In the first month of the 2022 election race, an archive of Liberal candidate Katherine Deves’ deleted tweets went viral. The general public was appalled at the crude and dehumanising ways she talked about trans people and the broader LGBTQIA+ community, referring to surrogacy as “reproductive prostitution” and the bodies of trans children as being “mutilated”.
However, this also served as the moment when many people in Australia learnt about trans people for the first time. In the weeks ahead we saw a slew of increasingly sympathetic articles and interviews, recasting Deves as a victim, entertaining her lies, and giving her opportunities to repeat her dangerous claims about us.
Commentators had the privilege of asking whether her beliefs were truly “anti-trans” or if she was just misunderstood; meanwhile, trans people were denied a similar platform to explain the impact of her words on our lives.
The thing that the media missed during this time was that the issue for trans people was not just that Deves’ tweets were offensive, it was also her promotion of dangerous anti-trans disinformation groups like Genspect and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM).
You have probably never heard of them before now, but these groups are some of the leading voices against trans health care globally.
Anti-trans disinformation groups like this have provided testimony in important court cases such as Tavistock v Bell in the UK, lobbied against bans on anti-trans conversion practices in New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and their work has been used as the “scientific” basis for legislative attacks on the trans community in the US.
These organisations are not recognised medical bodies, do not work with established trans health organisations, and are not working in collaboration with trans communities. The issue is that these organisations give the impression of being reputable science to anyone unfamiliar with trans health.
Much like the ex-gay movement of the 1980s and 1990s, these organisations support a number of debunked, discredited, and bizarre theories.
For example, the “trans social contagion” theory (simply repackaged gay panic) has been widely debunked and discredited as pseudoscience, yet the originator of the theory, Lisa Littman, serves as an adviser to Genspect.
Despite this, their work has found influence in the anti-trans, far-right, and QAnon communities — communities that have long searched for a scientific rationalisation for their bigotry.
This kind of organised disinformation poses a huge threat to trans people, the broader LGBTQIA+ community, and our democracy.
In Australia, this disinformation has appeared on paid ads by Binary Australia (formerly known as Marriage Alliance, a group instrumental in the fight against marriage equality in Australia), is being circulated through far-right conspiracy groups, and is a key part of the ongoing media campaign against trans health care.
Astroturfing dissent in trans health
Globally, there are a number of groups focused on developing and distributing anti-trans disinformation. They mostly work to publish media (whether it be podcasts, reports, blogs or studies) for the general public on trans health care, make submissions to government and regulatory bodies, advocate in the press, and engage in public seminars — serving as “experts” for the TERF and far-right movements.
They all oppose the established standards of care for trans people and many argue that trans-ness is generally rooted in mental health issues rather than being an intrinsic and deeply rooted sense of self.
Out of the 10 organisations identified below, seven of them were launched in 2021. Additionally, there is a large amount of overlap in their membership and leadership. Genspect and SEGM share seven of the same advisors.
Stella O’Malley (founder of Genspect, psychotherapist), Lisa Marchiano (Jungian analyst), Sasha Ayad (counsellor), and Roberto D’Angelo (psychiatrist and psychoanalyst) all feature prominently across the organisations, serving as clinical advisors or directors for multiple organisations. In fact, five of the most prominent organisations feature all four of them.
Multiple organisations were officially founded by O’Malley, and all of them involve O’Malley as either an adviser or a director.
| Founded | Stella O’Malley | Lisa Marchiano | Sasha Ayad | Roberto D’Angelo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genspect | 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) | 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Gender Exploratory Therapy Association | 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Wider Lens Counselling | 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✘ |
| Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics | 2019 | ✓ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Paediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group (now defunct) | 2018 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Destransitioners (now defunct) | 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✘ |
| Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research | 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Gender: A Wider Lens [Podcast] | 2021 | ✓ | ✘ | ✓ | ✘ |
| Thoughtful Therapists | 2021 | ✓ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
This appears to be an exercise in astroturfing.
