Has anyone else noticed how the two sides often say the same things in support of opposing positions

I suppose there are 2 versions of 'erasure'.

1. Erasure = not believing or pretending I am what I say I am on demand.

2. Erasure = Changing language for a particular group in such a way that words no longer give a meaningful name, description or membership for them and their reality cannot be practicably discussed.
   Changing laws, customs and society in accordance with that non-specific language so that the reality, needs and distinction for that group are impossible to address.
   Denying that the specific needs of the now nameless group exists.

Though the word 'erasure' is used by 'both sides' - one is a narcissistic, imagined erasure, the other is the loss of the right to speak about and address the real needs of a group.

Just on this occasion a lot of feminists find themselves on the recieving end of it
This is the same argument that the alt right and MRA's use;
''you made us vote for Trump''
''you provoked the backlash''.

It is an example of DARVO;
Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.

The alt right claim to be victims of the left.
MRA's claim to be victims of feminism.

Meanwhile women are losing rights;
to name ourselves, our own bodies, to meet or talk or organise, and to any autonomy away from the gaze and guardianship of men.

All I know is that gender critical people say and explain things over and over again and yet the TRAs act like they are incapable of reading and claim that something else entirely was said. Over and over again.

Take Dr. Rosa Freedman. She was consulted in Scotland about how sex and gender should be recorded in the Census and she gave a wonderfully clear well thought out reasons why it is to the benefit of everyone, especially the transgender community, not to confuse sex and gender in the Census. At any other time Dr. Freedman would be taken for what she is, an advocate for the human rights of transgender people, but instead they are trying to no-platform and are harrassing her.

Accusations of hatred, well, you have to understand that when men accuse women of hating them, they mean that women won't have sex with them.

When women accuse men of hating them, they mean that men rape and kill them.

The same words may be used, the meanings, however, are entirely different.

Something to keep in mind.

Also applies to TRAs. They want to murder feminists, while feminists just ... commit the "violent hatecrime" of not believing in made-up gender identities.

Ideology is your imagined relationship to reality.

An understanding of your real relationship to reality is simply realism.

Or are you saying that their posts reflect the success of theDARVO strategy?

They all just parrot the same crap TRA talking points. Unthinkingly, as they can never argue them further than simply stating them.

Tbf jellyslice I don't think we have any 'tactics' per se. We are women fighting uphill against Patriarchy.

Our tactics are finding out the truth, talking about the truth and trying to tell the truth to as many people as is possible- in a climate that is extremely hostile to the truth.

They will never copy it because it destroys authoritarian ideology.

One tactic the AWA TRAs do not copy from us is the encouragement to be open, to seek debate, to think for yourself, to decide for yourself. Look how we respond:

This:

Go to the source of the tweets/whatever then - don't look at what 3rd parties are saying, look at what people are saying themselves.

And this:

se your own powers of critical thinking to weigh up the arguments, and how they stack up against reality.

Just on this occasion a lot of feminists find themselves on the recieving end of it.

I know, right? These bloody women, not just quietly and meekly accepting their subordinate place in life and putting up with it. They asked for this by getting out of their box, now they're getting what they deserve.

^^

In every newspaper comments section currently by men who quietly loathe women not womaning properly. Seen, noted thanks, and the tactics around here are definitely getting more subtle. They even look sometimes like real discussion.

Bookmarked for reflection. LikeDust

Thanks hairnets

I doubt they do LikeDust. But I doubt very much they care. Perfect demonstration though.

Excellent list, btw. Spot on.

Btw. Rattling off a quick report of the methods used by ideologues to suppress debate is not an 'ideology' it is a witness report.

Calling it an ideology is DARVO. It's is reversing who is reporting reality and who is seeking to enforce authoritarian ideology.

Do you see?

Reality. Ideology. 2 different things.

I mean I assume you have noticed your ideology pretty much boxes your opponents in?

Eh? Ideology? What ideology.

