The loss of freedom of speech, of sidelining women and biology

From the Times article:

"Professor Alice Sullivan, head of social research at University College London, said that a Holyrood committee had only allowed limited debate and had shut out critical voices despite substantial public concern about the plans to let people as young as 16 to officially change their gender within months. More than twice as many people called to appear before the committee have been supporters rather than critics of the bill."
(my emphasis)

Doodledog I thought that too, about the two groups of speakers at that videod meeting. The woman from the prison service was really concerned for her charges (for the trans man whose biological sex was sussed out immediately and disatrously by fellow prisoners in the male prison, as well as the women prisoners in the women's prison into which abusive trans women had benn sent) The man from the LGB Alliance was clearly passionate about things, the woman from the legal firm had suggestions of how it would be simple to add certain safeguards for some of the concerns. All of that group came over as people with hearts and emotions, as well as logic.

The second group were examples of what William H. Whyte described in his 1956 book as "the organisation man". Succeeding in the corporate world required people to suppress individual thought and initiative and to replace it with an attitude of conformity (acting in agreement with established social views) that sought only to please the boss.

www.encyclopedia.com/history/culture-magazines/organization-man

When I read the novel "1984" many years ago, I thought the scenarios portrayed in it - "newspeak" replacing the old ways of describing things, new realities replacing the old ones and being the only reality that was admitted to have ever existed, history books frequently collected in and destroyed and newly-printed versions published instead, containing all the latest state-approved lies.

We got past the year 1984 without the predictions in the book coming to pass. What has happened recently to bring Orwell's vision of a distopian land into mainstream reality? I just don't understand it. Is it a third column from somewhere, working secretly to spread propaganda aimed at destroying the world we know and cast it into confusion so that it will be unable to resist a takeover bid? I have always poo-pood the "world domination conspiracy" theories, but this is just so mad, so paranoid and so aggressive toward half the population of the planet that I find it difficult to believe that it comes naturally from rational individual human beings.

FarNorth

It's pretty bad if the definition of safety for women is "Not getting sexually assaulted."
Especially in a situation which is claimed to be female-only.

In that Scottish Parliament video, it was clear that the 1st group of witnesses were begging the MSPs to get more information on how the proposed Act could affect women eg those actually running and using women's refuges, while the 2nd group did not sound engaged further than reciting corporate speak about "international best practice" (monkey see, monkey do).

How is this happening?

Even five years ago this would have seemed impossible, yet it is creeping in unchallenged. The really scary thing is that it is endemic in seats of power, such as parliament, the civil service and education, and those who speak out will soon be at real risk of being criminalised for doing so.

Good post, Mollygo.

As you say, much of this is not new. There have been 'hermaphrodites'/female impersonators'/transexuals/'ladyboys' for hundreds of years, before the term 'transgender' was coined to remove 'sex' from the terminology and pretend that 'gender' is something concrete enough to be changed.

Until recently, the trend has been towards accepting of people's preferences to live however they wish. Then Stonewall got involved and pushed for the 'TWAW - No Debate' mantra to supersede all points of view. The more militant trans lobby has insisted on changing the language and refuses to allow women places of our own where we can feel safe from the male gaze or the threat (implicit or explicit) of sexual violence, or to have any area of our lives governed by sex class (eg sport, female shortlists/quotas/statistics).

It is this change that has altered the perspective of many who were previously 'allies' of transpeople. Whereas many, if not most (obviously there are no figures, so this is based purely on my own experience of conversations with friends) are still supportive of 'ordinary' transpeople, there is a growing reluctance to tolerate the misogyny that runs through the militant trans movement, with its 'for us or against us' mentality.

"The committee has been accused of turning to less qualified witnesses to give evidence, of inviting more supporters of reform — many in receipt of government funding — than opponents, and of setting aside insufficient time to consider a complex piece of law with serious implications."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-recognition-act-msps-trans-scotland-latest-fsn075vs9?shareToken=edafce5f249d43f7cad381d57f98f418&fbclid=IwAR0Vx1SW3or1jlnCdvBP7Z1xYZyP8HGqcIMWPCcoEyMbFQxIzG2R5-Vi1T4

It's pretty bad if the definition of safety for women is "Not getting sexually assaulted."
Especially in a situation which is claimed to be female-only.

