Ok fine so I watched that video by @jammi_dodger94. It has a couple of issues and some wrong statements. So I'll give my thoughts on it

First of all they say, that people reading Jo's essay might develop fear or negative feelings towards trans people, which is nice mindfuck. GC do not fear trans people or have negative feelings towards them in general. What we fear are aggressive "trans rights activists"

that stifle any debate, verbally abuse and threaten and sometimes even commit violence towards women who question them. Anyone following this issue, will know this definitely exists and is a serious problem.

And then they go on to say, trans people never denied sex. Which certainly sounds nice, but if you look at the amount of trans women claiming they are female you'll realize that's simply not true. When it's convenient sex and gender are different things, but when it's not

calling trans inclusionary places uni"sex", suddenly becomes mis"gender"ing. So yeah the difference between sex and gender only exists on paper and only then when it serves one particular argument

Regarding Maya: This is what she has to say in her defense. In short. THERE WERE NO TRANS CO-WORKERS. She didn't talk with anybody in her workplace about this issue. SHE DID NOT HARASS ANYONE. She agreed to use preferred pronouns. Stop promoting this lie. https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1277669055713939464?s=20

And the issue is with gender identity. It requires everyone to believe in something that has no scientific basis, for it to be valid. So I must believe in something, for you to have a certain "right", which is unlike any other human right.

Which is also why "trans rights are human rights". Human rights are human rights, they apply to everyone including trans people. Not every belief system can be incooperated into that.

And since you all want citations here go have fun with it. (It's at the end of the thread) https://twitter.com/SkLumos/status/1275163176066220032?s=20

And another thing that bugs me. They act like all trans people are one unanimous voice, which they represent. Which can be easily dissproven if you watch all the trans women supporting the GC movement

Good thing they condone violence and threat. But saying it's only a minority is playing down the issue. This violent minority faces zero consequences for their behavior. As long as the community does nothing to control this behavior it's like saying "not all cops are bad"

And no that's not just "bad things or being mean", it's threats of violence. Acknowledge what it is. It's not comparable with saying shit like "delusional, idiot etc." which GC women have been called of course too.

Ok since you want names: Good people to follow are @LisaMacRichards, @will_malone (both doctors), @MForstater of course, @lacroicsz (detransitioner), who are empathetic people that don't get into vicious cycles of calling names back and forth

I'm 1/4 way through it. I'll finish the thread when I'm done with the full video

Ok going on: they talk about Zucker. A look into what is being played up as "conversion" therapy. And what he said is that a 4y/o's wish to be a boy might be similar to the wish to be a dog at that age https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/00918369.2012.653309

Trans people are bullied more: The core reason for the discrimination to be rigid gender roles and conservative attitudes, which GC are opposing specifically, so I don't see how Jo, who said anyone should express themselves as they please, is contributing to that

And another thing. There are homosexual kids that felt their parents would rather accept them as trans than gay. So it's maybe not about global trends but rather interpersonal relationships.

And homosexuality is illegal in far more countries than trans gender expression ttps://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/

The whole point of gender identity is that it's self identified. Anyone claiming to be a woman is one. And thinking absolutely no abuser would ever take advantage of it is just naive and people like Jessica Yaniv clearly show that's not just a theoretical concern

Besides what does that even mean there's no evidence? What data are we talking about? Looking into the paper (Dunne. P 2017) there's no evidence. This is not happening, just argumentation that "trans" people shouldn't be punished for the crimes of "cis" people

which is meaningless if there is no fair ground to make that differentiation, without invalidating or misgendering anyone. And if we have individual cubical's everywhere it's just unisex and there needs to be no discussion about gender and sex I guess.

And no it's not just about looks. It's about misconduct. If a man claiming to be a women is entering spaces designated to women and misbehaving there we should be able to call that out, simple.

ok continuing ...

So practical solution: I think you are right we should have practical solutions to this issue. Something Maya suggested: unisex bathrooms for anyone who's willing to share their space with the opposite sex and the rest has sex segregated spaces as usual

Trans men and women can use the unisex option along with cis people who don't mind. While those who might feel uncomfortable don't have to compromise either. If individual cubicle's are feasible for everyone, of course that would be the preferable option

And feminism: The base of feminism is sex based rights. Women weren't excluded from voting after exploring their gender identity. Whatever discrimination there is against women is sex based and often tied to female biology (reproduction rights etc.)

