When were you last silenced? Reply to Katy Montgomery

By Anna:

A quick (no, sorry, it's not) response to Katy Montgomery -

So, Katy responded to Sonia Sodha's tweet about no-platforming feminists thusly: https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1407768025936412672?s=19









Replying to the 'remember when Paris Lees was on Woman's Hour '





Now, I have a lot of criticisms of Katy, because I don't feel she is honest in how she presents arguments. I do, however, appreciate she does at least remain civil, which is rare among trans rights activists these days. At least to me, or from what I've seen (although I know there's a lot of allegations of inciting dog piles etc). But that civiility matters, and I wanted to reply properly.

I am fucking terrible at keeping replies short and succinct, especially because this whole issue is a viper's pit of logical fallacies and lies... I'm trying my bestest to keep it short here, but in all likelihood I'll fail.

First things first: When Katy clarifies she means 'GC people' I guess this is part of broadening criticism of 'TERFs', who are, by definition, women, to include men.

This is in the gender activist's best interest - the targeting of women as the enemy, and use of misogynistic abuse is increasingly being called out and showing the movement up as aggressively male supremacist and sexist. There's never been so much incentive to point out and condemn gender critical men. Not, of course, that I'm accusing Katy of behaving so cynically, but it's all part of defending a more agreeable version of trans activism.

I also take it to mean gender critique as a view. That is, believing gender is not innate and that it is routed in regressive stereotypes. This isn't necessarily feminism, or an ideology over and above critiquing gender - it doesn't tell you the roots of misogyny or sexism.

What Katy means with reference to this and 'gamete potential' is radical feminism, I reckon. Which holds that sexism/misogyny is rooted in seeking to control our reproductive bodies by a capitalist patriarchy.

For example: animals are in this way treated in farming - from which breeds are most economically rewarding to which cow to put on the 'rape rack' for insemination; which calf to kill because he wont produce milk; which chick to shove into a blender cos he won't produce eggs. It (patriarchy) sees women as bodies, as a resource and as such it needs to control and manage us, based on the potential of our reproductive bodies.

This is the origin, the basis of our oppression. Young men have their bodies exploited in labour, dangerous work and war, and young women have theirs exploited in different forms of labour and as objects of desire and reproductive potential. It’s not possible to challenge objectification without acknowledging the objectification, or its targets. We can't get very far with gender ideology (which, I imagine, Katy will deny as a concept) because it ties our bodies to temperament and behavioural expectations, which in turn are created and enforced by socialisation.

As a feminist, I see the fundamental difference between me and males is our bodies. From that, and society's perception of it, everything else follows. The gendered demands and social norms woven around us are just a shitty, claustrophobic set of rules and roles I want kept a very long way away from my body, which will always be my body.

Gender is a useful tool for a patriarchy which wishes to categorise and control. It's yoked to biological sex, and used as an additional set of limitations which does all of us, including those with dysphoria, a lot of harm. Hysteria and hysterectomy share the same roots, too - but are referent to very different things. It's a bit like that.

And, apart from radical feminists, I'd hazard a guess most people use a real-world taxonomic version of sex, placing self-described identity below physical reality. Being thoughtful and considerate to the upset trans people feel over 'misgendering' doesn't change this.

Typecast 'feminine' traits being hitched to a female body oppresses us. The caricatures of 'feminine' are predicated on women as weak, prone to neurosis (hysteria), needing guidance, being submissive and unable to think deeply and rationally. Our lesser needs are met by frivolous, trivial fixations with gossip and looking pretty; our real fulfilment comes from caring and bearing (maybe baring, too).

The fact 'TERFs' are so despised, though none have ever perpetrated a murder or notable act of violence (are there any?) is proof of the hatred of women defying gender expectations, as well as, on some level, fitting the ancient derogatory, malevolent definitions of women past their biological utility - witches; nags; prudes. Past it yet weirdly obsessed with sex and genitals.





Being male and feminine, female and masculine, or just conforming or not, is something we need to accept and, in the case of children, not be medicating or pathologising - ever. We can challenge the socialisation which enforces them, and not be bigots to those who have a connection to gender.