Astroturfing is a deceptive practice where an organisation or lobby presents an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign as if it is a genuine grassroots movement. The tobacco industry famously used this approach to give the impression of spontaneous grassroots opposition to smoking reform by creating fake “smokers’ rights” groups.
While the tobacco industry used astroturfing primarily to protect their economic interests, anti-trans disinformation groups are using this strategy to help socialise their extreme views on trans health, and give far-right and anti-trans groups an air of scientific legitimacy.
Their intention is to pass off a small, orchestrated group of anti-trans medical practitioners as a legitimate and science-based movement against gender-affirming care.
History repeating: anti-trans disinformation is the new climate denial
Throughout the early 2000s, an organised group of far-right think tanks funnelled billions of dollars to climate deniers, sceptics and geo-engineers. Their sole aim was to undermine public trust in the established science by spreading confusion about the facts of climate change, and casting doubt on the motives of scientific bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For a public that was still learning about the realities of how fossil fuels were cooking our planet, the huge influx of disinformation, alongside legitimate scientific work, made it incredibly hard for people to discern fact from fiction.
A similar scenario is now playing out in trans health care.
“Gender-affirming care” is simply a patient-centred model of trans health care. Services may include medical (hormones or puberty blockers), surgical, mental health and non-medical services like voice training. Gender-affirming health care seeks to empower people with the resources and information to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their own bodies and lives.
There is an established consensus among almost all major medical organisations that gender-affirming care is necessary treatment, and that it is harmful to not allow a person to affirm their gender.
Disinformation groups are working to undermine this consensus and cast doubt on the efficacy of treatments.
For example, a key tactic used by these organisations is to weaponise the stories of people who decide to detransition. The number of people who “detransition” is incredibly low. It is hard to get accurate figures, but it seems to be somewhere between 1% to 3% of those who have transitioned, with the majority of people doing so reportedly due to discrimination, difficulty finding work or housing, or other hardship — not simply because they are not trans.
When compared with regret rates of other life-changing decisions (like the 8% of people who regret having kids, or the 30% of first-time marriages that end in divorce), it’s clear that the standards of care for gender-affirming care are very solid.
All the evidence points to the fact that trans people know who they are.
Despite this, we are seeing a sustained attack on trans health care in Australia by people and organisations with relationships to known anti-trans disinformation groups.
For example, on August 24 2022, The Sydney Morning Herald published an article telling the story of Jay Langadinos, who detransitioned after seeking medical gender affirmation as an adult and is now suing the doctor that cleared her for surgery. The central narrative of the story was that trans health care is harmful and that it needs tighter restrictions.
It turns out that Langadinos’ psychiatrist is Roberto D’Angelo — the president of SEGM. At no point in the article did the journalist engage with the “unscientific” nature of SEGM’s research and the potential for bias in their reporting due to the patient’s proximity to a known anti-trans organisation.
Furthermore, the legal clinic Langadinos is using is the so-called Feminist Legal Clinic, a group that lost its tenancy grant with the City of Sydney due to refusing to remove offensive anti-trans material from its website. The material in question reportedly conflated “transgenderism” with “child abuse, rape and paedophilia”.
Influencing policy with lies
With the proliferation of anti-trans disinformation, many in the trans community are concerned that it will begin to be passed off as reputable science, as has happened overseas.
In Texas, reports from SEGM were used to justify a governor-issued directive for the state’s department of family and protective services to investigate the parents of all children accessing gender-affirming care, and to treat these cases as child abuse.
In a report published by the Yale School of Medicine debunking the evidence brief from the governor, researchers noted that the brief contained “medical claims [which] are not grounded in reputable science and are full of errors of omission and inclusion”.
Additionally they noted that SEGM was a “biased source”, was “not a recognised scientific organisation”, does not produce a journal, and, at least with regards to its representation of one report, had “badly mischaracterised” the underlying source, constituting “a major violation of the scientific method and the accepted conventions of research”.
