No it isn't. And this has been a very dirty open secret in the health and 'care industry' for quite a while. 'Short staffing' means standards go. It's what those with disabilities who need any level of support or care, like with personal assistants have been reporting for years. The more you dig the worse this gets.
I needed care set up when discharged from a stay in hospital. It was all set up and then gradually agreements changed without agreement and when you are ill or needing care, fighting that too isn't possible or adds an additional burden. I am fairly young and don't have dementia and was utterly shocked at some things that happen so regularly they are an accepted part of the system. It is assumed vulnerable people can't or shouldn't 'complain'. 'Choice' is talked about but viewed as an indulgence. There is less oversight than claimed and so much is contracted out it's potluck if you get good carers who are supported by good managers in a good care agency. If it is home care in the community that's not inspected in the same way as residential care homes or schools (not saying it's better or worse). I have had some excellent care and from staff who are happy in their roles - this isn't carer bashing.
It's often through lack of staff - and very poor people management. People aren't treated well so they don't treat others well. I was once offered/introduced to a young male carer despite having declined (before, to the manager) to meet him as I didn't want him providing the personal care detailed in my care plan. Like it or lump it was the response. I waited for weeks more so I was pressured to accept. He revealed a lot about the way the company was run (badly, fraudulently) and said he 'didn't mind' personal care as I was 'young and pretty' not 'old and wrinkly'. It got very bad to the point I reported him and then was able to have the 'evidence' to take to social services. I looked for help and advice in a few forums and it's very common. Then the company went bust and everyone then disappeared without censure to set up another one. You sometimes get to know who are the better companies or carers and social services often act as brokers now - hands off until there is 'intelligence' - i.e. enough reports something bad is happening.
I was once next to a young disabled women in hospital who had a carer with her during day shifts. She was unable to communicate well verbally and although we got to know her and understand what she needed she was often 'accidentally' missed from mealtimes and water was left beyond her reach ('oh but she didn't say anything'). It was up to us other patients to look out for her or any of her private carers or family who might be visiting. That's in hospital, surrounded by doctors, nurses and AHPs. You are somehow invisible and your needs are for sure.
It's no fun being vulnerable. There but for the grace and all. It's why I find 'the most vulnerable' trans activist lie that is trotted out continually is not only statistically ignorant, but hugely offensive. We must speak up for those that can't.
Shocking story. Hard to understand how much men's feelings are considered much more important than the safety and dignity of vulnerable women and girls ! Predatory men will no doubt be quick to take advantage of that and some already have 🤮Thank you for the post ❤️x
A girl aged 5 has been flashed by an older boy in mixed sex toliets at Dreghorn Primary school in Scotland. She should never have been put in that position.
Feminist groups have refused to share the petition and side with a five year old girl. They've sided with male feelings instead.
Please, please, please help get the word out about this terrible violation of privacy and abuse towards a five year old girl.
Would anyone in Scotland or who reads this newspaper pleas consider writing to them to complain about their coverage of the proposed changes to the GRA here?
This article is typical of the one-sided misogynistic content they print, almost all by the same male author, and the articles are never open for readers comments.
The cynical side of me wonders if they've put something as inflammatory as that behind the paywall on purpose. It looks like it came straight from Stonewall. The Herald used to be quite a well respected paper but they are doing themselves no favours printing bilge like that.
Typically , they've ignored all the real evidence of harm being done to women and girls by men who have self identified themselves into women's prisons ,sports ,rape crisis centres , women's refuges,female hospital wards and in fact every type of " women only" space. These abuses have happened in every country where self Id has been introduced. None of these MPs are likely to be victims of these abuses ,so they are quite happy to centre mens feeling over women's SAFETY.🤮😡🤬👎
In the footnotes, it has their definition of what as woman is - anyone who defines themselves as a woman! They hide the definition. I thought it odd that women and girls are the terms used throughout the document, knowing the SG's position on Self-ID, and because I am pernickety, always read the footnotes. And there it was. Sneaky wee s****s!
People need to respond and tell them their definition is wrong. It is against the UN Convention on Human Rights and CEDAW.
This is the government that says it does more for the human rights of its citizens than any other. Yes it does, as long as they are biological men. Nicola Sturgeon and her Cabinet should be ashamed of themselves. The Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 stand in Scotland and the SNP Government is breaching both with that definition.