Suggesting, though, that a boy being drawn to long hair, sparkles, pink and dollies therefore is a girl is not progressive. It reinforces these assumptions, and we see this time and again as the foundation of the evidence that a child is somehow trans. It may be that it's important for a person's self care, to cope with dysphoria, to transition, but a transwoman is the ultimate manifestation of a socially constructed identity and being. 

This construct makes growing demands that everyone adhere to, endorse and defend it as meaning something synonymous with, indistinguishable from, woman. Raging against those who make a distinction, genderists are genuinely authoritarian and censorious, appealing constantly to cultural stereotypes. Therefore it continues to bind gender stereotypes to sex, and it categorises adult human females who may live their lives without resort to gender, or who express it in terms culturally coded masculine, as 'cis'.

And, when we state our case against this, we are abused.

The term 'cis', to me, is as helpful to feminism as climbing a mountain, only to have your kit swapped on the last day with that of an ice skater and being asked to appreciate the pretty spandex and blades. It's just another burden, a luxury obstacle and it looks and feels stupid. A trivial, distracting hindrance that might be fun for someone with nothing to climb and endless leisure time, but for me it's an anti-tool. A handicap. 

It fundamentally contradicts my understanding and many other's of our lives and trials. It's sunglasses when you need a microscope. 

Sexism and misogyny comes from that commodification of bodies which sorts the milk-producing cow from the bullock. Mammals come in only two sexes, and the fact there's variation and not all bodies function in the way necessarily assumed changes nothing. This was the origin of our subjugation and has been built upon for millenia. The roots are all in the assumption a female has these biological functions and should behave in a prescribed way.

So, when we are told that 'transwomen are women' - and when we are punished for dissent - we are being told our analysis of our own condition is not only worthless but offensive and harmful. How is it, we are damned for holding a different view, while simultaneously accused of being abusive for disagreeing with theirs?

How, if a transwoman doesn't pass, are they affected by misogyny?

Misogyny is hatred of women. Unless I'm mistaken for a transwoman or transman, I won't suffer transphobia and I certainly wouldn't try to tell Katy what it feels like. I may suffer prejudice for being gender nonconforming, which is a large part of transphobia, but, again, has different routes, meanings and consequences.

These things have different origins & definitions. Why deny this? Why try to reduce complex ideas and concepts and analysis to a simple, democratised, pick-yer-own protected group?

I don't suffer racism. Not today. As a kid though, growing up to constant chants of 'g*po' and 'p*key', I did. My whiteness, the banal ubiquity of my surname, separation from family and the way I live now is such I escaped it. I still feel it when I read headlines, overhear conversation on the bus, see vile comments online, but it isn't happening to me. Because my race has no biological features that are distinct from the archetype, I can move on freely.

That has a large part to do with the difference within forms of prejudice. Black and Asian people won't escape like that. Therein lies the spiteful nuances, fixations and characteristic stereotypes that lie at the heart of racism, as it conflicts with the white, English archetype - from antisemitism to xenophobia and colourism. There's differences here and they matter. Prejudice based on any divergence from the male archetype affects both of us, Katy, but in different ways. And as our bodies are only superficially changeable, we will never escape.

Back to Katy's initial point that it is transwomen who are being impacted by gender criticals who are 'going out their way to prevent transwomen talking about their[s]' oppression - where on earth is the evidence?

I've thought of a few things which trans activists have done to us in the UK:

* 1) Feminists have been routinely de-platformed, often with erroneous advice from Stonewall, a national charity which had their feet well under the table of the queer theory banquet. 

* 2) Maria McLaughlin was assaulted for filming counter demonstrators, as she and others were harassed at Speaker's Corner while waiting to find out the venue of a feminist meeting. Trans activists rejoiced.

Who criticised that? Here's a selection of responses, some from relatively big accounts;
















* 3) Women meet to discuss the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights' statement, which claims A Woman's Place and LGB Alliance is transphobic and members should be expelled from the party, favours self ID - which directly undermines women's rights to self segregate, and claims pointing that out is itself transphobia (AWP's response here) and are bombarded by abuse, a smoke grenade (near the Grenfell tower memorial) loud hailers and a young man with a prosthetic penis sewn to his crotch

* 4) A Woman's Place try to meet to discuss their oppression in Leeds, the council cancel it after threats; https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/womans-place-uk-leeds-debate-15434988

* 5) Resisters organise a protest in Manchester and are met by Sisters Uncut who release this beforehand:

 

(Let's not forget Sisters Uncut hijacking Sarah Everard's vigil - all detailed in the link above on their name)

* 6) Julie Bindel is abused by 'Cathy Brennan' (who changed their name to that of the American feminist Cathy Brennan, who has been abused for years) after speaking at the event "Women's Sex-Based Rights: what does (and what should) the future hold?"