Additionally, in the UK last year, trans people were excluded from protection under a proposed ban on conversion practices after lobbying by the notorious anti-trans group the LGB Alliance, which in its meetings recycled talking points from Genspect, saying that it was important that therapists “could ‘examine’ the ‘reason’ for young people being trans”.
Organised disinformation is now starting to impact Australia.
Since the federal election, we have seen an uptick in the promotion of anti-trans disinformation by the media, groups like Binary Australia and the Australian Christian Lobby. Over the past couple of months, The Australian has published articles platforming disinformation about trans health care, such as a recent piece attacking gender-affirming care at Westmead Hospital.
The piece itself was founded on a highly dubious report, featuring a number of disproven theories and outdated terminology. In refuting the piece, AusPATH, Australia’s peak body for professionals involved in trans health, stated: “Overall, AusPATH is highly concerned by the outdated and offensive language used, the clear biases demonstrated, misrepresentation of data and unfounded conclusions based on this small sample.”
It is deeply concerning to see such a vicious and sustained campaign against the trans community.
It only took a few short years for anti-trans politics to escalate to fever pitch in the US and the UK. Already this year 300+ anti-trans bills have been introduced to state legislatures banning access to gender-affirming care, undermining our rights, and excluding trans people from public facilities. Disinformation has proven to be a gateway to attacking trans people’s civil liberties and safety.
This is not inevitable — we still have a chance to turn this around in Australia. But something must be done now to stop the spread.
Anti-trans is just the latest in a long line of bigotry and hate. It is though “we’re not allowed to hate ‘people of colour’; we’re not allowed to hate ‘foreigners’; we’re not allowed to hate ‘someone else’s religion’; well, here is a group we can hate, intimidate, persecute”.
Variations on humankind have existed for all of history, no amount of teaching, often brutal, and no amount of legislation has eradicated variations. What do they hope to accomplish? One group eradicated, now for the next!
It is so frustrating, that institutions and individuals that preach love, tolerance, caring and sharing, support or advocate for such aggressive bigotry and hate, while wanting to be respected for their ‘beliefs’.
Nailed it. There are a lot of the conservative Right who need to have someone to bash. Asylum seekers, Moslems, Greenies, etcetera. Poofter bashing has a long and inglorious history for the Right; the notion that they might have to give it up is as foreign to them as accepting climate change science, or vaccinations.
Although I agree with the sentiment of your comment, it’s not just a right thing. It’s a left thing too. That’s the problem with hate – it has no politics.
Just think of all the people who used to support the Labor Party until it wised up to the problem with hate. They happily sacrificed all their “lefty” principles to join Pauline where they could hate, hate, hate. Or think about the Labor supporting misogynists who troll female journalists and politicians because they don’t like their questions or commentary.
Hate just makes human beings stupid.
Regarding this matter, that ought to be written “…stupider“.
oh it’s worse, they not only need someone to bash, they love to support perpetrators of violence. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/infidelity-as-a-defence-for-spouse-killers/4200620
From the Smithsonian article in the link, it concurs with much research on funding of far right think tanks, astroturfing etc. by fossil fueled etc. foundations behind Koch and Tanton networks.
Cultural issues (mostly confected &/or retro) are the central electoral strategy for cultural/religious beliefs, noise and deflection, from serious issues of the day inc. fossil fuels, stagnant incomes, climate science, education, empowered citizens etc.; Brexit is an example of sentiments over reality.
Starting with Howard we something prescient with resurrection of proxy white Oz policy on borders etc., targeting above median age voters, then paring off some old Labor and centre on similar and other cultural issues that can transcend real issues.
And almost always to take the focus off of some other group who benefit from being invisible, much like the wealthy who convince people it is the poor who steal from them.
Why so many people in 2023 are still afraid of the “other” and so easily manipulated by noisy bigots astounds me.
I’m sorry in advance for the anti trans comments you’ll get here.
I hope I’m wrong.
How about let’s not shout/intimidate the convo into silence before it’s even started, catoke.