Thank you. One of the things I really appreciate about this substack is to raise and echo back the gamut of consultations that are out there so I know which to keep an eye on. These things then become our laws and are often used to justify weird policies. I was discussing another one today and with someone who had no idea about some big UK changes in delivery of key services. He asked me to give a summary (oh where to start). When I hear the official line that 'we consulted' I tend to get a bit suspicious.
*I've just read that first footnote myself - seeing it on a gov. site leaves me reeling! It will be hard to temper my language the sneaky slidey ****holes!!
I've just realised the closing date is after 8 weeks - maybe the team here can raise it again so it gets more coverage? That's 1st August - only a week away.
It's an online form with questions attached. I used to be a policy officer and the easiest way to respond, is to pick the questions you want to answer and give the answers you want to give, if that makes sense. If you want to chalkenge their definition, pichk the questions that mention women, and tell them their definition is wrong and why... Self id is not a thing under law in the UK. Men cannot simply define themselves as women even if they want to. The Equality Act gives the protected characteristic of fender reassignment which means...
The easiest thing to do is to hit Nicola's tribe with actual legislation not Stonewall's fantasy. If we all do it, they might get the message. My Monday evening will be spent doing just that!
Thank you! It makes absolute sense. I was trying to have some time away from this as my virtual desk has a knotty consultation I have been asked to respond to sitting glowering at me. I am old enough to have worked with one civil servant who once wrote an actual paper letter including the final copy of the new guidance to thank me for responding to one many years ago. I realised then how few of us were willing to provide not completely mad suggestions. I have then integrated useful responses into my own (or policy wot I wrote). I like writing 'no comment' or n/a to 30 odd questions, then letting rip with evidence they've 'overlooked'.
Enjoy your Monday - I will raise a glass to you as I now suspect I will be too. Sock it to 'em.
And for the stark evidence of the gobsmacking idiocy of far too many of our governmental organizations, not just in Scotland but in far too many other countries.
Part and parcel of what UK/US lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne called "the tyranny of the subjective" in a Quillette essay several years ago. See my essay on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" which opens with a quote of her damning summation of the problem:
Good question - I'm not sure either. But as a guess, maybe the labelled hands of the two people are from different organizations and now there's some sort of agreement, a pact of some sort? 🤷♂️🤔💭🙂
I think I’ve done too many Escape Rooms.. I was looking for clues and codes to figure it out! Transpires that it was ‘hands-down’ a less convoluted, and ‘touching’ explanation 😊
But you're doing yeoman's work pulling together some disparate if not desperate threads. 🙂 Hat's off to y'all.
Somewhat in passing since you're apparently in this neck of the woods - kind of late there in the UK? - but I've been arguing for some time that much of the transgender clusterfuck is because pretty much every man, woman, and otherkin - and their cats, dogs, and gerbils - has wildly different definitions for the relevant terms, "sex" "gender" and "gender identity" in particular. Recent Tweet from Matt Walsh that you mentioned about Merriam-Webster being a case in point.
But Substacker Lisa Selin Davis has called for something in the way of a dialog - an "urgent proposal" - to thrash out which definitions make the most sense. Which I've been trying to promote as well - see this comment of mine to her for some details:
1. certainly in Britain Human Cloning is banned. Because of the ethical issues at stake. I view any form of "transition" whether to a fake version of the opposite sex or to "nullifying" a person's sex, to be in the same box - Ethical issues dictate this should NEVER happen regardless of age of person.
- So, NO "puberty" blockers for children because of the considerable harm this does to the proper maturation of body and mind. We KNOW the harms - we have seen them in adult men who had this drugs for prostate cancer (which is the only condition it was created for). We have seen the harms in Women who have had them for gynaecological conditions. We have seen the harms in young adults who had too early puberty. The EVIDENCE has always been there.
- NO to "cross sex" hormones. When these are being given to the person whose sex is NOT supposed to have this *higher* doses of the drugs for their body, its is MEDICALLY created Endocrine disease. This causes serious harm in the body, exacerbates the stunted maturation process and created cognitive dysfunction.
- NO to any surgeries which seek to create a fake opposite sex body. This are entirely harmful, and NEVER clinically indicated. No male has EVER needed from a clinical perspective, their penis stripped, turned inside out and stuffed into an already "full" pelvic cavity causing pressure on bladder and bowel and potentially leading to Urinary and bowel conditions that leave them incontinent in both sides. That is without the total loss of any real sense of sexual function PLUS the compounded condition of infertility that has been caused by the wrong sex hormones. NO girl has EVER needed a fake penis from her forearm being stripped of skin and muscle and a floppy, nerveless flesh lump stitched to her groin. NO girl has EVER needed her breasts removed when there is no indication or history of aggressive breast cancer.
