Brainwashed

Anyway, talking to the guy I said it a few times and made sure he knew that Hubbard was a biological male who simply claimed to be a woman, that was it! But after a few minutes I could see his eyes glaze over, and then I start to feel like a crazy person going on about this.

I have the same thing. I don't think people believe it when you explain what's going on. I dial it back a bit or risk ending up sounding fanatical or obsessed.

You're right though. People do think "oh it can't be just a man they must know what they're doing, they wouldn't let that happen..."

Same for schools indoctrinating kids with gender theory. Posters on the wall suggesting kids question their gender and think where they might be on the "spectrum". Parents just don't know and even if they do they don't understand.

Scary.

Haha, yes the photo makes it pretty obvious.

This guy I spoke to hadn't seen or heard of what was going on, and was I guess an example of how most people aren't fully aware. His reaction was pure 'that would never happen', which is understandable given how ridiculous it is, but unsurprising.

Most of us assume that something as big and important like the Olympic committee would uphold certain standards of fairness, and that common sense would prevail . But it's all smoke and mirrors. Like the news report I heard on the radio the day Hubbard competed, it totally made it sound like Hubbard was a woman, so if you weren't really paying attention, or didn't do some digging, you would be easily fooled.

Anyway, talking to the guy I said it a few times and made sure he knew that Hubbard was a biological male who simply claimed to be a woman, that was it! But after a few minutes I could see his eyes glaze over, and then I start to feel like a crazy person going on about this.

That is part of the frustration, I have talked to people in real life about this, but even if they agree that it's wrong etc. they don't seem angry or to want to actually do anything to change this. So I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

Yes, this is still a huge misconception. I was speaking to someone just the other day about Hubbard in the Olympics, and the guy just looked at me like I had 3 heads, didn't want to believe that a guy would just 'claim' to be a woman, he must have had some surgery etc. The Olympics wouldn't let that happen etc. etc.

It is patently obvious that Hubbard has not had certain surgery! Perhaps a photograph would illustrate the point!

I've heard it said before also that for men, they have a real fear of castration, so the idea that a man would voluntarily choose to do that must mean he is suffering, needs support/ sympathy etc. So they automatically feel sorry for them.

Of course the fact that most TW keep their genitals intact doesn't seem to be widely known.

Also, it's just the absolutely unbelievability of it all. I can kind of understand that some people just don't want to believe that these crazy things are happening, because it upsets their ordered view of the world.

I think its difficult to think that people care this little about women. Its really quite unbelievable.

I think their was the assumption that we were talking about fully transitioned transexuals and not fully intact trans gendered individuals.

And so we are where we are

smoked duck I love to see a good CSLewis quote! He had a lot to say about obfuscation and self-delusion, all still deeply relevant.

• and sorry, his sum-up paragraph with a bit more of a positive take-away:

'Pay attention.; get some context; ask questions; stop and think.

Misinformation doesn't thrive because we can't spot the tricks. It thrives beause, all too often, we don't try. We don't try because we are confident that we already did'.

'the grand meta-error: we have no intuitive sense that our minds work like this. We fondly imagine ourselves to be sharper, more attentive and more consistent than we truly are. Our own brains conspire in the illustion, filling the vast blind spots with plausible images'.

• from recent article in the New Scientist, by Tim Harford

I tried to empower thousands of children to be con-proof over the years
💐

Education about basic rights when facing misogyny, assault, VAWG would help any female. But one of the few places you can hear about it is here and it's called 'hateful'. I think calling feminism hateful enables the brainwashing and keeps people suffocated

I think a lot of people were lulled into a sense of security because doctors and scientists seemed to be on board, and they are experts and under scrutiny.

But there is the opening passage in The Screwtape Letters which I think is also relevant, where Screwtape explains that a lot of modern people don't really believe anything in a very consistent way. It completely tallies with my observation and the people who can't see what's going on, even when it's on a plate, are often ones most trapped by this:

I note what you say about guiding our patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naive? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily “true” of “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary”, “conventional” or “ruthless”. Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous — that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

Re smoke filled room experiment; there's also the added emotional effect of using fake / badly reported suicide stats as a coercive tool.

Suicide is awful. Drumming down on the differing reasons behind suicide of trans id individuals leads to different conclusions however of the real reasons.

Many seek trans id due to a great deal
Of other mh issues or trauma. Trans is often found to "be the answer." Transition doesn't always (if ever) solve the issues. As many detrans people talk about. I'm thinking also of teen cases Dr Moore describes in her book.

This is why education is so important! I always considered myself engaged in a deeply subversive activity - and openly said so, though many thought I was joking - in the classroom. Teaching children not just to read but to question what they read and to think and challenge what others might say and do was the real reward. I tried to empower thousands of children to be con-proof over the years. I hope and trust they are all part of the 25%.

I

“Things I'd speak up about now in the workplace or public, say on a train when a male harrasses a female, I wouldn't have done as a teenager”

Absolutely this.

Although I’d like to think I’d have intervened against harassment when I was younger, now I KNOW I would, and a lot of that comes from age/maturity and the associated bloody mindedness. I guess I’m also better now at recognising when other men are being dicks too.

@RedToothBrush a very well thought out post that I read with great interest!

Of course, "evidence" can include evidence on all sides but indicates a level of testing and analysis, and scientific scrutiny. So, yes debate.

This is why many favour the concept of women's liberation movement over feminism and feminist as a label.

I've also recently heard of "evidence based feminism" which I think like the sound of.

Btw of you want to see an example of the smoky room experience in real world action, pay attention to mask wearing.

In situations were no one else is doing it, you will see people wearing less masks. Its almost harder to buck the trend and do so yourself.