That’s “shouting” or “intimidating”?…………………
Get some therapy…………………………
Hey, not helpful either, Thuce. Mine was a genuine plea, not a dig. Born of considerable (metaphorically) bruised experience, alas.
Crikey being Crikey – that is, of a generally progressive and strongly lgbtqi+-supportive tenor and tone – past trans threads here have actually contained very little in the way of genuinely ‘anti-trans’ comments, but that hasn’t prevented many good faith, heterodox contributions, which are desperate to grapple productively with the contradictory sensitivities, complexities and dynamic uncertainties of the ‘gender affirmation’ approach, from being mis-characterised as such, anyway. It’s very hard now to avoid being labelled ‘anti trans’ (at least by some trans activists) even for just hesitating over the preemptively-imposed entry-point terms of debate: for example, being instinctively wary (as I am) of a derogatory label like ‘TERF’, or not automatically accepting at face value a description of a group like the LGB Alliance as ‘notoriously anti-trans‘.
I’m well aware – from, as I said, past trans threads – that both those statements above will be regarded by at least some Crikarians as ‘anti-trans’ comments. Everyone with experience in these conversations will I think have understood the genuine point I was trying to make. A lot of us with real world skin in this would like to have a nuanced conversation that isn’t bifurcated and weaponised along absolutist lines, but it’s getting harder to find them all the time, and attempts to try are all too easily derailed.
Haven’t you had the memo – disagreeing is violence!
Yeah. Many, many, many, many times. One always hopes, though.
Come on JR. You are by far the most prolific poster of vitriol on Crikey. Your posts are so long and dripping with hyperbolic insults they become unintelligible. And, you tell us the moderator won’t publish some of your posts so what’s being rejected doesn’t bear thinking about. You’re doing perfectly fine expressing yourself here.
Duh. It’s not ‘my’ views I’m concerned will be shouted/intimidated out of even bothering with this thread, Woke. As you point out, me, I’ll cheerfully gab away regardless of the meh I might get back. Dish it out, cop it back…no, it doesn’t irk me (especially from you anonymous posters). I do think you’d struggle to find vitriol from me on this topic/these threads, since I try not to punch down and I have lots of personal skin in this topic. But let’s not quibble there. I’m not terribly nice on Crikey…oh no, Woke, you got me!
But. it’s the many many others of even slightly dissenting PoV from the trans lobby orthodoxy that I’m always ery disappointed to see just…stay away from these sorts of articles now. Quite aside from the social conservative and gender/sexual heteronormative viewpoints (themselves diverse), and the clinical/professional health community ‘gender affirmation therapy’ sceptics, of which there are a growing number (especially overseas)…there are loads of dissenting views from ‘non-conservative’, or ‘anti-status quo’, even ‘woke’ (in the good sense) quarters: from lesbians, radical feminists, gay men, gender critical progressive lefties, writers, artists, queer academics etc etc. What I mean is that scepticism on ‘gender affirmation’ approach isn’t exclusively a reactionary old farts/bigot position.
That’s what makes it a complicated, nuanced, incredibly interesting conversation. Or…should. But – as the (sorry, all…but dull, dull, meh, boring, samey) thread here so far suggests – all of those other dissenting views too often (usually now) get lumped in together with the bigoted ones as ‘anti trans’ too anyway, at least by the most aggressive trans voices. So they just…don’t bother. Why would they?
It doesn’t…help those of us who need a proper conversation on this, is all.
Anyway, I will you all to it. Chrs.
‘…leave you all..’ etc
But you’re demonstrably not interested in a proper conversation. Every post you’ve made here is just waffling on with disingenuous straw men arguments about how you’re being pre-emptively silenced.
as i said, let’s both move on & all the best, doc. there’s just nothing of much ‘gender issue’ use or interest to me here, is all. for now at least.
let’s see what the thread offers going forward, other cautious (or not!) dissenters may yet contribute some of what i’m interested in joining in to discuss. chrs
and a hint, doc – it’s not a matter of me being ‘silenced’, it’s a matter of genuinely not wanting to cause ‘anti trans’ offence. real or imagined, wittingly or not. Is that…OK?