On these basis alone, these surgeries should be entirely banned for all persons when its solely for a "trans" persona.
2. In terms of naming "trans" persons.
No use of any opposite sex terms should be used to describe a "trans" person.
Instead: "Trans Identifying Male/Man" for Men who demand to be viewed as not men. eg TiM; "Trans Identifying Female" for Women who demand to be viewed as not women. TiF.
Everyone knows what they are and what they are wanting to be. It is social only and can only happen after 18.
However, their bio sex trumps everything: So they only have access to their own bio sex spaces. Without Wrong sex Hormones they will not look like the opposite sex and so will not be mistaken for anything other than what they are (and adult men NEVER look like actual women in real life).
"Pronouns" do not belong to individuals and this should be stopped as it is a lie. No one has the right to demand that everyone else actively complies with the selfish self perception of an individual. The "only" pronouns individuals have that "belong" to them are the 1st person ones - "I, Me, Mine".
That is it. All others are used by a speaker TO a person (2nd person - you/yours/yourself) or about a person (3rd person).
No schools should ever be changing names, "treating" a child or teen or student as anything other than what they are RECORDED on their birth certificate.
And Birth Certificates, NHS records, Driving Licences, Passports etc ALL forms of official ID should NEVER be recording lies about a person.
Stop all of the above and this ideology will stop very suddenly.
It NEEDS the language to be changed to their demands to have even a chance of working.
The "law" should simply be that anyone wanting to present themselves (without drugs or surgery or compelled language demands) as they want is protected (in UK) under the EA 2010 act PC "Belief". It does not allow that everyone else be forced to comply with an individual's self perception whether that is their religion or their identity or their star sign etc.
Without the medical demands there is no "disability" (except if it is retained as a mental health condition, in which case its then covered also by Disability.
The only way to stop this is to stop the language takeover.
Felicity: "I can't reply to that post. My thoughts:"
Not a subscriber? I can sympathize as I am, somewhat sadly, obliged to limit the number of Substacks I subscribe to - have to maximize the bang for every subscription buck. But sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Felicity: "I view any form of 'transition' whether to a fake version of the opposite sex or to 'nullifying' a person's sex, to be in the same box ..."
Indeed. Sort of a case of the "Big Lie" as I put it in another comment at Broadview:
"Not sure we're doing 'young people' any favors by helping them to 'pass' as the opposite sex - particularly when that entails mangling their bodies."
Felicity: "2. In terms of naming 'trans' persons. No use of any opposite sex terms should be used to describe a 'trans' person. ...."
I can sympathize, although I tend to be willing to use "transwomen" - compound word like "crayfish" which ain't - or "transmen". Particularly as it gets the knickers of many transactivists into a twist; see the Wiktionary Usage note:
"The unspaced spelling 'transwoman' is sometimes used interchangeably, including by a few transgender people. However, it is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold transgender women are not women, and thus require a separate word from woman to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find transwoman offensive."
Tough titty that transwomen find "transwoman" "offensive". As Stephen Fry pithily put it:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Though I'm also fine with "male transvestite", at least for transwomen who still have their nuts attached. "sexless eunuch" for those who don't.
Felicity: " 'Pronouns' do not belong to individuals and this should be stopped as it is a lie."
Amen to that. Though they're generally based on whether people "look" like a "typical" man or woman.
Felicity: "The only way to stop this is to stop the language takeover."
Amen to that too. That post by Davis on "What If We Used Different Words?" is a welcome step in that same direction - too many euphemisms related to "gender-affirming care" seem designed to hide the gruesome reality. Notably that such "care" that removes kids' gonads turns them into sexless eunuchs - "fine", I guess, if "adults" want to do that to themselves. But something in the way of a dereliction of duty - if not a medical scandal of the first water - to condone or promote that treatment for children, particularly those who are dysphoric or autistic. Crime of the century.
Graham, JL, please can you see Mandy JR's comment on the latest 'consultation' from Scots gov? Some urgency about this as deadline in a week.