Discrimination against trans women is discrimination against men not adhering to gender roles. It's an issue concerning men not women. Trying to incooperate into feminism won't work. What you call trans misogyny is really misandry

And saying trans is just an adjective is like saying "sea" is just an adjective in seahorses. And of course basing the definition of "women" on some nebulous inner feeling rather than biological reality undermines the experiences of women

It's telling women whatever discrimination they faced is not due to any immutable characteristic. It makes being a "woman" a choice. And again to be clear J.K Rowling did never say trans women are a danger. She explicitly said they are not. Maybe you should read her essay again

At this point their whole arguments seems to be: NOT ALL TRANS WOMEN ARE BAD, which is really just a strawman because Jo never said that

Safe guarding: this issue was raised by multiple people working with children (as @athornehere) and also people that detransistioned. And it's pretty much a no-brainer that encouraging children to transition without getting their parents involved, explicitly hiding it

is a danger to safe guarding. And freedom of speech doesn't mean she has to listen to anyone or you have to listen to her. So yeah she or anyone can turn of comments. It just means nobody should loose their job for speaking.

And detrasnistioners: What's concerning is not the number, but the fact most of them describe trans ideology as a "cult" that seriously harmed them. And given that most of them just slipped through the system, it's fair to assume, a number of people listed

as successful transitioners, actually detransitoned without being registered as such. Again we need more research into this and better follow up. I can't find the paper (Davies et all 2019) for your number 0.5%.

They make it sound like there are big hurdles to obtain affirmative care, which doesn't seem to reflect the sentiments of detransitioners or some of the employees in Tavistock, which say people were given intervention after minimal evaluation. Sometimes even just after one sittin

And funny they talk about the methodology of Lisa Littman, given that the all evidence supporting affirmative care are deemed "low to very low" according to scientific standard

No randomized controlled trails have been conducted to prove any of the hypothesis. In her defense her methodology isn't of unusually low quality. That is just the standard in this field https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s10508-020-01631-z

So if your issue is with parental-reports, online/targeted recruitment etc. you should also dismiss all the evidence supporting affirmative care with similar or the same methodology.

An talking of suicide: While it's true that people receiving affirmative care (aka transitioning do have reduced suicidality compared not affirmative care), if you compare the same people pre and post transition, Suicidal ideation INCREASES

So yes the "large body of research" is basically not randomized reports of mediocre quality, while peer-reviewed research of similar quality also shows that transition in fact worsens the situation.

And that's not just Jo reasoning that women transition to escape womenhood, detransitioners, so people that used to be trans men like yourself say that. That's where it actually struck me, where we are headed towards with all of this. So yes, your experience might be different

that doesn't mean absolutely nobody women would want to transition to escape womenhood. And another thing. What you showed is that transphobia is more prevalent not that it has the same negative impact on one's life

And "trans lesbians". This is the whole issue with this privilege obsession. Those are heterosexual males. There's no ground to discriminate against them other than that they don't adhere to gender norms

Maybe and just maybe they do that because exactly being a "privileged class" has no advantages for them and want to identify their way out of it

And Behaviour's quote: Yes that was to illustrate her point to to insinuate she would support her position, but also I'm not sure but I don't think Behaviour meant trans women when she said "one becomes a woman"

If you like it or not a good deal of trans woman support Jo's stand. You can speak for them as much as they could speak for you. It's just not true that the entire trans community unanimously rejects her views

I don't know why you think she's referring to transitioning in that part of her essay, but as you said her point stands. Any man saying he's a woman, will be recognized as a woman in front of the law.

To illustrate this: male predator gets a GRC, goes into a women's bathroom harasses women and the women are legally obligated to call him "her". Which is pretty much what happend with Jessica Yaniv (expect he's not in the UK) And if that seems not at all problematic to you ok

And no matter how many times you say "trans rights don't conflict with women's rights" as long as you put no arguments forth it's meaningless. Saying issues like cat calling have nothing to do with biology is a very shallow understanding of feminism

The amount of trans women arguing "I'm a adult female, just like you", pretty much shows that biological differences haven't reached all trans folks. And the point is words like "menstruator" are dehumanizing, reducing women to biological functions, not if it's "inclusive"

And cut the fucking victim blaming. She's not trying to "push down" anyone or "use" her abuse story. She told that to explain, why she's not comfortable with people that have male genitalia being in places where she would be vulnerable

You don't have to agree with her. But she has the full right to tell her reasoning to be uncomfortable in certain spaces and situation. If we go down this lane, you should stop "using" the high rate of suicide to push your agenda. Doesn't sound nice right?

So in conclusion: I think it's good there's an effort for reasonable debate instead of name calling. It's very good you didn't say TERF even though you don't think of it as a slur. There are some issues. And I tried my best to cite sources where Jo failed.