How is that comment “intimidating” ?
Am currently at dinner, Smithy, I will reply properly tomorrow chrs
Following on from the author’s use of terms like TERFs and the description of the LGB Alliance as a ‘notorious hate group’ – which she is perfectly entitled to hold as her views – it would be reasonable for someone who wanted to reference the gender ideas of say Sheila Jeffries or Allison Bailey to wonder if even done in a respectful manner might be classified as ‘anti trans comments’, as per catoke’s preemptive warning. Both of those two gender critical feminists, neither of whom I think is ‘anti trans’ in any meaningful way – a view I am perfectly entitled to hold – have (like so many feminists) become shorthand for just that.
‘Intimidation’, ‘shouted down’…or simply ‘wearied by past experience’ into just not bothering to voice any dissenting view, the effect of framing these conversations divisively even before they start (as the binary ‘anti’ or ‘pro’ trans) is the same: a reduction of the conversation to a series of parroted motherhood statements, and no real engagement at all on the very complicated, complex and conflicting imperatives in play.
Look at this thread. It’s just an echo chamber of cliched assertions about trans hatred, really. It doesn’t help people who are navigating these tricky waters one bit. Another missed opportunity.
Chrs Doc.
Apologies, ‘description of the LGB Alliance as notoriously anti-trans’…not a ‘notorious hate group’.
None of that in any way explains how ‘sorry for the abuse you’ll get’ is “intimidating”.
In particular, nobody who did not consider their comments to be in good faith should find it remotely offputting.
Sheila Jeffreys, according to her Wikipedia page, believes “transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights” and wants to have sex reassignment surgery banned. So demonstrably “anti-trans”.
Allison Bailey has some notable “anti-trans” quotes to her name. Eg: “Trans people do not have the right to children” and “The LGBTQ lobbying juggernaut that created & then weaponised ‘gender identity’ theories, gave birth to a cult… No cult ends voluntarily. They must be stopped”.
The LGB Alliance, judging by its Wikipedia page, is also quite clearly “anti-trans”. Indeed, from a quick skim of Rationalwiki it would – ironically enough – not seem to be particularly fond of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals either, suggesting it’s primarily an organisation setup to target transexuals, rather than advocate for LGBs.
Your wearily orthodox, predictably regurgitative, witlessly unreflexive and thus profoundly conversation-ending post….kind of makes my point better than I ever could, drsmithy.
You’ve had a poke about online, jack-dawed some bits and bobs, and so now….what, are you saying that, yes indeed Jack, even simply raising those names in the author’s presence – certainly taking their views seriously as part of a discussion like this (as I do, or would if we were going to have it, which we’re not) – would indeed fit catoke’s cautionary criteria, and thus vindicate his preemptive apology.
The prudent conclusion to draw is that to avoid ‘anti trans’ offence – to someone, to anyone here – maybe wisest that I just not even talk about either woman’s views here, drsmith. That me expressing agreement with other views each have expressed on gender issues would almost certainly be something catoke would feel bound to apologise for. Extrapolating a bit, that I would absolutely be guilty of an ‘anti trans’ comment if I said that, having spent a few hours scoping Genspect, I’m of the first-blush view at least that a description of it as a ‘dangerous anti-trans disinformation group’ is just…unsupportable; not supported by a shred of positive primary (any!) evidence at all, and gainsayed by plenty of negative primary source evidence. No, I don’t for a second accept Jackie Turner’s in-passing-as-if-self-evident assertion about Genspect, which btw is defamatory but also, more pertinently given Genspect’s Advisory membership (which includes queer, gay, lesbian, intersex and trans members) is both hurtful and…silly.