The footnotes are a mess - they explain what VAWG is in the second footnote, as:
'2. Violence against women and girls is defined in the Scottish Government's Equally Safe strategy as "violent and abusive behaviour directed at women and girls precisely because they are women and girls. Behaviour which is carried out predominantly by men. Behaviour that stems from systemic, deep rooted women's inequality, and which includes domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, commercial sexual exploitation (like prostitution), and so called 'honour based' violence like female genital mutilation and forced marriage".'
but in the first one they state:
'1. Women means anyone who defines themselves as a woman.'
So you can't have a characteristic that is protected and is the defining reason why women and girls are abused if you can then have anyone who defines themselves as a woman and girl being one. They've destroyed the meanings of those definitions. And all our rights along with that.
"But the choice between winning elections and defending minority groups is a false one. The question is not whether to defend trans people, for example; we have a profound moral and political duty to do so. The question is how best to defend them. And here I would say that normie politics represents the best route forward. A normie trans politics emphasizes equal rights and dignity rather than academic conceptions of gender identity. Rather than constantly getting bogged down in abstract questions about the gender binary, which can sound extremist, Democrats should emphasize the shared humanity of trans people, their fundamentally mundane status as ordinary people who simply want to live and work and flourish while embodying their true gender identities. That demand, that we all recognize the equal dignity of a vulnerable set of people who want only to live their full and unapologetic lives, is both more important and an easier sell than achieving a significant public change in the understanding of sex categories. And indeed, that’s what conservatives want to debate, those abstractions, rather than the simple reality of trans life. Look at conservative activist Matt Walsh and his recent film What is a Woman?, which fixates relentlessly on abstract definitional questions in the hopes that doing so will obscure the faces of the trans people who are asking us for safety and dignity."
He closed the comments shortly after posting it because the response upset him.
I fully support the rights of transsexual women and men to live in the UK. I have had two transsexual women in our family for 50 years. Both are happy to tell people who ask that they are biological men who present to the world as women. I grew up knowing this. My life is better for knowing them. But neither me or them will support the trans people who are shouting that their rights trump the rights of women. That they are the most vulnerable minority group in the whole wide world ( I have worked all my life with vulnerable people and they are not it). Or that transwomen are real women and they have every right to be in women only spaces. The solution is an easy one that most trans people support but the activists don't want, and that is to have trans spaces as the third option. Transmen can still use women only spaces. Transwomen can still access men only spaces. And trans only spaces can be used by the vulnerable. But unfortunately too many of the loud people don't want that as it does not validate their narcissism. That I can't support as it leaves women and girls open to disrespect, a breach of their human rights and dignity and in some cases, their right to bodily function. I know that very few transwomen abuse women, but the fact that some do, exclude all, in the same way that not all men are abusers but some are so women and girls need single sex spaces.
Spot on. It's all well and good for Deboer to suggest that the likes of Chase Strangio let up on "Trans Women Are women" to make the left look a little less extreme, but the concerns about medicalized kids and the loss of women's spaces are material results of the "rights" TRAs claim. A "normie" campaign must follow the polling on these issues too, not just language.
See this? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11040417/Families-shocked-biological-males-allowed-provide-intimate-care-vulnerable-women.html
Oh wow that is shocking
Not the first time that that was reported.
No it isn't. And this has been a very dirty open secret in the health and 'care industry' for quite a while. 'Short staffing' means standards go. It's what those with disabilities who need any level of support or care, like with personal assistants have been reporting for years. The more you dig the worse this gets.
I needed care set up when discharged from a stay in hospital. It was all set up and then gradually agreements changed without agreement and when you are ill or needing care, fighting that too isn't possible or adds an additional burden. I am fairly young and don't have dementia and was utterly shocked at some things that happen so regularly they are an accepted part of the system. It is assumed vulnerable people can't or shouldn't 'complain'. 'Choice' is talked about but viewed as an indulgence. There is less oversight than claimed and so much is contracted out it's potluck if you get good carers who are supported by good managers in a good care agency. If it is home care in the community that's not inspected in the same way as residential care homes or schools (not saying it's better or worse). I have had some excellent care and from staff who are happy in their roles - this isn't carer bashing.
It's often through lack of staff - and very poor people management. People aren't treated well so they don't treat others well. I was once offered/introduced to a young male carer despite having declined (before, to the manager) to meet him as I didn't want him providing the personal care detailed in my care plan. Like it or lump it was the response. I waited for weeks more so I was pressured to accept. He revealed a lot about the way the company was run (badly, fraudulently) and said he 'didn't mind' personal care as I was 'young and pretty' not 'old and wrinkly'. It got very bad to the point I reported him and then was able to have the 'evidence' to take to social services. I looked for help and advice in a few forums and it's very common. Then the company went bust and everyone then disappeared without censure to set up another one. You sometimes get to know who are the better companies or carers and social services often act as brokers now - hands off until there is 'intelligence' - i.e. enough reports something bad is happening.