Excuse me but how are:

5. Thought terminating clichés such as TWAW and #NoDebate to prevent reasonable questions being asked.

and:

8. DARVO. A lot of this about at the moment.

Remotely reconcilable? I mean I assume you have noticed your ideology pretty much boxes your opponents in? Either they agree with you wholesale or if anyone raises an objection they are DARVOing you?

You leave literally no room for dissent or dissagreement in the precise same way that TWAW and #nodebate! Note even the evil patriarchal structures you wish to tear down are predicated on the notions men can be wrong.

Furthermore where precisely do you think the radical trans lobby gets it from? This is a very ugly mirrored reflection of rhetorical tricks identitarian politics have used for many many years. Just on this occasion a lot of feminists find themselves on the recieving end of it. I hope these troubling times gives everyone some food for thought.

I looove this : this guy actually said, first,

that T**Fs (boo, bad witches) conflate sex and gender
(ie, that conflation is A Bad Thing)

then

twitter.com/MatthewWolfff/status/1069027477215956994

Can't get more circular if you spin on a spinning top.

1. Emotivism. 'If you hurt my feelings it's really bad because i'm really fragile, really sensitive and need more special care than you - if you don't do special care for me like this you are a mean and cruel bully'. Great for making people feel irrationality guilty and inhibited when making unreasonable demands on them.

10. Strategic/vexatious complaints and litigation to further the cause, undermine democratic process and curtail freedom of speech. It was how the GRA was won, it's how Venice Allan is being harassed and how Mumsnet is being played.

11. Stealth. Using private lobbying watching how to best take advantage of weaknesses in political process. Making sure the public is not properly aware or consulted when trying to bring about sweeping changes.

12. Bullying and wearing down to exhaustion with insults, guilt trips, demands, DARVO, ensuring all points of refuge and escape are made 'inclusive' so there is nowhere for victims to turn.

The strings to their bows

1. Engineered taboo, smearing and demonisation. For example, Julie Bindel being labelled a transphobe and called a lot worse for saying pretty reasonable and understandable things around the issues affecting her.

1. Organisational entryism, ensuring that the engineered taboo is adopted and those who disagree are smeared and ousted just like Julie Bindel. Eg via LGBT sub groups, often looking to control the social media, moderating, policies, within eg -political parties, local government, tech companies, unions, pressure groups, media outlets, etc.

1. 'No platforming' via picketing and harassing venues, abusing reporting systems (greatly enabled by prior entryism), creating blocker bots and algorithms to reduce the reach of people who disagree. Retrospective editing where ever possible such as Wikipedia in order that youngsters and newcomers believe that the engineered version of events is the real one.

1. Lies. Made up statistics. Made up narratives. Made up histories "Stonewall riots were started by a 'transwoman'.

1. Thought terminating clichés such as TWAW and #NoDebate to prevent reasonable questions being asked.

1. Suicide threats. "If someone says they don't believe in fairies, somewhere a fairy drops down dead".

1. Violence and intimidation. Fighting dogs, baseball bats, masks, fists, blocking entry.

1. DARVO. A lot of this about at the moment.

you = a women. I have no clue whether you are a woman or not. I meant to say 'women' of the cunty sorts.

But bringing it back to the topic at hand.... there's plenty of catalogued incidents out there that can tell you quite clearly who's doing what.

Maria M at speakers corner, Bristol, all the twitter things - Posie P is suspended from twitter but not dr horrible.

Look at all the misogyny that stands on facebook and twitter and see how quickly you get a rap on the knuckles.

Show me any other group that's managed that so quickly? Women certainly haven't!

It's like they have a manual. Every phrase that I have used to my h is thrown back at me later. Stuff that he would never say himself.

I think he listens, processes (hmm this means I'm a dickhead), rationalises (of course I'm not a dickhead), reaches conclusion (brainwave - she's the dickhead - she's been doing said stuff) and then triumphantly throws it back at me as proof!!

I worry that this will just lead me to a bad place if I instantly dismiss all criticism as being in bad faith.

Of course. Use your own powers of critical thinking to weigh up the arguments, and how they stack up against reality.

Go to the source of the tweets/whatever then - don't look at what 3rd parties are saying, look at what people are saying themselves.