Women's rights general conversations

I wondered that - there was an 'ology' word I thought rather good (as was the whole post) that I can imagine it being a trigger. On another thread yesterday I started when I saw an old GUT-er, unaware of all that has happened in the last decade+ musing on old posters she remembered and listing Thor among others.

Was it a post drawing a comparison with cults? That tends to be a no-no, although there's no specific rule.

Yes that's the only thing I think it can be. Are we not allowed to use that word? In which case, fine, I won't use it anymore. But I've checked the rules and the added ones for this issue and I can't find that this word is off limits. Anyway thanks, I won't use it again.

I think the use of certain words gets your post automatically deleted.

I guess so. But I wish I knew which word or phrases caused the deletion. I was responding to the religion analogy. I was certainly not hateful, offensive, or threatening. I'm very careful here, and indeed everywhere online.

Was it a post drawing a comparison with cults? That tends to be a no-no, although there's no specific rule.

I think the use of certain words gets your post automatically deleted.

I've had a message deleted. No idea why. I stick to the guidelines or thought I did. Wasn't hateful or offensive, or thought not. Worrying.

I wonder how such people cope when they find themselves part of a group where everyone is like that.

They all sign up to a talk board on some corner of the Internet! 😀

Those who have a perpetual victimhood mindset tend to have an “external locus of control”; they believe that one’s life is entirely under the control of forces outside one’s self, such as fate, luck or the mercy of other people.

This stood out to me. I'm thinking of the habit of helicopter parenting that's been going on for at least 25 years now. Has it resulted in a generation or more of people who, because they were mollycoddled through early life, now have no resilience and or independence of thought?

I think that is one area where this differs from many cults, in that its primary focus is individual egotism, with the group membership underpinning the centrality of that individual identity. That level of focus on oneself is psychologically dangerous imo (though likely to make plenty of money for psychotherapists).

That brief questionnaire at the top of the Scientific American article made me smile. I assume a “tendency for interpersonal victimhood” is polite-speak for making absolutely everything all about you, all the time?

I wonder how such people cope when they find themselves part of a group where everyone is like that.

oh shoot, I was just thinking how good to see two good posts from MissLawls. Dunno what random rule it broke.

I was wondering whether those on the other side of the argument would read it and think it applies to us, too. I do always try to think myself into the opposing side's shoes in any dispute, but I genuinely find it very difficult to do it to any meaningful degree on this topic.

That’s an interesting Scientific American article. Applies to much of the gender wars, and the demonisation of JKR is a perfect example.

Very much is performative, as Winterborne says. What was that phrase Kuc used the other day, 'The Package of Good Beliefs', or something like that? Well, 'those poor trans kids' are the cherry on top of that package, it seems to me, which is why every pop star and comedian is falling over themselves to sign up for it.

I stumbled on this piece which I think also goes some way towards analysing the "most oppressed minority ever" narrative, together with the justifying of some pretty appalling behaviour and language.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/

I think that's spot on, winters.

It's like some sort of mass delusion. Either sincere but faith-based, or malicious and manipulative.

Agree with this but there is also a performative aspect. I do not believe that half the people who profess to find a gender critical perspective distasteful, distressing or discriminatory actually believe in gendered souls themselves. But they buy into the idea of demonstrating allyship. There is a weird trade off where validating anyone who claims a marginalised identity, in turn validates people’s own image of themselves as good people. They don’t actually have to believe in the crap to feel good about themselves. They don’t need to believe in it to want to punish non-believers.

Then I think it would be pretty instructive to see if there'd been a marked rise in particular types of crimes being attributed to women, where previously they had been so low as to be pretty much non existent.

At some point people are going to start noticing changes in data, around the same time as men started being able to claim they were women.

Not a single report of a trans woman crime?

Presumably it would simply be recorded as committed by a woman, so there's no way to separate the data.

That doesn’t surprise me too much about Belgium unfortunately. I used to live there and in some ways it is similar to Ireland - a relatively small country, once staunchly Catholic with its own sexual abuse history. The desire to show it is ‘progressive’ and a better place now leads to these sort of issues with self-id.
It is simply replacing one religion with another in my view.

Meanwhile in Belgium, they seem to have no instances of difficulties with self-ID. Which seems odd, let's face it. So a woman decided to investigate.

^Belgium has had self ID for almost 5 years. Not a single report of a trans woman crime? Not a single one. No stories of men attacking women in prisons? Not one.

I asked the police why. “We don’t communicate that”^

twitter.com/roisinmichaux/status/1604200438403805184?s=61&t=PkVfHCRfGcHtAnTrTLKbSw