I was once next to a young disabled women in hospital who had a carer with her during day shifts. She was unable to communicate well verbally and although we got to know her and understand what she needed she was often 'accidentally' missed from mealtimes and water was left beyond her reach ('oh but she didn't say anything'). It was up to us other patients to look out for her or any of her private carers or family who might be visiting. That's in hospital, surrounded by doctors, nurses and AHPs. You are somehow invisible and your needs are for sure.
It's no fun being vulnerable. There but for the grace and all. It's why I find 'the most vulnerable' trans activist lie that is trotted out continually is not only statistically ignorant, but hugely offensive. We must speak up for those that can't.
Shocking story. Hard to understand how much men's feelings are considered much more important than the safety and dignity of vulnerable women and girls ! Predatory men will no doubt be quick to take advantage of that and some already have 🤮Thank you for the post ❤️x
A girl aged 5 has been flashed by an older boy in mixed sex toliets at Dreghorn Primary school in Scotland. She should never have been put in that position.
Feminist groups have refused to share the petition and side with a five year old girl. They've sided with male feelings instead.
Please, please, please help get the word out about this terrible violation of privacy and abuse towards a five year old girl.
💚🤍💜
https://www.change.org/p/give-children-single-sex-toilets-at-dreghorn-primary-school?recruiter=1148505571&recruited_by_id=3bdee420-f4e6-11ea-aa15-85cf98069414&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=copylink
Paranoid bollocks from me there. I signed it anyway,
The FM is from Dreghorn. That makes me slightly suscpiscious. Can you vouch for it?
Would anyone in Scotland or who reads this newspaper pleas consider writing to them to complain about their coverage of the proposed changes to the GRA here?
This article is typical of the one-sided misogynistic content they print, almost all by the same male author, and the articles are never open for readers comments.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20337581.misinformation-gender-recognition-plans-used-whip-moral-panic/
The cynical side of me wonders if they've put something as inflammatory as that behind the paywall on purpose. It looks like it came straight from Stonewall. The Herald used to be quite a well respected paper but they are doing themselves no favours printing bilge like that.
I can't see that behind the paywall but I've noted journalist's name. Scotland seems to have a problem with SNP supporting media
I've heard it said Scot Gov spend a lot on advertising and this makes it awkward for media outlets to report unfavourably on them
Try https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fpolitics%2F20337581.misinformation-gender-recognition-plans-used-whip-moral-panic%2F
Thanks for the link, the removal of the paywall.
"Show me a 10ft paywall, I’ll show you a 12ft ladder." 👍🙂
https://12ft.io/
Not entirely happy with the ethics of it, but if you don't tell anyone then neither will I ... 😉
Thank you
Typically , they've ignored all the real evidence of harm being done to women and girls by men who have self identified themselves into women's prisons ,sports ,rape crisis centres , women's refuges,female hospital wards and in fact every type of " women only" space. These abuses have happened in every country where self Id has been introduced. None of these MPs are likely to be victims of these abuses ,so they are quite happy to centre mens feeling over women's SAFETY.🤮😡🤬👎
The Scottish Government has put out a call for evidence: https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-strategic-review-funding-commissioning-violence-against-women-girls-services-call-evidence/
In the footnotes, it has their definition of what as woman is - anyone who defines themselves as a woman! They hide the definition. I thought it odd that women and girls are the terms used throughout the document, knowing the SG's position on Self-ID, and because I am pernickety, always read the footnotes. And there it was. Sneaky wee s****s!
People need to respond and tell them their definition is wrong. It is against the UN Convention on Human Rights and CEDAW.
This is the government that says it does more for the human rights of its citizens than any other. Yes it does, as long as they are biological men. Nicola Sturgeon and her Cabinet should be ashamed of themselves. The Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 stand in Scotland and the SNP Government is breaching both with that definition.
Thank you. One of the things I really appreciate about this substack is to raise and echo back the gamut of consultations that are out there so I know which to keep an eye on. These things then become our laws and are often used to justify weird policies. I was discussing another one today and with someone who had no idea about some big UK changes in delivery of key services. He asked me to give a summary (oh where to start). When I hear the official line that 'we consulted' I tend to get a bit suspicious.