But impossible not to conclude that a direct challenge to Turner’s view like that…would unquestionably fall into catoke’s ‘anti trans’ comment category. Or, at least, my ‘pre-apologised-for’ wariness alerts me to the possibility of it being so. And no-one – least of all me – wants to inflict offence in these conversations. There is just too much at personal stake. So…I’ll probably not make them. I’ll unsay those comments above, drsmithy. Consider them withdrawn, catoke. Regard my dissent as unexpressed, Crikey.
More’s the point…no-one else will, either (case in point, this bland samey thread.) They’ll mostly just not bother taking intelligent, engaged, unaggressive but dissenting issue with any of Turner’s views. For fear of inadvertently incantating up some sinister trope or figure thst she – or someone else, on her behalf – might regard as ‘anti-trans’. (‘JK Rowling’ – woo woo, scary, verboten, taboo.). So you’ll likely be left (if with any at all) only with ‘dissent’ that very much IS anti-trans. Abusively so, even. Not an engaged nuanced conversation navigating and nutting out tricky, competing ideas. A victimhood echo chamber of circular furious agreement about ‘how hateful anti-trans hate is’, punctuated by occasional heckling examples of it. What’s the point?
Whether we’re preemptively ‘shouted down ’ ‘intimidated’ or just ‘bored sh*less’ by the likely prospect of having to spend one half the conversation figuring out what is ‘anti trans’ rhetoric and thinking, and the other half flounderingly apologising for ours…the advance impact is the same. Those who don’t agree uncritically with the entire article, in good and decent faith and maybe even just partly…tend to become very very not interested in saying so out loud. And dulled unexamined orthodoxy wins again. But what? What does catoke… ‘win’? A prize? An award? Say, the Judith Butler Annual Gold Star for the Most Alertly-Policed Orthodox Gender Conversation? That’s…super. T’riffic. No-one need ever get offended by ‘anti trans’ commenting here at Crikey, ever again. Yay. Well done, all. Chrs Doc.
And by the way, drsmithy, ‘intimidated’ can mean ‘overawed’ as well as ‘frightened’. A key soft-censorious element of the way the ‘trans lobby’ often tends to police these conversations until they are beyond the participative grasp – and interest – of lay people is its deployment of arcane gender-ideology theory wars and credentialism. It too often becomes a highly circular, dissent-overwhelming (by pure intellectual attrition!) tail-chase. ‘If you haven’t read Edie Miller’s counter-counter-counter take-down of Bonnie J Morris’s counter-counter-take-down of Roxanne Gay’s counter-take-down of Posie Parker’s take-down of Karen Elsenner’s critique of Laurie Penny’s criticism of the Tampax ads…you couldn’t possibly understand how hateful that comment is!’ kind of thing. To which the shell-shocked layman, wanting only an honest, frank and non-confrontational conversation about whether it’s on balance a good thing or a bad thing that the dearly-loved autistic fifteen year old in their life is about to progress from puberty blockers to hormone therapy can only say: ‘Ummmmm….’.
Goodness me that’s a lot of words to say not much at all.
Your collection of hilariously disingenuous straw men has still not in any way elaborated how somebody should, would, or could be “intimidated”.
OK, fair enough, I did my best. Let’s both move on, and I guess wait and hope to see how much diversity of opinion joins the conversation.
All the best Doc.
ps one I suppose nominally beneficial outcome of little diversity of opinion – so far anyway – is little that could be remotely called ‘trans abuse’, too. so I imagine catoke and the others who are joining the convo at least will be heartened. chrs
Well I think you told us quite a lot, Jack and I see you – and all the love, worry and fear behind your reservations.
There’s no fear, Kathy. Not a shred of it. Love, sure, and worry, yes, quite a bit of that, for multiple different and conflicting reasons.
But…no: no ‘fear’. Ha. It’s Humanity, in all its gloriously infinite expression. What’s to be afraid of? Ourselves?
I think not. x
PS: and thank you. I see you, too.
I’d be afraid of the discrimination, Jack, if it was my grand child. Humanity’s bloody fearsome for way too many.
‘In particular’, could you try putting “…nobody who did not consider their comments to be in good faith should find it remotely offputting.” into standard English?