* 7) A Woman's Place try to meet to discuss their oppression in Brighton and are harassed

One woman's experience of attending the event;



* 8) Anti rape culture flash mob held by Make More Noise is counter protested by activists (Sisters Uncut, again..)

* 9) Abused at Reclaim These Streets in Portsmouth - a protest against male violence. Because feminists joined and dared to have teeshirts and a banner bearing the dictionary definition of woman, they were attacked.

Here is a member of FiLiA recounting her experience, this is Glinners' coverage. Here's a selection of comments from a local Facebook page following;

 

Another witness:

And another:



One man doesn't understand how men chanting abuse at women, throwing their book in a bin and being deliberately intimidatory as well as bundling them off stage is ok -






So, that's nice. Not like we are hitting a bit of a nerve when stating the origins of sexism and misogyny, is it?


Here, one man denies he binned a feminist's book, is defended by a woman who also says it is a lie, before admitting he did in fact bin it:




more denial...












Claire Udy (under the pseudonym Clair Bear), an independent councillor for Portsmouth (after her antisemitic 'jokes' had her ejected from the Labour party) enters the fray, having been accused of exacerbating and participating in the abuse;







It is clear from the video the women 'flipped the bird' - after being jeered at, abused and, allegedly, assaulted. They did so as they left. It's also a pretty shocking state of affairs that women unfurling a banner, which gives definition to what a woman is and thus the basis of our oppression, results in a councillor joining in on chants and telling women to fuck off, upping the tension to a stage a man feels the need to step in and be security. Not sounding very feminist to me...


Here's Claire Udy again:


So there we have it - the dictionary definition of woman is transphobic, out of place at a protest against male violence in the wake of Sarah Everard's murder, and is justly countered by, even if we believe these people's limited account, telling these women to fuck off and chant TERF.


Claire Udy is again accused of chanting 'scum' at these women, and claims to have video footage absolving herself and others, but won't share it.





(The woman writing here swiftly clarifies she means 'trans person', but her anxiety is screwing with her ability to type her thoughts with clarity)






In summary: another man thinks abusing and silencing feminists is fine






In fact, if you really want to get an understanding of just how much women are prevented from speaking about their own oppression, just have a read of Maria McLaughlin's excellent blog where she lists the silencing attempts Trying to stop us meeting. Some more hatred and misogynistic oppression can be seen here.

Katy, it's not looking convincing. Maybe you have a load of counter examples which haven't reached me as I'm in some sort of echo chamber. But, some angry comments about Lees (who has a murky history at best) don't really cut it.

Feminists, gender critical feminists, are harassed; their talks are cancelled; their invitations rescinded; they are mobbed by chanting gangs of activists; they are not only attacked but then vilified further, lied about and see their assaults glorified. This is all down to our understanding of our oppression, and an understanding of what it is to be a woman that's actually shared by most people.

When did gender critical people do similar? When did any try to stop you speaking about your oppression?

Simply, we are saying they are different, with different origins. That isn't oppressing you, or anything like it.

This is DARVO.

Anna (Told you I'm not great at brevity)

The Sexual Rights Movement

The Sexual Rights Movement 

#SRM

So, first thing first - I got into gender critical feminism via a genuine concern for the people I know and have known - including trans people.

For far too long, I was confused as to why women who appeared to be saying rational, nuanced and inoffensive things were being mercilessly attacked by people I thought of as decent. And after being answered grudgingly with mantras, contradictions in terms, told I should read about it, - I did - I went to 'educate' myself. And everything changed.

Before, I'd held out an embarrassing benefit of the doubt (this was, in reality, doubting my own senses and downplaying my own dignity and safety after a lifetime of gaslighting) for appalling bullying, strawmanning and abuse, watching women being dogpiled and preferring - like Ayesha Hazarika - to be nice, accommodate and concur, or at least keep it quiet. 