*I've just read that first footnote myself - seeing it on a gov. site leaves me reeling! It will be hard to temper my language the sneaky slidey ****holes!!
I've just realised the closing date is after 8 weeks - maybe the team here can raise it again so it gets more coverage? That's 1st August - only a week away.
It's an online form with questions attached. I used to be a policy officer and the easiest way to respond, is to pick the questions you want to answer and give the answers you want to give, if that makes sense. If you want to chalkenge their definition, pichk the questions that mention women, and tell them their definition is wrong and why... Self id is not a thing under law in the UK. Men cannot simply define themselves as women even if they want to. The Equality Act gives the protected characteristic of fender reassignment which means...
The easiest thing to do is to hit Nicola's tribe with actual legislation not Stonewall's fantasy. If we all do it, they might get the message. My Monday evening will be spent doing just that!
Thank you! It makes absolute sense. I was trying to have some time away from this as my virtual desk has a knotty consultation I have been asked to respond to sitting glowering at me. I am old enough to have worked with one civil servant who once wrote an actual paper letter including the final copy of the new guidance to thank me for responding to one many years ago. I realised then how few of us were willing to provide not completely mad suggestions. I have then integrated useful responses into my own (or policy wot I wrote). I like writing 'no comment' or n/a to 30 odd questions, then letting rip with evidence they've 'overlooked'.
Enjoy your Monday - I will raise a glass to you as I now suspect I will be too. Sock it to 'em.
From a very weary policyish person to another ;-)
Footnotes page:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-strategic-review-funding-commissioning-violence-against-women-girls-services-call-evidence/pages/4/
Thanks for the link.
And for the stark evidence of the gobsmacking idiocy of far too many of our governmental organizations, not just in Scotland but in far too many other countries.
Part and parcel of what UK/US lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne called "the tyranny of the subjective" in a Quillette essay several years ago. See my essay on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" which opens with a quote of her damning summation of the problem:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedias-lysenkoism-410901a22da2
Link to her Quillette article in mine.
Hands down, your best post evah! 😉
Sorry - I don't understand this post. Could somebody please explain the background?
Same for me. I’m a subscriber here so perhaps it’s something that I should understand but unfortunately it’s gone right over my head 😕
Good question - I'm not sure either. But as a guess, maybe the labelled hands of the two people are from different organizations and now there's some sort of agreement, a pact of some sort? 🤷♂️🤔💭🙂
Oh no I just met those two people. A lovely moment for me
Ah haaa! Thank you.
I think I’ve done too many Escape Rooms.. I was looking for clues and codes to figure it out! Transpires that it was ‘hands-down’ a less convoluted, and ‘touching’ explanation 😊
I was also extremely drunk when I posted it…
surely not! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
aha is that all! nicey.
Mystery solved! 👍🙂
But you're doing yeoman's work pulling together some disparate if not desperate threads. 🙂 Hat's off to y'all.
Somewhat in passing since you're apparently in this neck of the woods - kind of late there in the UK? - but I've been arguing for some time that much of the transgender clusterfuck is because pretty much every man, woman, and otherkin - and their cats, dogs, and gerbils - has wildly different definitions for the relevant terms, "sex" "gender" and "gender identity" in particular. Recent Tweet from Matt Walsh that you mentioned about Merriam-Webster being a case in point.
But Substacker Lisa Selin Davis has called for something in the way of a dialog - an "urgent proposal" - to thrash out which definitions make the most sense. Which I've been trying to promote as well - see this comment of mine to her for some details:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/letter-from-finland-and-sweden/comment/7930339
Think you might be interested in that idea?
I can't reply to that post. My thoughts:
1. certainly in Britain Human Cloning is banned. Because of the ethical issues at stake. I view any form of "transition" whether to a fake version of the opposite sex or to "nullifying" a person's sex, to be in the same box - Ethical issues dictate this should NEVER happen regardless of age of person.
- So, NO "puberty" blockers for children because of the considerable harm this does to the proper maturation of body and mind. We KNOW the harms - we have seen them in adult men who had this drugs for prostate cancer (which is the only condition it was created for). We have seen the harms in Women who have had them for gynaecological conditions. We have seen the harms in young adults who had too early puberty. The EVIDENCE has always been there.
