Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

If Kier Starmer backtracked on his personal beliefs due to angry emails, how could anyone respect him

No, I haven't yet. I'm away just now, but that's no excuse these days, is it? If I can post on here I can send an email .

Doodledog, Have you written to Starmer?
I have, not least because currently a small, vocal minority dominate the headlines

GagaJo Have you had time to investigate which GN members have been making orchestrated attacks on you and others on here who are not 'intersectional feminsts', whatever that may be. I haven't a clue, although I have been accused of being one.

Rosie51

I've just seen a two minute clip of a Keir Starmer interview on LBC. In it he says "of course all adult females are women". Proof positive it's only ever about appeasing transwomen with them, because otherwise if an adult male can be recognised as a woman, why did he not say "some adult females are women and some are men"?

I understand that fear of drawing the ire of the trans lobby, with its 'cancellation' policy and bullying tactics will be real. Their sanctions against people like authors and academics are bad enough, but for politicians in the run up to an election the potential for ruining them is high.

But if he met this head on, and exposed it for what it is, surely there would be more people (male, female and trans) who would be angry and supportive? There is already a growing shift in opinion as more people realise the implications of accommodating trans issues, and impatience with the anodyne 'be kind' message, as people wise up to the fact that it is code for 'women shut up'. Combine that with anger about the obvious injustice of the sport incidents, which will open the door to more conversations about things like prisons, and it could be a good PR move, as well as a 'common sense' one.

GagaJo

What will happen to that theory, if trans people still want to transition? If they still want SRS? Because i don't hear trans people stating that opinion.

I've asked this a few times

I've just seen a two minute clip of a Keir Starmer interview on LBC. In it he says "of course all adult females are women". Proof positive it's only ever about appeasing transwomen with them, because otherwise if an adult male can be recognised as a woman, why did he not say "some adult females are women and some are men"?

Far North I know a few women who are saying they would hold their nose and vote Conservative over this issue. Personally I just feel politically homeless now. It may be that for the first time since I was eligible to vote I won't. I've voted every single election, and the referendum, even those times when I've known my vote wouldn't influence the outcome. That it's come to me feeling I can't vote for any of them leaves me sad. I'll probably end up spoiling my ballot paper.

The limited thinking of adults leads to those adults deciding that a child is 'trans' because they don't fit the desired stereotypes I saw a post on Twitter a few days ago that said

A four year old trans child or a vegan dog, you know who's calling the shots.

Have to agree.

What will happen to that theory, if trans people still want to transition? If they still want SRS? Because i don't hear trans people stating that opinion.

The limited thinking of adults leads to those adults deciding that a child is 'trans' because they don't fit the desired stereotypes.
I think that this is true, and I think it is the limited thinking of adults that leads to the belief that someone is 'in the wrong body'. If we accept that everyone is in the right body, but that behaviour doesn't have to be stereotyped by sex I think that a lot of problems would be solved - not 'just' for women (as though we don't matter), but for all concerned.

*I have heard women say they may have no option but to vote Tory because the other parties refuse to recognise what a woman is. Those women may not follow through and actually vote Tory but it's a measure of their desperation that it is being seriously considered by those who have never before in their lives thought of it as a possibility.'
I can't vote Tory, but I am struggling to decide what to do. I am still in the Labour Party, but if I can't vote for them when the GE comes, I will have to resign, and I don't know who to vote for. I can't vote LibDem either for strongly-held political reasons, and there are no sensible Independents where I am. It's a real dilemma, and I'm not even a floating voter - I'm dyed in the wool Labour. Starmer needs to get a handle on this, and soon.

From the Debbie Hayton article posted by Blossoming on page 6 :

"it seems that Johnson realises that voters may also realise what is really going on here."

Indeed.
I have heard women say they may have no option but to vote Tory because the other parties refuse to recognise what a woman is.

Those women may not follow through and actually vote Tory but it's a measure of their desperation that it is being seriously considered by those who have never before in their lives thought of it as a possibility.

Whitewavemark2

So the young male, who at pre-puberty is uncomfortable in his assigned gender role.

My question is, what is pushing him to try to change his gender.

Is it simply a rejection of his gender or is it something in his biology?

Now I am stuck. As I don’t know. It makes a huge difference in the answer to this as one is a preference and the other is predetermined I think.

Do you mean "What is pushing him to try to change his sex?" ?

He can change his gender by simply behaving & presenting himself in non-stereotypical ways.
He can't change his sex but many are encouraged to try to resemble the opposite sex.

Whitewavemark2 says this on page 3 of this thread :

By the time the child is at school it is entirely established in its gender role.

