Where is the drive coming from?

I also have wondered if in the EDI world, trans is a group where it's easier to control or create a certain message.

If you look at feminist identity politics, well, lots of women don't buy into it, you can see them all over, and they will say so. THe same is true for racial identity politics, plenty of non-white people don't buy into it or actively oppose it.

But gender identity politics, fewer people overall perhaps, so special media spokespersons are what many people see rather than friends, family, and co-workers. There is the possibility for many who do but into the desired narrative to simply identify into the group. And the group itself consists of a large number of children and confused young people, people with other barriers like autism or mental health problems, and certain narcissistic males. These people either are vulnerable to manipulation, or are manipulators.

100% - corporations have no business ‘lobbying’ the public on political issues.
Boycotts only work if a majority of customers participate such that it actually affects their bottom line.

The public may buy “spin” as they don’t really track a corporations financial performance, but their c-suite isn’t going to buy it.

The thing is, these are divisive, once they jump on the issue as a company.

But there is no reason a beer company, or most other companies, need to say anything about most political or social issues. No one is boycotting beer producers for just having normal beer ads with regular people drinking beer, or showing cans of beer, or whatever.

The choice to include it opens them up to people who disagree, no matter what stand they take, that could be a lot of people.

The numbers involved in terms of sterilisation are proportionally low. It's perhaps more useful to look at who is being sterilised. Vulnerable children - look at the comorbidities and other associated factors. 'Gender affirming treatment' and trans ideology is creating a cohort of damaged, confused, medically dependent people who are focussed on the Other as the source of all their problems. It's been described as a subculture before, I forget who wrote on this quite eloquently ... might have been Exulansic.

And I think that while it's possible a war may be on the cards, gender issues/queering are a side effect of that cycle, rather than an actual motivating force. I often think of the people in the Capital of the Hunger Games when I look at, say, Drag Queen Story Hour. I agree that culture can get too unequal and that can drive both decadence and pushback.

We also have the problem of how the subject is affecting public faith in society and authority. Loss of faith in democracy being part of a society heading towards authoritarianism - people start mistrust the media/government/establishment - undermine the authority - this happens in moribund systems being run top-heavy and in an authoritarian way (Sturgeon, I'm looking at you - fish rot from the head down) - so we have the ruling administration parrot absurdities, chanting mantras that are patently untrue - watch the populace lose faith in order and truth and society overall.

It's hugely unhealthy, corrosive to social order, and yes could be part of a dangerous slide towards more authoritarian regimes.

A lot of the stuff we see, and experience in our lives, on this issue is downstream. The drivers are EDI/ESG, and EDI/ESG was a white-washing policy created by Larry Fink to rehabilitate the financial world after the crash of 2008.

As to why, trans issues have risen to the top of the EDI/ESG pie, there are two reasons: big pharma can make shit loads of money out of it, and there are powerful forces who wish to alter humanity (either through transhumanism or population control).

Don't look at what is said, look at what is done. Look at what the end results are. People are being sterilised, young and not so young. Anyone with a brain in their head realises this is what GRS and cross sex hormones do, and how the trans agenda actually interfaces with human bodies.

We've let the billionaires get too rich and the powerful get too powerful. This situation will end in war, somehow. It always does.

I think in Britain, it's a case of follow the money. Stonewall were becoming largely irrelevant, with equal marriage etc, so they needed a new campaign and trans fitted that bill, while handily also assisting with the promulgation of "queer" theory and removing sexual barriers.

We could also look at the contemporary crisis in masculinity.

Genderism relies heavily on sex stereotypes to promulgate.

'is totally socialised to be kind to "vulnerable" males. Socialised to believe that older or firm-minded women are hags'

This movement could never have got so far had the sex roles been reversed. It has exploited the kindness of women, the misogyny of society, and also women's ignorance about men's sexual proclivities.

A lot of that has been on the back of both post modernist boundary demolishing and liberal feminist sex positivity, possibly even rooted in 60s sexual liberalism.

I'm not saying all if these things are wholly wrong; but several of them are ripe and wide opne for exploitation.

I'm thinking of how PIE got embedded in society and legitimised, and also how Saville was enabled and excused, how Rotherham was ignored.

Men's sexual appetites, inclinations, paraphilias and desired are a giant elephant in the room in contemporary society.

🤨 I take it you don’t know that Bud Light has been in a massive decline in popularity since 2008 and the boycott actually did nothing to change the pre-existing downward trend?

Of course the boycotters are going to claim their efforts have had an impact, that is rule #4 of the activist handbook, claim credit for anything and everything regardless of whether it is true or not.

🤣🤣🤣

Have you actually been following the news regarding Bud Light etc?

It's like they don't care what the customers think even if they get boycotted, e.g. BudLight, Maybelline, Costa, Dr Martin are recent cases that come to mind. Do companies not care about falling sales and bad PR anymore, do they not care about making profits, how do they continue to exist?