After juggling the double negatives that means “some should consider their comments to be in good faith.”
A victim of editing. The intent was obviously clear, but…
“In particular, anyone who considers their comments to be in good faith should not find it remotely offputting [as they would not be “anti-trans”].”
But you’ve set out the fundamental problem with that assertion in your own words, Doc:
The LGB Alliance is by their own specific and repeated assurance not ‘anti-trans’, nor is Genspect, again, by their own detailed, explicit and compelling assurances. And I accept both assurances. Both groups, I consider, absolutely to be contributing to these debates in good faith. In very good faith. In contrast, Jackie Turner regards Genspect as a ‘dangerous anti-trans disinformation group’, while you have explicitly judged Allison Bailey’s group as ‘quite clearly, also anti-trans‘.
So…surely you can see the impasse. If I genuinely want to avoid ‘anti trans’ offence, as I do, the conversation necessarily stops, right there, doesn’t it. As a matter of courteous prudence, if nothing else. Surely that’s manifestly self-evident. At the very least, given your respective views on those two groups, I just don’t consider that it’s possible for me to say honestly what I think about gender issues without being, intentionally or not, guilty – in the eyes of, if not you and/or Turner herself, at least some on this thread – of ‘anti trans’ commenting, as pre-warned by catoke.
It’s fine, the thread and the world will survive without my publicly expressed views on gender issues, but it doesn’t seem like many other dissenting views are joining the convo, either – my original point – and IMO this trend towards polarised, competing yet self-isolating and non-engaging orthodoxies, doesn’t serve the complexities of the matter and especially those grappling directly with them terribly usefully. Rgds.
And the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea is Democratic, right ? I mean, they have elections and everything !
The difference here is that you are accepting claims at face value and I am assessing their actions and drawing a conclusion.
You probably wouldn’t find many “dissenting views” joining a conversation here in favour of fascism, either. Obviously because the fascists are scared of causing offense !
ok just forget it
Agreed catoke. These people seem to spend their days searching out any article or social media post mentioning trans and all then they all pile on and write some hideous stuff. There’s a real determined obsession around it. Thankfully, I don’t this this is representative of the majority of resonantly minded people who can empathise with the struggle life must be for trans people. Why make things harder for them?
Keep them online. We don’t need more self-appointed toilet police harassing every woman and girl that doesn’t meet their acceptable femininty test
‘Self-appointed toilet police’ – the perfect description
Think of the original toilet police around Leicester Square and why they were necessary.
Cue all the people that think gender nonconforming girls should have to use ID to use the toilets.
You were right alas.
All citing case studies of British people and organisations. Sitting there in the dark waiting for their google alerts to ping that someone has written about transgender issues so they can slide into the comments and spread their Engish TERFness around the globe.
Sorry guys but the last Federal election shows that your views get short shrift down under.
Thank-you for this article Jackie. I hope it marks the end of Crikey’s own articles offering trans and queer disinformation and demeaning writing.
Yes . It’s disappointing that so many “gender criticals” have decided to align themselves with groups that advocate the parental and societal rejection of boys that wear dresses. They’ve literally managed to align themselves with people that condone violence against gender nonconforming people.
Great summary of the disinformation & pseudoscience in this area! Letting this take hold in Australia would be like appointing Qanon & anti-vaxxers to manage the health portfolio.
Thanks for that article, Jackie. This transgender issue is not one that I know a lot about. Unfortunately, I cannot keep up with everything. However, on the basis of what little I do know and suspect, I just wanted to say that I support your efforts to work “towards winning a society that guarantees the dignity, safety, and equality of all transgender and gender diverse people” (as is stated in your short profile).
My attitude, for what it is worth, is that these people have enough on their plate already without having conservative politicians and religious fanatics breathing down their necks and telling them how to live their lives. It seems to me that they should be left alone to work out their futures with their parents, counselors, and medical advisors.
I wish you all the best with your work Jackie.