- NO to "cross sex" hormones. When these are being given to the person whose sex is NOT supposed to have this *higher* doses of the drugs for their body, its is MEDICALLY created Endocrine disease. This causes serious harm in the body, exacerbates the stunted maturation process and created cognitive dysfunction.
- NO to any surgeries which seek to create a fake opposite sex body. This are entirely harmful, and NEVER clinically indicated. No male has EVER needed from a clinical perspective, their penis stripped, turned inside out and stuffed into an already "full" pelvic cavity causing pressure on bladder and bowel and potentially leading to Urinary and bowel conditions that leave them incontinent in both sides. That is without the total loss of any real sense of sexual function PLUS the compounded condition of infertility that has been caused by the wrong sex hormones. NO girl has EVER needed a fake penis from her forearm being stripped of skin and muscle and a floppy, nerveless flesh lump stitched to her groin. NO girl has EVER needed her breasts removed when there is no indication or history of aggressive breast cancer.
On these basis alone, these surgeries should be entirely banned for all persons when its solely for a "trans" persona.
2. In terms of naming "trans" persons.
No use of any opposite sex terms should be used to describe a "trans" person.
Instead: "Trans Identifying Male/Man" for Men who demand to be viewed as not men. eg TiM; "Trans Identifying Female" for Women who demand to be viewed as not women. TiF.
Everyone knows what they are and what they are wanting to be. It is social only and can only happen after 18.
However, their bio sex trumps everything: So they only have access to their own bio sex spaces. Without Wrong sex Hormones they will not look like the opposite sex and so will not be mistaken for anything other than what they are (and adult men NEVER look like actual women in real life).
"Pronouns" do not belong to individuals and this should be stopped as it is a lie. No one has the right to demand that everyone else actively complies with the selfish self perception of an individual. The "only" pronouns individuals have that "belong" to them are the 1st person ones - "I, Me, Mine".
That is it. All others are used by a speaker TO a person (2nd person - you/yours/yourself) or about a person (3rd person).
No schools should ever be changing names, "treating" a child or teen or student as anything other than what they are RECORDED on their birth certificate.
And Birth Certificates, NHS records, Driving Licences, Passports etc ALL forms of official ID should NEVER be recording lies about a person.
Stop all of the above and this ideology will stop very suddenly.
It NEEDS the language to be changed to their demands to have even a chance of working.
The "law" should simply be that anyone wanting to present themselves (without drugs or surgery or compelled language demands) as they want is protected (in UK) under the EA 2010 act PC "Belief". It does not allow that everyone else be forced to comply with an individual's self perception whether that is their religion or their identity or their star sign etc.
Without the medical demands there is no "disability" (except if it is retained as a mental health condition, in which case its then covered also by Disability.
The only way to stop this is to stop the language takeover.
Felicity: "I can't reply to that post. My thoughts:"
Not a subscriber? I can sympathize as I am, somewhat sadly, obliged to limit the number of Substacks I subscribe to - have to maximize the bang for every subscription buck. But sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Felicity: "I view any form of 'transition' whether to a fake version of the opposite sex or to 'nullifying' a person's sex, to be in the same box ..."
Indeed. Sort of a case of the "Big Lie" as I put it in another comment at Broadview:
"Not sure we're doing 'young people' any favors by helping them to 'pass' as the opposite sex - particularly when that entails mangling their bodies."
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/what-if-we-used-different-words/comment/7995886
Felicity: "2. In terms of naming 'trans' persons. No use of any opposite sex terms should be used to describe a 'trans' person. ...."
I can sympathize, although I tend to be willing to use "transwomen" - compound word like "crayfish" which ain't - or "transmen". Particularly as it gets the knickers of many transactivists into a twist; see the Wiktionary Usage note:
"The unspaced spelling 'transwoman' is sometimes used interchangeably, including by a few transgender people. However, it is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold transgender women are not women, and thus require a separate word from woman to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find transwoman offensive."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans_woman#Usage_notes
Tough titty that transwomen find "transwoman" "offensive". As Stephen Fry pithily put it:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather
Though I'm also fine with "male transvestite", at least for transwomen who still have their nuts attached. "sexless eunuch" for those who don't.
Felicity: " 'Pronouns' do not belong to individuals and this should be stopped as it is a lie."
Amen to that. Though they're generally based on whether people "look" like a "typical" man or woman.
Felicity: "The only way to stop this is to stop the language takeover."
