who took part in any of those examinations) . Women who have identified as women are once again permitted to compete without having to medicate themselves to fit preconceptions which have no medical basis. Meantime a time limit is set for transwomen so that they cannot simply transfer from men's sport to womens but have a period of qualification. At the same time a thorough investigation is launched and an equality standard set. Because as anyone who knows anything about sport willl tell you there are differences which give advantages to some people which are nothing to do with sex but are based on ethnic origins, early life experiences, and many other factors. Someone once said if you wanted true equality in sport you would have to raise all the sports people in one place, under exactly the same conditions, and you still couldn't guarantee it. Once the equality standards are set levels of competition can be decided and transwomen and all competitors allowed to compete on a near as possible equal basis.

2. Does your equality mean that the TW who, (whilst blatantly demonstrating that he was male, even when asked to cover up,) terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to remain there because he said he was a woman?

3. Does your equality mean that because there are only a small number of trans who are cheats or mean harm to females it’s more important that trans rights are recognised than it is to protect females from such events?

No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong
This is in bold because I am so tired of saying it..

But my question was about your equality. Does your equality mean that the trans woman was blatantly demonstrating that he was male even when asked to cover up terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to stay there because he said he was a woman?

We all believe
No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong.
Although you will undoubtedly come back with a request for me to elucidate what I understand by harm.

If you truly believe that why is it so hard to answer yes or no to my questions with a yes or no answer?

Doodledog

More asthma sufferers would struggle with hills than men are likely to be pregnant ?.

A pregnant transmit knows that they are pregnant because of their female body, just as an asthmatic is aware of the triggers of their asthma. That is the parallel.

As I am sure you know.

Some women give birth without ever knowing they are pregnant. Are transmen different?
It isn't about someone knowing they are pregnant anyway. It's about warning of the dangers of a procedure.

Mollygo

But my question was about your equality. Does your equality mean that the trans woman was blatantly demonstrating that he was male even when asked to cover up terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to stay there because he said he was a woman?

We all believe
No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong.
Although you will undoubtedly come back with a request for me to elucidate what I understand by harm.

If you truly believe that why is it so hard to answer yes or no to my questions with a yes or no answer?

Why do you feel the need to have a "yes" or "no" answer Mollygo? Is it a question of wanting your prejudices validated? Sorry you've had your answer.
Demanding more just shows how right the OP is, animosity, personal attacks. These are the preferred methods used against trans rights supporters.