But that isn't really who I am; I enjoy debate and don't shy away from disagreement. The obvious lies, transparent rhetorical tricks, the repetitive slogans and determined stupidity was burning at me.

So, given all this, I began compiling my own little gallery - almost to remain sure I had seen what I thought I'd seen. The final straw was when I actually thought back to all of the earlier assumptions, self censorship and cognitive dissonance I'd carried for so many years.

After living through decades of abuse from various men, starting from early childhood, I stopped subduing myself with drugs and alcohol and excuses; I got therapy; I learnt to acknowledge the unwitting part I played in my own oppression. And I realised, I wasn't living as the brave and outspoken type I thought I was. I understood I needed to question things more, listen to others, especially other women.

I also realised how deeply damaged I had been by my experience years ago with a purported transwoman. I finally allowed myself to see this person as the man I knew he was. I'd always disliked him, thought his behaviour was shocking and recognised he was scum, but what I hadn't done is speaak, even think, without self censorship. And I suddenly realised how screwed up it had all been, and just how wrong it is.

I had a son, and I realised how crucial my issues were to resolve, lest I pass it onto him and harm another generation.

This essentially boils down to actually showing integrity and bravery, not drunken, projected anger or shouting along with the mob. Listening and thinking a lot, feeling and acknowledging I was scared, and doing it anyway. Because it's the right thing to do.

I had to speak out on the harms of gender identity activism, for more reasons than I can [easily] list.

So this blog sprung up, between myself and my friend. It was meeting her and comparing eerily similar stories I realised what's actually happening to us.

We were both abused as children, both homeless before the age we could leave home legally, both serially sexually abused, drug and alcohol addicted, both accommodated with a sex offender who identified as trans.

Above all, I've met some incredible women. I was staggered at just how much other women, who appear so much better off than me or my friend, go through. I found it so shocking to realise just how atomised, how separate from other women I had become. Because of men. I never knew just how much we shared.

We, as women, can go through life completely unaware of the barriers we have between ourselves and other women. Sisterhood is a precious thing. Same sex spaces are sacred.

Of all the friends I've lost of the way, the vast majority see themselves as allies, rather than being trans. Some of my trans friends have shared this journey to a degree, and are equally angry. I love them more now, and while I won't always agree with them I appreciate their support. I also worry how they too will ultimately be impacted by this insanity.

They are not represented by the activists behaving as grandiose, misogynistic, arrogant, authoritarian maniacs. 

What is happening then, if those who actually commit to transition aren't being aided by the most aggressive activism around? I think it's deeply sinister.

As I'm quite the archivist, my devices are overloaded with screenshots of tweets, subreddit posts, Facebook comments. I am trying to sort them into a series of catalogues. There's something about galleries that has a particular impact. While we may be uninhibited on social media (unless you've reason to fear the thought police, like Marion Miller, Maya Forstater, Harry Millar etc) and it may show the worst extremities, it still illustrates a culture that many seek to dismiss.

This blog started with The Rich Fantasy, a list if trans identifying sex offenders, murderers etc. Now, rather than trying to match the exemplary work of Dr Em, Genevieve Gluck or Jennifer Bilek etc, I'm going to focus a little on one powerful element of this movement - sexual entitlement.

There's bound to be a tonne of overlap, but these will all be under #SRM = Sexual Rights Movement. I'm speculatively splitting it up into;

* Rape Victims & The Right Side of History, which is thus far almost entirely made up of responses to my friend and I when speaking about our experiences

* Autogynephilia 

* Sissies

* Porn & Kink

* Paedophilia & Bestiality 

* Sexual Violence & Misogyny 

* Sexualisation of Children

* Breaching Boundaries and Sexual Entitlement

Hopefully these will all be up within the next week or two..

Karen White & Steph's Place - tone-deaf with a straight face

Steph is like a dog with a bone with this one, although I appreciate the oblique reference to my previous post by acknowledging White/Woods was known as a 'transfaker'. Steph 'had to dig pretty deep, but obviously, the few gender crits who was aware of Wood's status did not do this' which is just glorious.
If you find massively mismatched battles followed by delusional, bantum-like strutting by the loser entertaining, that is.

