The transgender movement has transformed cultural norms and social institutions at breathtaking speed. Most of us, becoming acquainted with the trans issue for the first time, are astonished to discover the extent of the gender revolution. The movement has accomplished in a few years what the movements for women’s and for gay and lesbian rights took many decades to achieve.
Part of the explanation is the amount of money behind transgenderism. The Gender Industrial Complex, as we may call it, has many components. Lucrative sponsorship comes from pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. Charities originally established to fight for homosexual rights (like Human Rights Campaign in the United States and Stonewall in Britain) wield large budgets. Last but not least, three American billionaires have bankrolled the transgender movement on a global scale: Jennifer Pritzker, whose activities were detailed in another blogpost, Jon Stryker, and George Soros.
The largest recipients in this current tranche are the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association ($642,000), Global Action for Trans Equality ($500,000), and Transgender Europe ($500,000). . . .this funding greatly exceeds the resources given to alternative voices.
To sum up, more than a hundred women are murdered each year in the United Kingdom at the hands of males, but no day has been set aside to commemorate their deaths. Transgender murders are exceedingly rare—eight in the past decade (Trans Crime UK 2017; Evening Standard 2018)—and yet they have an institutionalized day of remembrance. Even if we consider the homicide rate rather than the number of homicides, Nicola Williams demonstrates that transgender people are no more likely to become victims than are women (Fairplay for Women 2017).
The prominence of transgender victims, compared to the virtual invisibility of female victims, is partly explained by the amount of resources devoted to compiling evidence and promoting commemoration. Thus funding from large American charities like OSF—along with the Arcus and Tawani Foundations—shapes the political climate in Britain and around the world.
Campaigners have raised concerns that a new policy which allows male doctors to self-identify as female is deterring vulnerable women from visiting gynaecologists.
A handful of women claim that they have cancelled, delayed or felt uncomfortable during cervical cancer screenings because they were anxious about being presented with a healthcare worker who had transitioned to female.
One woman wrote: “I’ve already missed three smear tests because I am so scared of being presented with a male nurse.” Another said: “The NHS currently try whenever possible to provide me with female healthcare providers due to my traumatic history. If their definition of female and mine changes, it means that I’m unlikely to access medical care.”
One health board, NHS Lothian, said that it was unable to guarantee that female-only care would not be undertaken by a transgender doctor. It said in response to a freedom of information request: “Unless the practitioner consented, to exclude them from carrying out female-only care would be a breach of section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and a criminal offence. There are also restrictions under the Equality Act 2010 around requiring staff to disclose their gender identity and staff selection on this basis.
“Charlie”, a 47-year-old writer from Fife, was sexually assaulted as a teenager and suffers flashbacks when put in a vulnerable position with a man. “To be told that I can’t be guaranteed female-only care and I won’t be told when that might not be achievable — those are both real violations of my trust in the health service,” she said. “If someone is telling me they’re female, when I can see that they’re male, I’m already thinking the worst. They’re already lying to me. I would leave.”
Until just four months ago, Jeremy Bate was living as a ‘trans woman’ after transitioning 17 years ago and undergoing sex reassignment surgery. Now he is angry at a system and ideology he says took advantage of him when he was his most vulnerable.
Mr Bate said he was angry not only because no one would help him when he started to talk about detransitioning, but because he felt he transitioned at a time when he was vulnerable after the relationship breakdown took away his stability.
He said he had never received specialist medical advice or unbiased counselling before agreeing to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.
Mr Bate said he set up a support page for people in his situation, called “Detransition”.
“There are going to have to be some pretty serious inquiries down the road about how this became so prevalent and how affirming treatment became the so-called international best practice,” he said.
“I don’t think people are aware of the implications of it.
“And we’re actually harming people by not allowing them to have access to biological sex-affirming treatment.” www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/after-17-years-as-a-woman-this-man-has-had-enough-20181207-p50kyo.html [category Aust, trans]
A range of structural inequalities between females and males are widely recognised. These material facts about female oppression must be acknowledged when we think about two questions at the heart of a bitterly disputed UK government consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act. The first is whether self-identifying as a woman without medical certification should be sufficient criteria for legal gender reassignment. The second is whether self-identifying transwomen should be allowed into women-only spaces, and have access to women-only resources. Some answer “yes” to both. Others, like me, argue that a positive answer poses unacceptable harm to the original occupants of the category “woman”.
It seems clear that woman-only spaces such as changing rooms, hostels, and prisons should be organised according to sex category, not self-assigned gender. Transwomen are biologically male. Studies show that most retain male genitalia. Many have a sexual orientation towards females. If we think there are good reasons to retain same-sex spaces generally, in terms of protecting females from a small number of malfeasant males, these reasons don’t cease to operate when males self-identify as women. Either we keep same-sex spaces, or the result is effectively mixed-sex spaces, to the detriment of females.
Meanwhile, allowing self-identification as the criterion of eligibility into woman-only resources, such as shortlists and prizes, seems to both incentivise unscrupulous cheating, and count as a stunning dismissal of the original reasons such (still scarce) resources were created – to combat the low numbers of females in associated roles.
‘We are in a new era of witch burning, except that today, the fire is that of media and propaganda, with trans activists and their supporters suppressing any information that contradicts their goals and silencing their critics through oppressive tactics. Some of our contributors have been fired from teaching positions at universities; some have been […]
Women Speak Tasmania is scheduled to speak at a Human Rights Week event for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) on 12 December next. On 30 November, former Anti-discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks, emailed WILPF with the following … ‘I am writing out of concern for WILPF, having just seen the invitation to […]