In that Scottish Parliament video, it was clear that the 1st group of witnesses were begging the MSPs to get more information on how the proposed Act could affect women eg those actually running and using women's refuges, while the 2nd group did not sound engaged further than reciting corporate speak about "international best practice" (monkey see, monkey do).

Meanwhile, back in the ever increasing woke Civil Service:

Civil servants are being told that it is impossible to define a 'woman' in equality training.

The video provided by A:gender also says the definition 'adult human female' can be transphobic, according to the Times.

The leader of the course that the trans support network provided to civil servants also says in the video that 'transphobia is increasingly presented as feminism' in a possible veiled criticism of Harry Potter author JK Rowling.

One person who took the course told the Times: 'I thought it was propaganda. It's the promotion of one view — how to think about gender and gender identity — which is not supported by legislation or common sense.

What horrified me so much is that for anyone at the heart of the civil service interested in supporting transgender people, this is the education they are getting.

Civil servants are then implementing legislation and government directives.

'They sign up for these courses and get told what to think.'

The presenter, who identified as intersex, said that sex is randomly assigned at birth but gender identity has a 'biological component' and used the controversial genderbread person to illustrate their point.

They claimed the phrase 'adult human female' has been adopted by a 'prominent anti-trans organisation and instructed staff: 'When you hear something is transphobic, you might not recognise it is transphobic so you should ask your trans colleagues.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10884961/You-define-woman-civil-servants-told-equality-training-video.html

The complication rate for female to Male transition is very high, it appears that much of the healthcare provided was based on Male to female transition as that used to be the predominant group. The availability of any data in relation to follow up studies is not rigorous, it also appears that transition does not affect the suicide rate. I have no idea why anyone would want this situation for those with gender dysphoria.

I’m sorry AussieNana, the déjà vu feeling is because you post very much like a poster I haven’t seen for a while.
Gender dysmorphia in adults is an adult issue and up to them to address. They deserve help and support, and it is their right to choose to damage their bodies either physically or chemically.
However, Elegran’s points above are of real concern.
Before it had this name, males were living as if they were females,
but their main aim was
not to make that blatantly obvious,
nor to use their choice with the intention of upsetting others,
nor to cheat and deprive females of their rightful awards,
nor to claim that they really were female and could therefore take positions or carry out actions where being female was essential.
Most of those genuinely suffering from g d have no wish to do any of those things, but their image is being blighted by those who see it as an opportunity to do all the above, and to inflict damage and harm on anyone who states the biological fact that you can’t change sex.

No-one is minimising or dismissing a real issue, but many are concerned about other real issues, such as the practical details of how to admit to women-only spaces trans women who look, dress and act like non trans men (because they are still heterosexual biological men who have changed in nothing except their label) while keeping out any NON trans men who think it would be a laugh to walk in unhindered and get an eyeful of half-naked women. Strip clubs are popular venues for a very good reason - men like to see women taking their clothes off.

It was noticeable that "for" witnesses in the Holyrood video linked to upthread spoke about the very small likelihood of sexual assault as a result of this Bill, but seemed unaware of the embarrassment and lack of privacy to women that would ensue - and not always from trans people. A lesser effect, but affecting more people.

If there isn't a foolproof way of sorting the sheep from the goats, a lot of ladies from ethnic and religious minorities will just stay away from swimming pools, gyms, High Street dress shops with communal changing rooms, and other places. That works against ethnic and religious inclusion.

AussieNanna

FarNorth

"medical and surgical treatment if that is what they want" AussieNana?
Is that usual, where you are?
That people just say what medical and surgical treatment they think they should have for a condition they believe they have, and they get it?

no it isnt - and if you read my posts you would of seen that.

as I said before, people here have to have in depth counselling and to have lived socially as the opposite gender for 2 years before any permanant treatment would go ahead

The Bill being considered right now in the Scottish Parliament would remove all medical input (which would include in-depth counselling) and the requirement to live as the opposite sex for two years, from an application for a gender change certificate. Three months would replace two years. The minimum age for application would be lowered from 18 to 16.