On that point, we are accused of not reading the article(s) properly, whilst poor old Steph says it 'appears to suggest that White may have been an occasional crossdresser but was not, in their view, "trans."'
Steph goes on 'I say "appears" because I dont have a Times subscription and am most certainly not going to support an anti-trans rag - so in consequence, I can not read all of the article. But the fact remains the headline uses the words "trans faker".'
Mate, I actually linked to a copy/pasted Times article. So either you are confused, didn't read it properly, or are too paralysed with fear over the impending cognitive dissonance it would provoke. Either way, it's shit.

It's beyond tedious at this stage, and even for me, someone who doesn't enjoy kicking a man when he's down, (but, in the right circumstances, might find it funny) it's beyond a piece of piss to deconstruct this shite.
I've already done that, so many times now (links below) so I'm not bothering now. However, I get the feeling that Steph is very much a last word type. Unfortunately, I have also been cursed with this affliction. It's just a pity, for Steph, that not one of those last, or penultimate or even first words could be accurate, truthful or appropriate. 

It is, on the bright side, funny.

Apparently, gender criticals are 'heartless', even though Steph was asked no less than five times to show a flicker of concern for the women assaulted by White, and after repeatedly diminishing it, decided to gloss over the details and refer to the sexual assaults as 'minor incidents'. 

But it's us who's renowned for the mean stuff.

Now - bat signal to the terven network - we have traitors in our midst! Aside from the shocking tale of Steph meeting a double-agent gender critical in a park - while holding a briefcase, wearing a green neckerchief and muttering about the squirrel flying West for winter - it now emerges feminists have messaged Steph, via some kind of media network, to praise the excellent service of outing White and finally speaking the truth.

Sisters, we must find out who these treasonous backstabbers are. Any information on the psychic communication methods Steph uses to consort with the treacherous must be exposed. Clearly, the hotline to Steph's left temporal lobe is extremely active. No wonder the head is all tilted.

I, unlike Steph, will leave you, as always, to a link to their latest jobby on a plate (UPDATE; dear reader, that link died. Possibly because of me. I hope and pray I won't be implicated come TDoR) 

It appears this is a real hot topic over at that Place, and Sonia Sodha is next in the crosshairs. Sonia, my thoughts are with you. I can only say, through bitter personal experience, it will be fine. Really, really fine. Banality, zero self awareness backed up with a customised echo chamber and an irrational compulsion to flog long dead horses is all that keeps some people going. In the end, it's quite life affirming. There really is something for everyone.

Fada beo an fhírinne!

Ní mná iad fir, cibé méid tilt tú do cheann. Póg mo thóin

My earlier responses to Steph are;

* Steph's Place - Where the facts are fluid

* Steph's Place - Where, to virtually everyone, the truth matters

* No, Steph - Sexual assault is never 'minor'(you cheeky, 'orrible ****)

* It's another Steph's Place response...

Shite said Fred

I saw your article today, Freddie. I felt compelled to respond. The constant use of hyperbole and one-sided appeals to emotion are getting wearing.

For those unaware of McConnell, a brief run down:

Freddie McConnell is a trans man. He made headlines previously after having a child. This was covered in the documentary Seahorse -

Very soon after legally changing gender / sex, McConnell had a round of IVF using donor sperm. 

Freddie complained about media intrusion, although was simultaneously filming with the documentary crew - even during the labour. 

Having delivered, McConnell went to register the birth and then had to deal with the shock and trauma of finding the end point of the legal fictions afforded to trans people. The registrar couldn't record Freddie as the father, and Freddie kicked off. He was now a man, after all.

This led to court, unsuccessfully. 

Freddie believes that a changed birth certificate is not sufficient legal fiction, and should extend to the child's documentation. The child is McConnell's and thus must also have fictitious statements on their birth certificate.

This is important - for consistency; to make sure Freddie is never outed (imagine, being a recognisable face, and known for being a trans man and birthing parent!) and, obviously, so the child's existence can affirm McConnell's identity. 

More can be found here.

So, back to the article. 

Apparently, the left-wing media is reliable in calling out the anti trans bullshit (by relentlessly downplaying or ignoring relevant information, pushing myths, ramping up the hostility against women etc - all sterling stuff) except for this situation with Stonewall now - which is all so silly, and 'freelance journalist' McConnell will lead us through why they, essentially, are being persecuted.

