Our member, who thoroughly enjoyed the conference, nonetheless needs to remain anonymous to protect themselves. The administrators of this site know who wrote this.
Getting in!
Held in a huge venue beside parliament square, this was a tourist delight for us out-of-London delegates.
First thing first: check security of entrance. Well sorted. Police watching over a motley crew of protestors – around 25 of them screaming and shouting about god knows what, with the obligatory hand-made signs, flags and face coverings. The entrance path to the venue safely on the other side of the building. Enough said about them.
Excitement filled the hall as delegates made their way to the first session of the morning. Entitled along the lines of the ‘New Intolerance’, speakers included Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock and Sheree Benjamin.
Each gave their personal account of how the extent and nature of capture of main institutions had changed their lives and led to them being harassed, threatened and side-lined. All for expressing the view that the proposition that it’s possible to change sex is at least deserving of debate within their fields of academia and journalism. Professor Kathleen Stock is now reconciled that she will never again be able to teach, and instead will have to rely on research and writing. What is already starting to emerge is the concept of language manipulation as a tool for change and control.
Young people: detransition, schools and more
My second (chosen) session was ‘Detrans Perspective, a survivors account’. Ritchie Herron described how as a young adult male he had struggled with various mental health problems including his rejection that he was gay. He understood his own position to be that he could not reconcile the idea of himself as a male wanting the object of his desire another male; he believed that if he ‘transitioned’ to female then he could enjoy something closely approximating a heterosexual life style. He was tracked onto the GIDs system with an immediate affirmation of gender dysphoria. He agreed to all that was offered including medication and surgery.
Affirmation has led to what is and will remain life-long pain, recurrent infection, incontinence, infertility and unrecognisable genitalia. He feels ‘grief’ for all that he has lost and the damage he allowed others to inflict on his body with scant consideration given to other factors affecting his state of mind at the time. This was a truly harrowing account of this man’s manipulation into radical and experimental surgery – carried out by the NHS.
The third session I went to asked What’s happening in our Schools? and featured Bev Jackson in discussion with Steve Mastin. Steve outlined the emergence of trans ideology via social media among parents and children and the infiltration of these ideas into the school estate. Teachers, usually unaware of these issues but at the same time very anxious to be seen to be approaching the matter in a ‘progressive’ manner, turned to what they understood to be the experts. Those experts not only offered ‘advice’ on such issues but further, provided teaching materials to explain and promote trans ideology.
For Stonewall, the principal organisation turned to for this, the offer of advice proved a massive success extending its reach, influence and perceived legitimacy. Steve didn’t mention it, but of course with all that power goes too all that wealth. He did share anecdotal stories of parents enthusiastically embracing and pursuing the idea that the daughter they had could become the son they wanted or visa-versa, while other parents were in conflict with the school over their pursuance of this ideology against the wishes of the family.
The rest of the conference focussed on the questions of how did we get here, and how do we resist what has become a global movement of trans ideology detrimental to the interests and hard-fought-for rights of women and LGB people. One issue I think pertinent to the rise of transgender ideology is the use of preferred pronouns. I was disappointed therefore that two male speakers citing the wish to be courteous, used a female pronoun for the men they were discussing. My view is that the acceptance of preferred pronouns is the single most obvious gateway to the narrative that men can become women if they so choose.
Language, debate and awareness
A theme which ran through the day was the use and construction of language. Until recent years there was no such thing as a ‘transperson’ in public consciousness, so there was no such thing as ‘transphobia’. These are made up words in a lexicon of made up words designed to promote a false narrative embraced by the umbrella of ‘social justice’. The words claimed or invented by this movement demand the perception of unassailable moral high ground, and it follows that any challenge is met by ‘no ‘debate’; the implication is that the challenger is so utterly reprehensible and without morals that engagement and association with that person must be avoided. Discussion of the topic must also be avoided.
This is a situation I personally find myself to be in and I suspect so too do others holding gender critical views. The impact on friendships, careers and reputations through the mechanisms of language manipulation cannot be overstated. A cartoon picture I saw recently summed it up perfectly. A picture of an apple, underneath written “this is a banana, if you see an apple it’s likely that you are a far right bigot”. 1984was written by a prophet.
I came away from the conference feeling very positive and privileged to have been in the company of such big names in this fight, as well as all the other delegates committed to the preservation and promotion of women’s and gay rights and the safeguarding of children. I can’t wait for next year’s conference.
I hope this conveys some of the ideas and content of the conference. Please bear in mind that I’m not a journalist or a writer. This blog is based on my thoughts and observations. There is plenty of room to disagree and I would welcome any discussion that might arise.