The

Mollygo

Hmm AussieNana I’m getting a déjà vu feeling from your posts.
No one on here denies that it is a real issue, or that those with or who believe they have gender dysphoria deserve support and eventually, treatment if necessary.
However there is real and justifiable concern about how it is being addressed particularly with young people, especially, but not only girls, at a time when they are already vulnerable due to their changing bodies and the expectations placed upon them.
Concern also about the potential for real irreversible harm through chemical or physical bodily altering treatment.

if that is what they want

Did you always consider your pre-teen or early teen children’s wants to be in their best interests and allow them to do, or have whatever they wanted?
Would you have allowed your (or any) children who wanted to live on fast food and cola to do so because that was what they wanted?
Or to go off on holiday to somewhere where you didn’t know roughly what they were doing or where they were going because that’s what they wanted?
Have you had no experience of how children want something desperately and then abandon it a few weeks or months later?
Have you had no experience of how students go off to university fixated on the subject they’ve always wanted to study and then change course when they find it isn’t what they thought it would be?

no of course I wouldnt give my children just whatever they wanted.

But if they expressed feeling of gender dysmorphia I wouldnt dismiss that either

and of course if they abandoned that a few weeks later that would be ok - but that isnt the usual outcome.

I also said if that is what they want, in relation to adults making permanant changes.
so you have misrepresented my post.

A work colleague had a daughter who is transitioning to being male - she didnt just mention it to her parents on a whim and change her mind a few weeks alter - it was an ongoing and serious intention.

yes you probably are getting de ja vu from my posts - since I have posted several and my view is unchanged.

just like I am getting a de ja vu from some others' posts - a de ja vu of minimising and dismissing a real issue.

FarNorth

^"medical and surgical treatment if that is what they want"^ AussieNana?
Is that usual, where you are?
That people just say what medical and surgical treatment they think they should have for a condition they believe they have, and they get it?

no it isnt - and if you read my posts you would of seen that.

as I said before, people here have to have in depth counselling and to have lived socially as the opposite gender for 2 years before any permanant treatment would go ahead

Report of the bike races in London:

"An 'inclusive' cycling race that saw male-born trans athletes trounce women competitors has been condemned by critics.

The event on Friday finished with two transgender women in first and second places, with a young mother in third.

Gold in the ThunderCrit race at Herne Hill velodrome in South-East London went to Emily Bridges, a trans cyclist who was barred from a woman's race in March and who had competed in men's events only the month before.

Sharron Davies, who won a swimming silver at the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and has spoken out before on trans athletes, said she was 'very disappointed' at news of the race.

Fiona McAnena, director of sport campaigns at Fair Play For Women, said: 'It's inevitable that if we're going to allow people who have been through male puberty into the category that is supposed to be for females, those people are going to outperform.

Sport is based on your body, and we have a female category in most sports because male puberty confers such an advantage and it is a lifelong advantage. It cannot be undone.'

In an attempt to devise an 'inclusive' event, the ThunderCrit organisers created two new non-binary races called 'thunder' and 'lightning'.

Its website said: 'Thunder category is for cis men, non-binary people whose physical performance aligns most with cis-men, trans men and women whose physical performance aligns most closely with cis-men.

Lightning category is for cis-women, non-binary people whose physical performance aligns with cis-women and trans men and women whose physical performance aligns most closely with cis-women.'

Cis – or cisgender – describes a person who still identifies as the gender they were born as. Non-binary refers to people who say they are not solely male or female.

Bridges and Chant competed in the lightning race, despite Bridges being barred by British Cycling from racing against five-times Olympic gold medallist Dame Laura Kenny in March after international sporting bodies claimed she was ineligible.