"I refer to the government’s assault on the freedoms and safety of its transgender citizens" says McConnell, straight faced and totally sans-sanctimonious moustache twirling.

"Some loud lefties, under the guise of “gender-critical feminism”, are in lockstep with a government that they would otherwise denounce. The successors to what was known as “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” now agree with Tory ministers that trans people should not have equal rights and, in fact, have too many already"

There's been no assault on trans people's rights, you just didn't get self ID through the door. Is that an assault? Is allowing anyone who fancies it to opt into the protected groups of women or trans people ok? Not allowing mass, uncontrolled appropriation of the rights of protected characteristics is an 'assault'?

Not sure what McConnell hopes to achieve from scare quotes on 'gender-critical feminism', all it says to me is you would rather use a slur but - my God the oppression - know it undermines the injured-yet-inspiring brand, when the normies see it, anyway. And as for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", matey, you are not excluded from it, despite being trans! This pisses you off, of course - but it's pissing you off because you're included, not excluded.

Radical feminism is a practice, an analytical lens. It does not see gender as a manifest thing but a societal constraint, and most people don't believe a pseudo-soul - a self reported and unobservable essence - overrides biological sex. It's really on you that you point blank refuse to acknowledge this. It is not an attack on trans people, it's a disagreement on reality (we, the terven, are the sane ones, Freddie) and the origins and basis of our oppression. You're the intolerant, uneducated and exclusionary one here. Prove otherwise or continue to look the bigot.

Feminists aren't in lockstep with the government, for the love of God. Feminists have been campaigning, at considerable personal and professional cost (and threat of vexatious complaint and prosecution) to have their concerns recognised and there's plenty of disapproval, dismay and anger at the government from us. What has happened is finally a little bit of light has cracked through this murky, bullshit abyss, and our concerns have been acknowledged. Fuck the fluffy, complicit McLeft for letting this slide, and the totalitarian blinkers that tell you even stopped clocks cannot ever, even accidentally, be 'right' or you're a fash, innit.

What we don't want is for other protected groups to lose their rights, and you can squeal 'dogwhistle!' all day long - we're past caring.

Stonewall misled employers with their own twist on the implementation of the Equality Act. They have lied about not campaigning for the removal of exemption for transwomen in same sex spaces, they cooked and served a fallacious report into women's refuges. They refused to enter into dialogue to lower the toxicity of the debate. This really is on your side, mate.

McConnell then goes on to describe what I think we could call virtue signalling, although I'm guessing this prose is beneath them and whatever brocialist political alliance they proudly hold. The use of Pride hashtags and, apparently, cheap platitudes about respecting trans people are a ruse used by the baddies that convince casual observers, but are especially telling when combined with 'denying trans women's identities' (link to some unmitigated shite from TransActual)

Yes, Pride is a vacuous, commercial performance now. No, we are unable to deny anyone their identity. Your identity is your castle, innit? Something for you alone to stand atop with strapping, manly thighs, that can only be defined by you? Also, here you are invalidating our identities of being women - adult human females. Is that escaping you?

It's apparently a 'peculiarly British anti-trans moral panic' that ails us. A 'rehash of the anti-gay moral panic of the 1980s'. The knackered old tropes are cattle-prodded into action, barely managing to stand but braying along and making us all feel shit. 

This is being done by Freddie and Freddie's comrades. No one else.

'Moral panic' is a cheeky way to diminish the issues and paint us as archetypal prudes with intrusive, long, warty noses. It's an attempt to cast us as Mary Whitehouse types, or Victorians flustered at the sight of too much table leg. Is the fact morality is possibly somewhere involved in, say, the protection of children, a way to dissuade people from safeguarding policies? I suspect the moral panic actually stems from the 'think of the (trans) children!' suicide taunting; the hyperbole and lies over trans murder rates; the censorious, po-faced no-platforming. The supercillious, dishonest and hair-trigger sensibilities of trans activism. It has to gain some authority from somewhere other than facts, of course, and moral authority is their first port of call. As long as they accuse us (DARVO) all will be well. To the 'casual observer'.

Undated portrait of Freddie's argument as a child 

The comparison to fears over gays and lesbians in toilets is another old canard.
Those who claimed they posed a risk to others in toilets and changing rooms were ignorant and homophobic. They meant 'these people have already breached one social norm - to do with S-E-X - you can't trust them!'

