We oppose the “affirmative” approach to gender dysphoria. Our detractors suggest, offensively and quite ludicrously, that this reflects an uncaring attitude to those concerned. This important article suggests the opposite./1of6 quillette.com/2020/11/01/jac…
“Advocates of ‘affirmative care’ naturally downplay the risks arising from inappropriate transitions. (Turban himself has described them as largely ‘cosmetic.’ Yet we are seeing increasing numbers of patients who feel deeply traumatized by inappropriate transitions.”/2of6
“They suffer from irreversible physical changes, including alterations to their genitals and sexual function, sterility, painful vaginal atrophy, chest/breast alteration and scarring, deepening of the voice”,/3of6
“unwanted permanent changes to facial hair growth, male-pattern baldness, urinary incontinence, and other lasting effects. Apart from the distress that these changes cause directly, they also negatively impact many areas of patients’ lives,”/4of6
“including their ability to form a stable identity (many feel trapped in a ‘gender no-man’s land’), to find romantic partners and supportive social networks, to bear children, or to secure employment.”/5of6
“The process of coming to terms with these consequences of their transition is psychologically difficult and can be profoundly painful.”
A large proportion of those affected, as we now know, are lesbians. Do we care? You bet. And we’re angry. #WeWillNotBeSilent
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Is Stonewall's Diversity Champions scheme fit for purpose? This article highlights what has gone so badly, and sadly, wrong. The issues raised are at the heart of the case being brought by @BluskyeAllison against @stonewalluk. We support Allison in her fight for justice. /1
Diversity Champions scheme was designed to help organisations become better workplaces for all. Its original purpose has completely changed. Tragically, it is now used to promote @stonewalluk's incorrect interpretation of the Equality Act. /2
In replacing sex with "gender" Stonewall seeks to remove sex protected spaces. And in promoting their narrow world view revolving around "gender identity", they undermine LGB rights & call any disagreement with their strict orthodoxy "transphobic". /3
What is advertised as “diversity” & “inclusiveness” is a set of beliefs based on gender identity theory. The resulting policies undermine the rights of LGB people, women & girls and flout the Equality Act. Why are govt agencies paying into this programme? telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/3…
“Roughly 250 Government departments and public bodies, including police forces, local councils and NHS trusts, pay thousands each year to be members of the programme run by Stonewall.”
“The amount that each organisation pays is shrouded in secrecy, but the base rate is £2,500 and can vary depending on the size of the organisation, suggesting that the taxpayer is footing a bill of at least £600,000.”
Open letter from LGB Alliance to Tim Davie, Director General, BBC
30 Oct 2020 /1of27
Dear Tim Davie,
The BBC is one of the great British institutions, treasured by the public and revered across the world. It is because the BBC remains so important that every word you utter is dissected forensically. /2of27
In addition, the fact that you depend on the licence fee makes it even more important that you represent the population in a balanced and well-informed way. /3of27
1 DAME JENNI MURRAY: How I was cancelled by the BBC I adore... mol.im/a/8799931 via @MailOnline. So many questions here for the new DG BBC - Tim Davie. First why did @whjm earn £100K for "delivering a hugely popular daily programme, once described as a ...
2 'listed building of broadcasting' while a Radio 2 DJ spinning discs earns £475K, and others in excess of £1m? Second, where did impartiality go? As soon as DJM acknowledged the difference between sex & gender, @BBC shut her down. "I was roundly ticked off publicly....
3 and informed that I would not be allowed to chair any discussions on the trans question or the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. I had lots of emails & tweets asking why I had not been involved in this debate, as it was so important to Woman's Hour listeners....
We have stopped referring to “trans rights activists”, calling them instead “gender identity extremists”, because their aggressive tactics have nothing to do with trans rights. This terrible news story makes that point only too well./1of5 spectator.us/terf-hunters-c…
Gender identity extremists, throughout the Western world and even in Pakistan, rage and shake their fists at the fictional monster they have created from the reasonable, compassionate words of @jk_rowling./2of5
Meanwhile, trans people are being viciously murdered. Not in the UK, where trans rights are respected, but in Pakistan, where 69 trans people were murdered in a single province in the past five years./3of5
We are delighted by reports “gender” self-ID will not become law in the UK. If confirmed, this will be an example of the govt listening to years of thoughtful grassroots campaigning, especially by the UK’s intrepid women’s groups./1of9
LGB Alliance joined this campaign a year ago, driven by concern that the increasing replacement of the word “sex” by “gender” was undermining our rights as LGB people, based on our sexual orientation: a protected characteristic under the Equality Act./2of9