British Cycling is now reviewing its transgender policy."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10885307/Trans-women-cyclists-second-non-binary-race-leaving-young-mother-third.html

Once I was speaking to Humza Yousaf, when he was canvassing, and he said "I don't really get it because I'm not a woman."
I told him to ask some of the other women around for their views.
I wish, tho, I'd thought to point out that he wouldn't think much of it if I said to him "I don't really get it about racism because I'm not BBPOC."

Doodledog

I agree, but there is still not enough vocal opposition. I think a lot of people don't think that it will make any difference to them, or haven't yet realised the full importance of it all.

Surely a classic example of Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

MerylStreep please come on board and comment, if only to prove it's not just a few 'bigoted' GN members who have concerns about the way things are progressing
The cycle races I linked to where two genetically male riders took 1st and 2nd places are just illustrative of the uphill battle women of the female variety face, but we're blindsided into the mantra that women won't suffer from 'transwomen' inclusion.

I agree, but there is still not enough vocal opposition. I think a lot of people don't think that it will make any difference to them, or haven't yet realised the full importance of it all.

the TRAs might lie low and hope the questioners go away,

There have been too many changes already that can demonstrate to people what's happening.
Even if the TRAs do hide, they can't hide the effects of their lobbying.

MerylStreep

Doodledog
I’ve never commented on this thread because i feel I have nothing to offer, but believe me I read every post and speak out about it at every given opportunity.

That's great to hear, MS .

Come and join us? You have as much to offer as anyone. This is gathering momentum in a variety of ways, I think. On the one hand, there are more and more attempts to eradicate women (such as the idea of asking about menstruation instead of gametes), and on the other there are more and more women realising the importance of what is going on. I think it will come to a head when the next election campaign gets under way, but that's very much a guess. Something else might happen to push the issue out of the limelight, or the TRAs might lie low and hope the questioners go away, but anyway . . .

People take a while to absorb it all, as it is both unbelievable and overwhelming. 5 years ago I was unaware of the scope of the movement towards crushing women as a sex class. I believed that Stonewall was a force for good, because of the work it had done to help LGB people. I also thought (as I still do), that transpeople had a right to live their best lives, and was only just becoming aware of the nuances involved. I have never bought into the TWAW mantra, but I think I just believed that it was something people said said because they wanted it to be true, not that they are bent on making it the case legally in spite of the obvious impossibility of the claim, and I hadn't thought through the dangerous implications for women.

The more I questioned those who push the trans cause, the more I realised that their claims are empty. They can't define a woman or a man. They can't explain what they mean by gender, or what 'knowing you are in the wrong body' means. They gaslight and twist words, and make wild accusations of the things of which they are guilty, eg homophobia. They can't substantiate any of the things they claim, and run away when challenged, claiming that there is no point in arguing with those who won't 'listen to them' (ie capitulate).

I have found that posting and questioning has made me far more aware of the issues than I would otherwise have been. I wish someone would put forward an argument for the trans cause that didn't rely on 'belief' or 'because I say so'. I am more than willing to listen if anyone can explain how someone with male gametes and a male body 'is' a woman, and how men forcing themselves into female spaces is no threat to the women who have inhabited them, but it hasn't happened yet.

It's good to hear that you are arguing offline though, and that threads like this one aren't just echo chambers. Don't believe that you have nothing to offer - I'm sure that you do.

Thanks for that Meryl Streep. When I am in some ridiculous debate in the internet about whether women are real and I think what is the point of this, I always try and remember the Mumsnet phrase 'think of the lurkers'.
Hope you dont mind me calling you a lurker but thankyou for saying that.

Doodledog
I’ve never commented on this thread because i feel I have nothing to offer, but believe me I read every post and speak out about it at every given opportunity.

*Where that leaves those of us who are pre-pubertal, past the menopause or who have had surgery, I don’t know.

I worry that it leaves those who do menstruate in the role of 'breeders'.

Blessed Be The Fruit.

I see there’s a report from the Daily Telegraph saying that The census could ask “do you menstruate?” instead of “are you female?” to be inclusive of transgender people, a taxpayer-funded study has suggested.

Where that leaves those of us who are pre-pubertal, past the menopause or who have had surgery, I don’t know.