Boycotts only work if the majority of customers agree and a significant number participate. As it is, the boycotts you refer to were only done by a tiny minority, so the company isn’t going to comply with a tiny minority of customers’ demands when it would risk a larger number of customers boycotting them in counter-protest.

I’m reading this thread and nodding along to so much of it. In reality, it seems like the perfect storm. There’s a degree of coordination coupled with secrecy that allowed a lot of infiltration, but there are factors that involve a lot of luck.

That said, I know the women of TERF Island really threw a spanner in the works by halting the GRA changing to self-ID.

That was, I think, meant to be the coup de grace in the UK. It would have legally cemented all the stealth manoeuvring by the likes of Stonewall, who introduced self-ID under the guise of “getting ahead of the law,” so not everything has gone their way.

I took early retirement from a public sector job in Ireland14 years ago - at was all a bit rushed at the time of the economic collapse, but I had crumbly elderly parents and too the jump. I never regretted it.

In the weeks before I finished, one thing that really made me feel I was doing the right thing was the questionnaire asking me to detail what I was going to do to promote AND MONITOR inclusion in each of the 9 categories listed under the equality legislation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of access, equality and fairness, but it was glaring obvious that the only way you could monitor and quantify that would be by being simplistic in approach and rigid in implementation - awful awful combination. I can understand why people fell back on outsourced training.

So lovely to be able to bin it.

The Yogyakarta principles introduced in 2006 I think are key starting point

Two things.

1. Public institutions like libraries, civil service, schools etc have for years been under huge pressure to show that they are doing stuff on “diversity”. Originally intended to stop all the top jobs being held by white middle class men, this idea has been subverted so that taxpayer money is now spent on trying to recruit children into picking a sexual identity, dressing in a sexual way and being sexually available to partners (often much older) who they would not otherwise have considered.
2. Paedophile networks cross many different professions and have thrown a lot of time and money into trying to normalise their ideas that children have sexuality and should explore it with grown ups, preferably naked male grown ups.

It was me Sunnie. Sorry! I wouldn't suggest it other than it linked with some earlier posts- so anyone interested in that side of things might be interested.
Think it disturbed my emotional equilibrium when I watched it a while ago- at the early foothills when I was voraciously consuming anything I came across in an effort to make sense of it all. But it was interesting.
It did come to mind when reading Simon Edge's book too.
Defintely give it a pass if you think it would disturb- (even more than everything else)

As for Satan, I do from time to time fall back on the old traditional shield

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil . . . . . .

Yes, women aren't influenced by porn in the same way, but naive girls are I think influenced by fan fiction, seeing an alternative route to romance and sex and love if only they could be young men.

And that is doomed to fail.

Yes, I think this idea that expoitative/bad sex, or sexual assault and rape, are about power and not sex, has led to some rather muddled thinking, that does no favours when we are trying to think about how we might minimize those things in society.

The sex drive is very powerful, it's a powerful motivator to action, in both women and men. It manifests quite differently between the sexes.But if you imagine it's not having an effect themn many important links will be missed.

Satan. The drive comes from Satan.

At least that's what I think, it's the only way I can get my head around it.

SidewaysOtter

when a new equality fight was presented, people fell over themselves to show they weren't repeating the mistakes of the past

I think lots of us, maybe most of us, went through that phase, but then started to notice how misogynist it was, and how damaged young female friends / relations who'd been bamboozled into 'transistion' were, and started remembering the young women we knew a generation ago who cut themselves or starved themselves or claimed to be ponies, and the really creepy men we knew who fixated on womens clothes and lavatories and POW!

And once the scales have fallen they don't come back.

A feature of trans ideology is the way it cuckoos onto existing issues - gay/autism/fetishes - then takes them over and uses them to further it's own aims. So it seems like different things but it's all part of feeding the monster.

I think there's also a significant number of people who've nailed their not so much their colours to the mast but their trousers, and now they can't climb down*. They might not have trans friends/relatives/children but they took the TWAW/be kind stance because it seemed the right thing to do, and acted accordingly which included ostracising friends/relatives for 'bigotry' or 'transphobia'.

I can see where they come from, I've long since held the view that Boomers/Gen X and later look back on the fight for women's equality, race equality, gay equality and wonder why it was so vociferously opposed. So when a new equality fight was presented, people fell over themselves to show they weren't repeating the mistakes of the past.

Obviously that's been massively hijacked but it takes a lot for someone who has, say, ended friendships or made accusations to recognised that and say, "Actually, I was wrong, I'm sorry".

(*A Sir Humphrey-ism!)

I would also say - granulation. Drip feeding and muddling T issues in with other possibly linked but very different issues (LGB/sexuality mixed in with gender incongruence - even those who think there are natural affinities between trans people and homosexually attracted people must surely recognise taht they groups are not interchangeable - yet they are all treated as one monolithic entity, and further, treated as though all those who share any of these characteristics are all of one mind, which as we know is just not the case at all).