The converse is also true. Where the majority are wearing masks it becomes harder not to.

It doesn't matter what your view on risk actually is. You are likely to behave differently based on what others are doing rather than your own personal concerns and risk assessment of the situation.

Social conformity in action in a very visible way

I do think there's two groups of people

Those who read something, accept it and move on.

And those who read something, go 'well is that true' and keep that in their minds (be it to just hold that thought or to actively seek out further information)

Journalists should do this job, but in an world of instantaneous reward this is time consuming and expensive to do so editors have leaned to opinion columns / talking heads rather than fact finding.

Its your basic difference between loose women and newsnight.

No you were not thick or brainwashed.

You responded in good faith and that this was progress.

The majority of people are good people and want to see the world in positive terms.

The trouble is that not everyone is like that and some people aren't interested in the well being of others in the same way as those with genuine good faith.

This is a symptom of living in a bubble of having a good life untouched by the reality of bad faith actors. It is the very definition of being privileged that you don't see the negative side of life.

Indeed humans are actually programmed to almost be in a state of denial about risk - its what allows us to explore and push boundaries that other animals wouldn't because of fear. But this has obvious draw backs in certain situations. Many of us would touch the red button labelled 'Danger: do not touch' just to find out what happened.

And critical thinking and joining up the dots between unrelated pieces of information is something that social media actively discourages. Social media is short bursts of information in a condensed form with a lack of depth. People read, feel satisfied that they have educated themselves and know something but don't bother to either check it, read in more depth or challenge themselves with a counter argument. Why? Because people are lazy and this involves effort. We live in a microwave instant gratification world. This actually does something to our brains - we seek out dopamine hits from social media and gaming, with reward instantaneously.

I don't think people are stupid for falling for it by any means. Three word slogans are thought terminating cliches. They are actively designed to stop people thinking. This has been well researched - they know they appeal to our emotional side of the brain which is stronger than our logical side. We have to actively be aware of the propaganda landscape around us. How does advertising affect us. Where is it around us. Its not just people selling us products - its people selling us lifestyles and ideals.

I think this is why this particular issue sells best to the young. Its people who haven't hit the wall of reality that actually not all good faith actors have your best interests at heart. Cynicism is a learned trait from experiences of having been let down despite promises. (By the same token thats why Brexit slogans sold better to an older audience.)

Critical thinking is something you have to work on, practise and value. Its not instantaneous. It can be difficult and challenging. It makes you question things you 'know to be true' and it takes a certain amount of humility to recognise and acknowledge your errors.

Humans are funny things. Sometimes they find belief and idealism comforting because reality is darker and much more disturbing at times. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where we all live happily ever after and there are easily identified black and white heroes and villians?

Its much harder and uncomfortable to realise that things aren't that simple and people who are 'good' are actually flawed and can do things that are hypocritical, naive, and at times actively harmful. Sometimes this is intentional. Sometimes they are just so self absorbed or not capable of empathy due to their neurology that they are completely oblivious to the experience and effect on others. It may or may not be malicious.

Where the state comes in - or is supposed to - is to identify these range of conflicted and assess various harms and their level. And then balance them. This can only happen if you have a range of people from different backgrounds able to speak freely and openly (the real definition of liberal society) to protect everyone as much as possible. And then the media report this as such.

This issue and many others are highlighting institutional failure to do this. Indeed institutions are actively using the knowledge of this dynamic against certain groups to get what they want rather than doing the best for society as a whole. This is ultimately never sustainable as over time it builds resentment and public backlashes as scandals happen. These are hard to repress - even with an increasing authoritarian stance. Even China had a scandal over Wuhan.

Manipulation of good people and trying to silence other is a hallmark of something. Not a good something. Its highly sophisticated and deliberate.

OP take the lesson from this. Critical thinking is a wonderful thing.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
Read this Wikipedia page on propaganda techniques. Learn them and try and spot them every day in your life. It will make you see the world in a completely different way if you can readily identify them.

I think it should be compulsory learning for all children in the 11 - 14 age group. Its essential to know to navigate the world well.

It IS a brainwashing thing. Practically the whole point of 1984 is that language is used to change and obscure the truth, and that's spot on. I googled to see if I could find a quote and came across this (not about "1984" but politics): "Orwell believed that language was necessarily vague or meaningless because it was intended to hide the truth rather than express it."

Real-life examples: how we were all trained from decades ago to glibly trot out he was Born in the Wrong Body! (like THAT makes any sense - we are born WITH a body, not IN it) but more worryingly to me, when I first read 'her penis' I winced and disbelieved and shouted at the screen, but now I skim over the words hardly registering them, it's become so relentlessly drilled into us as something which makes perfect sense in a world where what you want to be is magically what you are.

I noticed a shift sometime around 2010(ish). Most of the younger degree students when asked to talk about a subject ( in this case art) started off with " I feel, " rather than "I think."
The mature students were thinking about and analysing the artwork.
It's much easier to convince people who prioritise feeling above thinking. I reckon we were already primed to accept gender ideology as thinking is not a priority now.

[quote AfternoonToffee]Smoke filled room experiment.

academy4sc.org/video/the-smoky-room-experiment-trust-your-instincts/[/quote]
my perception is that mumsnetters on this board would report the smoke/danger and go against the social norms in the group, in much higher numbers than the average person. Getting older, wiser, more aware and less concerned with group think and what others think. maybe the generation gap has a lot to do with confidence and awareness as you get older? Things I'd speak up about now in the workplace or public, say on a train when a male harrasses a female, I wouldn't have done as a teenager

There was a Derren Brown special that used the idea of complying with the majority to select participants. He does some interesting psychological stuff around this.