Saying males commit the vast majority of sex crimes and crimes against the person ain't quite the analogy to homophobic hysteria you think it is. As you said earlier about people being fooled by platitudes, I suspect these poor, limping, bovine tropes are also reaching the end of the line. And we all know what would be the kindest thing...

Now we move onto the witch hunt, which sounds exciting (and weird,since it is the terven with the long, intrusive warty noses); "After the government reneged on Gender Recognition Act reform" (no to self ID, reducing charge of birth certificate doctoring to a fiver) and "abandoned work on its LGBT action plan" it went after the big daddy, Stonewall. Those bastards. Freddie reckons Simon Parrish is the fire starter in the latest act of political arson. Writing in his capacity as one of the founders of Stonewall, he said it should stick to the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexual people. Trans rights aren't really related to sexual attraction. And he's right.
Interesting to note that gay rights hero Simon Fanshawe has said much the same.  

McConnell then says that "despite loud voices misguidedly pitting women against trans people, a large majority of Brits maintain positive views of trans people." - (Link to EHRC)

So, what's the huge problem then? That in a time of economic downturn, during a pandemic, operations have been cancelled? That also goes for people with terminal illnesses, so I would refrain from dramatics there. The problem as I see it is trans activists very much do seek to ride roughshod over the rights, language and freedom of women. From Kate Scottow to Caroline Farrow, Marion Miller to Maya Forstater; from the endless stream of women censured, sacked, intimidated, beaten, vilified and silenced, it's very much pitting our rights against that of trans people. Maybe be honest about that, and defend or denounce.

As for the link to the EHRC listing ratings, that should be positive for you, including that the majority of the public feel no animosity towards trans people. Although perhaps you know a key issue was the fact that many respondents were under the impression 'trans woman' meant transsexual. That's another initiative of Stonewall and allies. Once people understand the vast majority transwomen never have surgery to remove their penises, that looks a bit different. For example (from the EHRC, above):

"51% of respondents said they would be comfortable or very comfortable with trans women accessing a women’s refuge; with 24% feeling very comfortable and 22% neither agreeing or disagreeing. The percentage who were comfortable or very comfortable had dropped by 10 percentage points from the previous survey in 2016"

But, according to this pretty detailed YouGov poll "It is worth noting, however, that Britons do not support such access for those who have not yet undergone gender reassignment surgery. By 41-46% to 26-30% people oppose those who have not physically transitioned being able to use their new gender’s changing rooms. Likewise, 39-41% oppose them being able to use their new gender’s toilets, compared to 31-32% who are in support."

So, be cautious of linking to a study which neglects to inform respondents the vast majority of trans women never have gender reassignment surgery, if you want to get it passed us 'gender-critical feminists'. We are a pedantic lot.

McConnell says it's "convenient for the anti-trans corners of society to ignore the awkwardness and cynicism of their alliances in order to pursue their agenda". Now now, Freddie, we aren't generally anti-trans at all. If you're gender non conforming, you'll be at home here. You are at home here, if you want to be. We just disagree with your religious take on gender. That's all. I'm not anti religion, per se. I certainly don't slate religious people. I respect diversity of opinion and belief. What's not 'convenient' is the institutional capture your lot has achieved in the 'left' wing press. We talk about how much the right are stinky, farting, blanket-hogging bedfellows - a lot. The fact we've been ideologically purged by the new-McLeft is not on us. You really should try listening some time.

Apparently the accusations against Stonewall are 'conveniently vague', and so, mate, I can help you out here. They aren't, they're very detailed - the charges against Stonewall are that they have given likely illegal advice on the Equalities Act, leading to the censoring of women. That their trans policies are anti-women. That they have refused to enter dialogue to lower the toxicity of the debate. They've prevented women with relevant specialism from taking part in the discussions around how the census be conducted. The list goes on.

But, so does Freddie; blah blah blah, yet more scare quotes and attempting to dismiss professors being no-platformed, vilified and abused with complicit backing by Stonewall, who seek to erase the voices of women. McConnell does not explain how Stonewall has been unfairly smeared with the accusation they interpreted the law as they would like it to be, rather than how it is, but we have more whataboutery to come...