Amen to that too. That post by Davis on "What If We Used Different Words?" is a welcome step in that same direction - too many euphemisms related to "gender-affirming care" seem designed to hide the gruesome reality. Notably that such "care" that removes kids' gonads turns them into sexless eunuchs - "fine", I guess, if "adults" want to do that to themselves. But something in the way of a dereliction of duty - if not a medical scandal of the first water - to condone or promote that treatment for children, particularly those who are dysphoric or autistic. Crime of the century.
I don’t either. I was at the party (organised by Standing For Women) but don’t understand this post.
like not working - me neither
Graham, JL, please can you see Mandy JR's comment on the latest 'consultation' from Scots gov? Some urgency about this as deadline in a week.
The footnotes are a mess - they explain what VAWG is in the second footnote, as:
'2. Violence against women and girls is defined in the Scottish Government's Equally Safe strategy as "violent and abusive behaviour directed at women and girls precisely because they are women and girls. Behaviour which is carried out predominantly by men. Behaviour that stems from systemic, deep rooted women's inequality, and which includes domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, commercial sexual exploitation (like prostitution), and so called 'honour based' violence like female genital mutilation and forced marriage".'
but in the first one they state:
'1. Women means anyone who defines themselves as a woman.'
So you can't have a characteristic that is protected and is the defining reason why women and girls are abused if you can then have anyone who defines themselves as a woman and girl being one. They've destroyed the meanings of those definitions. And all our rights along with that.
Freddie Deboer has been writing about how elections can be won while defending trans rights:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/towards-a-normie-politics
For non-subscribers:
"But the choice between winning elections and defending minority groups is a false one. The question is not whether to defend trans people, for example; we have a profound moral and political duty to do so. The question is how best to defend them. And here I would say that normie politics represents the best route forward. A normie trans politics emphasizes equal rights and dignity rather than academic conceptions of gender identity. Rather than constantly getting bogged down in abstract questions about the gender binary, which can sound extremist, Democrats should emphasize the shared humanity of trans people, their fundamentally mundane status as ordinary people who simply want to live and work and flourish while embodying their true gender identities. That demand, that we all recognize the equal dignity of a vulnerable set of people who want only to live their full and unapologetic lives, is both more important and an easier sell than achieving a significant public change in the understanding of sex categories. And indeed, that’s what conservatives want to debate, those abstractions, rather than the simple reality of trans life. Look at conservative activist Matt Walsh and his recent film What is a Woman?, which fixates relentlessly on abstract definitional questions in the hopes that doing so will obscure the faces of the trans people who are asking us for safety and dignity."
He closed the comments shortly after posting it because the response upset him.
I fully support the rights of transsexual women and men to live in the UK. I have had two transsexual women in our family for 50 years. Both are happy to tell people who ask that they are biological men who present to the world as women. I grew up knowing this. My life is better for knowing them. But neither me or them will support the trans people who are shouting that their rights trump the rights of women. That they are the most vulnerable minority group in the whole wide world ( I have worked all my life with vulnerable people and they are not it). Or that transwomen are real women and they have every right to be in women only spaces. The solution is an easy one that most trans people support but the activists don't want, and that is to have trans spaces as the third option. Transmen can still use women only spaces. Transwomen can still access men only spaces. And trans only spaces can be used by the vulnerable. But unfortunately too many of the loud people don't want that as it does not validate their narcissism. That I can't support as it leaves women and girls open to disrespect, a breach of their human rights and dignity and in some cases, their right to bodily function. I know that very few transwomen abuse women, but the fact that some do, exclude all, in the same way that not all men are abusers but some are so women and girls need single sex spaces.
Spot on. It's all well and good for Deboer to suggest that the likes of Chase Strangio let up on "Trans Women Are women" to make the left look a little less extreme, but the concerns about medicalized kids and the loss of women's spaces are material results of the "rights" TRAs claim. A "normie" campaign must follow the polling on these issues too, not just language.
They had that already. There have always been trans sexual folk.
The activism is something else entirely ….
‘true gender identities’ 🤔
I came over last night to say hi and ask for a selfie but you were too deep in conversation. Lovely to see you in person!
Aww. I feel so blessed! My foot is in the background! I’m a ‘gettr’ wanna be meme queen, so I’m not worthy. But I couldn’t resist! Don’t know if that’ll get through but.. heroines! https://i.postimg.cc/DzGWQGh5/2945-D185-3-F0-E-4-A9-F-9-D10-708-A06-A2-CCE7.jpg