That seems a very depressing thought to me.
What happened to "anyone can have whatever interests teyat want, dress how they choose etc"?

I know that many children are encouraged to fit stereotypes and I'm sure that this is behind many of the claims that a child is 'trans'.
The limited thinking of adults leads to those adults deciding that a child is 'trans' because they don't fit the desired stereotypes.

Unfairly that should read.

trisher

Whitewavemark2

I have just been reading an article by an Australian sociologist, who says that blanket registration over a trans person to participate in sport will not hold up scientifically.

As far as I understand at the moment it is a required level of testosterone that must stay at or below that level for a year, before they can be accepted as suitable for taking part in their chosen sport as say a female.

However, this regulation does not seem to take into account the advantage these athletes gained before their sex change, like height, muscle etc, as I’m not clear that any of that is reversed.

The restrictions on the natural level of testosterone in women has no scientific basis either. There is no evidence that naturally occurring testosterone has any effect on performance, but science has never bothered the sports officials.
The permitted level was lowered in 2019 for women.

But I’m arguing against that as a measure.

However no one disagrees that testosterone, builds a taller and bigger body with larger lungs heart etc.

Those people who acquired all these advantages before their sex change are taking part fairly in competition.

Whitewavemark2

That, therefore does not seem fair practice, and I couldn’t support such participation.

Funnily enough, and with slightly more proof than offered to the contrary, most trans agree that it is cheating.

Whitewavemark2

I have just been reading an article by an Australian sociologist, who says that blanket registration over a trans person to participate in sport will not hold up scientifically.

As far as I understand at the moment it is a required level of testosterone that must stay at or below that level for a year, before they can be accepted as suitable for taking part in their chosen sport as say a female.

However, this regulation does not seem to take into account the advantage these athletes gained before their sex change, like height, muscle etc, as I’m not clear that any of that is reversed.

The restrictions on the natural level of testosterone in women has no scientific basis either. There is no evidence that naturally occurring testosterone has any effect on performance, but science has never bothered the sports officials.
The permitted level was lowered in 2019 for women.

That, therefore does not seem fair practice, and I couldn’t support such participation.

I have just been reading an article by an Australian sociologist, who says that blanket registration over a trans person to participate in sport will not hold up scientifically.

As far as I understand at the moment it is a required level of testosterone that must stay at or below that level for a year, before they can be accepted as suitable for taking part in their chosen sport as say a female.

However, this regulation does not seem to take into account the advantage these athletes gained before their sex change, like height, muscle etc, as I’m not clear that any of that is reversed.

?

This is interesting

No orchestrated attacks, and very few real gender critical feminists, just a lot of individual comments from a majority of largely very unpolitical (in the most general sense) ordinary female women who can see the wood for the trees.

No attacks on trans people, just pointing out that among them there are some male-born trans individuals who are taking advantage of the legal protection of trans women to increase their dominance over women in general.

No doubt in time there will be adjustments to definitions and legalities to cover the loopholes which allow this, but unless the existence of those loopholes is pointed out and brought to the attention of lawmakers they may not be plugged.

At the moment there is a pendulum swing in some quarters in favour of transindividuals, which will probably settle into neutrality eventually. Meanwhile, silencing debate on those loopholes could potentially mean that they were not plugged, and the unfairness in matters like sport, refuges and so on could go on for longer and cause resentment against transindividuals in general.. Good fences make good neighbours. Discussion is always good.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Ms Emily Bridges, a former male cycling champion, now identifies as a woman and is going to be allowed to compete in the British Female Cycling Team.

How do all those supporting TWAW think your sisters (natal born) will feel when they lose their place after years and years of training? Where are your feminist solidarity views?

Has Emily Bridges undergone a surgical sex change and further assisted by oestrogen etc?

Ms. Bridges has/is taking oestrogen, they competed in a mans cycling event last month and achieved Bronze.

I cannot find any details on surgery.

GrannyGravy13

Ms Emily Bridges, a former male cycling champion, now identifies as a woman and is going to be allowed to compete in the British Female Cycling Team.

How do all those supporting TWAW think your sisters (natal born) will feel when they lose their place after years and years of training? Where are your feminist solidarity views?

Has Emily Bridges undergone a surgical sex change and further assisted by oestrogen etc?

Gagajo
The point of this thread, therefore, is to show, publically, that despite the orchestrated attacks from gender criticial feminists, that there are still a good number of us that do not take that position.

What is the evidence that the 'attacks' you perceive were orchestrated?

I would say that both groups have had their say and I wonder you say what you say simply because the majority of women - on GN and in the wider world - do not agree with you.

Meanwhile please produc ethe evidence for orchastration.