Stonewall's embellished version of the EA is now, says Fred, deemed proof it "wants to get rid of single-sex spaces". Which they do. And, yes, which they also deny, but they most definitely do; they 'will advocate for the removal of all instances of permitted discrimination of trans people from the act'. What that means is, in those times where single sex services are really crucial - when asking for a woman to examine you for forensics after being raped; when escaping a violent partner and needing to be in a woman only refuge; when hospitalised for psychosis, convinced men are trying to kill you - Stonewall will lobby to make sure you get what and who you're given. How dare you try to exclude any self identifying (don't forget this is a key part of their goal) woman?

In addition, they support calls for a judicial review to take 'sex by deception', i.e. not telling a new sexual partner you are biologically of the opposite sex to that which you present yourself, off the statute books.

Now, despite all that, despite the sinister plans laid out in the Denton's documents, McConnell says it is us who is being a bit slippery, by suggesting that “gender identity” "is a more capacious term than the legally sanctioned “gender reassignment”; in other words, they argue the charity is sneakily trying to expand legal protections for trans people" - at this point, the lazy duplicity is too much for me. Do you know what you're talking about, or is it just unbridled, bare-faced lies that get you through the day? (I knew moustaches were a bad sign - essentially a comfort blanket for lies)

McConnell says "it really all comes down to a misinterpretation of Stonewall’s trans inclusion guidance" which is "based on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance".

Why then, pray tell, if that's the case, have EHCR dumped Stonewall? And why did they ever employ them?

According to McConnell, we "seek to limit or roll back legal protections for trans people" and want "equality law and guidance to only apply to those “transsexuals” they grudgingly approve of". 

Freddie, here's the thing: We do understand that some people make as meaningful a transition as they can. We believe they are deserving of specific legal protection. What we don't believe is anyone who claims they're a woman should receive all the rights and protections of women. We don't want anyone abused or oppressed for gender nonconformity, we just understand equality relies on certain apparatus to enable full social inclusion. I also don't think you should self identify into having disabled parking badges, or bus passes. These are things that enable everyone to have a basic standard of life. 

A bit more about the press colluding with the government to "concoct a disingenuous moral panic", which is a little bit rich; the lie "Stonewall is fighting for the dignity and safety of all LGBTQ+ people" which will certainly come as news to lesbians; the plight of the NHS when trans healthcare (phalloplasty, mastectomy, GRS and hormones) is concerned. Again, the absolute self-centreing here is startling - disabled children are given respite care, or put in hospitals, hundreds of miles from their family; people are dying through a lack of cancer treatment; suicidal people are assessed as not distressed enough and released to their deaths; elderly couples, together for decades, are placed in different care homes and die of heartbreak - it's rough out there.

"Instead of denigrating my trans sisters in the name of straw-man arguments about “male violence”" - I just can't with this sanctimonious facade of moral high ground. It's breathtakingly deceitful. McConnell then uses the apparent suicide of a transwoman in Ireland as a case in point, suggesting this has more relevance to the UK press than the actual legal misinformation pushed by groups like Stonewall and Mermaids, who are the only ones standing up for "our legal protections, healthcare and essential humanity". If this isn't moral panic-mongering, I don't know what is. It's of course tragic when anyone takes their own life. It is also almost certainly more complicated than long waiting lists for surgery, though, and, as we know, suicide doesn't drop after surgery. It's part of the agony trans people can endure, which I stand with you in mourning and demanding much better mental health resources for.

Blaming everyone else, ignoring the tragedies other people face every day, being so doggedly transfixed on the issues which affect your community alone and lying about or strawmanning others is not likely to be the best tactic indefinitely.

Read something outside of your bubble, it doesn't require a vaccination or mortal risk - you might actually learn something.

With a poignant sign off, we have Freddie explain "We never thought we could rely on this government for fair treatment. But it is dismaying to realise we cannot count on the press either" - Welcome to reality. Welcome to scrutiny, a tiny bit of accountability, Freddie. I won't say I understand, as I can only imagine such an attentive and fawning media, that many platforms, or as much freedom to speak. 

Petition from the LGB Alliance asking Stonewall to reconsider its stance here

More on the Stonewall exodus, language control, diversity championship and public money spent on them