The UK’s Home Office recently announced a new strategy to “drive out transgender prejudice”:
The Transgender action plan addresses some of the obstacles faced by transgender people in every aspect of public life, as well as identifying wider cultural issues. It provides a framework for communities to work with the government to challenge and overcome persisting inequalities.
The plan commits to reform Health services to ensure greater consistency in commissioning gender identity services; publish a clear and concise guide for health practitioners, including GPs and Primary Care Trusts, on the treatment and care available; [and] amend the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to raise the starting point for murders motivated by hostility towards a transgender person from 15 to 30 years.
The announcement follows extensive engagement by the government with the transgender community, public bodies, practitioners and the voluntary sector.
Extensive engagement? Perhaps, but interestingly, they haven’t seemed to bother engaging with wimmin’s or lesbian health groups, child health and education groups, or even with a wide range of the transgender community. In other words, those who may’ve been critical of their Plan and those charged with advocating for girls and wimmin as a sexual class, around the world.
For example, Alan Finch an Australian ex-trans said that transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists and he campaigns against what he calls ‘the sex change industry’. Indeed, trans-regrettors are becoming more vocal, but there is little or no recognition of these people, and it is difficult to see how much engagement the UK Government had with this group in formulating its plan.
And as always, the legal implications of transgender politicking affect wimmin and wimmin’s organisations, where refusing to participate in this delusion in which a person can be born into the wrong body or that biological sex can be changed by dress codes, interests, hobbies, cosmetics, surgery or hormones will be deemed legally discriminatory. This will cause serious harm to such organisations in the UK which will be forced to admit and cater to men or face expensive legal consequences and slanderous accusations if they try to cater to wimmin’s interests, including wimmin’s interest in being protected from men.
Furthermore, under the Plan, violence against transgender people is going to be treated as hate crime, with very severe penalties, but violence against wimmin remains a non-event. For wimmin it is normal, it does not count.
The multiple oppressions faced by black wimmin have yet to be fully acknowledged, addressed and services funded, and racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, in education, in health services continue.
Lest anyone believe that concern over the legal implications of transgender discourse is misplaced, or that it doesn’t negatively affect wimmin, or that it’s not unreasonably confusing to absolutely everybody, there are existing data on violence against, and by, transgender people which suggests that due to the UKs Gender Recognition Act (2004), the crime statistics and the reporting of crime is leading to a distortion of gender statistics in crime. One recent example which was made public in the United Kingdom involved a transsexual M2T, who was legally recognised as a ‘woman’ under the Gender Recognition Act. This person was involved in an altercation with a cross-dressing male, the consequences ending up being that the cross dressing male was pushed under a train. Newspaper headlines in several UK newspapers reported that a “woman” had been found guilty of murdering a cross dressing man.
Meanwhile, the diagnosis of childhood GID follows old-fashioned notions of what constitutes appropriate behaviour for those assigned to the sex classes of male and female. It is precisely this idea, that certain distinct behaviours are appropriate for males and females, that underlies feminist criticism of the phenomenon of ‘transgenderism’. But it’s not just feminists that should be concerned about the implications of medicalised transgenderism on children: the new measures from the UK government should have all children’s rights groups on the streets all over the UK protesting!
Several cases in recent years have gone to court, and despite no evidence the law has been establishing precedents that non-gender conforming children should be forced into unproven medicalised procedures. For example, a judge has authorised controversial puberty-suppressing hormone therapy for a 10-year-old boy who considers himself a girl. The Family Court heard that, even as a toddler “Jamie” identified as a girl, playing with female-oriented toys and identifying with female movie characters. What we actually need is a support mechanism to protect those vulnerable children against parents, medical professions and courts that seek to transgender them.
Troublingly, while there is an entire industry and a social movement out there now forcing medicalised “gender” on children, there is essentially no advice available to anyone as to how to protect children, or to promote non-invasive and non-harming alternatives for children at risk. Radical feminist criticisms of transgenderism are suppressed and erased, even to the point that our points on other issues are rejected and ignored due to our alleged “transphobia”.
Perhaps particularly unhelpfully, the new transgender discourse is coming out of the so called feminist academic community and is espoused by educated people who should know better. Like the patriarchal medical community, these academic “feminists” have the force of authority and patriarchy behind them, as they advance what are clearly patriarchal views on sex and gender, and most notably patriarchal and problematic — and telling — are the increasingly aggressive attempts to erase “woman” as a sexual class.
— HUB Newsfeed