Peter Tatchel talking utter nonsense.

I absolutely love this explanation.

I enjoyed this interview, I like Andrew Gold, has lots of interesting people on his podcast. Fair play to Peter Tatchell for going on, he knew he'd get challenged but it was all very calm and respectful. I'm sure Tatchell knows he's wrong about this but self interest means he's pretending to believe. Looked like hard work at times, the way he kept denying things are happening straight after being given clear evidence they are.

I watched it. Tatchell seems to have a real blind spot. His blind spot is that he doesn't actually accept that women are real human beings. For him, women seem to simply be props to validate the identity of deluded males.

He's not even consistent in his description of what he thinks a gender identity is. Straight after saying that it was nothing to do with stereotypes, he told Andrew Gold that he had a male gender identity because he was dressed in a stereotypically male way.

But he doesn't seem to believe what he's saying either. He becomes hesitant and shaky talking about gender stuff compared to his tone at the beginning when he's talking about his early campaigning work for gay rights and minority groups.

It all reminds me of buying 'indulgencies'.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/indulgence

I wonder if there is a strange middle ground, where bad actors cling on to something as a belief at the most basic level - even when they don't really believe it - because it's the only way they can justify who they are to themselves.

I'll try and explain myself better.

The thought first occurred to me when I watched the BBC Jimmy Savile drama (it's excellent) with Steve Coogan. The jarring disconnect between Savile's very unchristian actions and his desperate need for validation from the priest during confession was fascinating. He was sharing some of his dark thoughts with the priest but also desperate to hear that god was there for him. Obviously it's very possibly just artistic licence but it gave some food for thought.

When someone has dark thoughts (such as a paraphilia, or multiple paraphilias - Savile's multiple ones and how this changed over time are explored in the drama, albeit briefly) they are unlikely to want to think of themselves as unpalatable to the world. Obviously they don't care about what others think on some level and most of what they probably care about is feeding their narcissism and/or nefarious desires. But deep down, I should imagine everyone has the need to be at peace with themselves, otherwise you're completely rudderless and wouldn't be able to pass off as "normal" at a societal level. We all anchor onto our own core values and hold ourselves to those standards. Sometimes this incorporates outside beliefs or crosses over with them (I'm an atheist but I used to believe in god and some of my core values trace back to those days).

I'm no psychologist but I'm guessing there's some form of self-gaslighting that kicks in. To the point where everything is "ok" if you can centre it on your feigned belief. Maybe then your feigned belief starts to feel more "real". You know you're faking what you're saying and doing - going through the motions - but you're so well practised at it that you internalise enough of it as true.

I wonder if it might help someone to reconcile how someone can know their behaviour is not remotely Christian but they can still trot out all of the Christian things that people are meant to say. And be completely at peace with this disconnect. Or in the case of gender identity belief, they know that when undeniable facts are thrown at it (e.g it is undeniable that sex and gender identity are not the same thing - and that this means one is a physical reality and the other is something you carry in your head as a concept) they can concede it but then the flip switch kicks in and they are back to trotting out all of the things that those who truly believe in gender identity would say.

So eventually what they actually believe and what they pretend to believe get a bit muddled up. Nothing is ever real for them but they can anchor on to it just enough to function and seem "normal" when actually, their paraphilia(s) never really switches off and they are always planning how to indulge it or already secretly doing so (possibly while hiding in plain sight).

If someone gets a high enough profile, they don't even have to care if most of what they say doesn't make any cohesive sense, to anyone else or to themselves. Or if it's never the same as what they said previously. It's all totally fluid, allowing them to sound "reasonable" and "engaged" in the moment.

I wonder how long the Youtube economy for blokes exploiting GI can hold up.
Theres so many of them now.

I'm also very sceptical that some people feign a belief for their own gains.
Yes, I often wonder this, (especially with Tatchell).

It's a day ending in Y, after all.

The thing that annoys me about Tatchel is that during media debates he is often given more up to date or correct information about legislation (or about things like the Cass Review or sports science) and, even if he deigns to acknowledge that there might be some truth to this new information in that debate, in the next debate he completely resets back to factory settings and just continues on repeating the same factually incorrect things he was saying previously with no acknowledgement that he ever in his life heard anything to the contrary.

It’s like information that he doesn’t like just bounces off his skull and never gets assimilated 🤷‍♀️

He also tries to present his faith-based views as objective facts, and again ignores factual counter arguments (eg his daft arguments about tiny or skinny men being fine to compete in women’s sport).

He’s the queer theory equivalent of a creationist or flat earther and I’m not sure he brings anything to the public debate for either position because he’s very much ploughing his own weird wee furrow with a cobbled together mish mash of talking points 🤔

I have just watched the trailer.....

Wow. I'm looking forward to it already.

There is very little I think is good about Peter Tatchell, but I'll give him this: he's brave. I can respect the fact that he holds a belief that we all have a gender identity. I can take it at face value that he really does have a genuine belief.

However, I don't share his belief.

I'm also very sceptical that some people feign a belief for their own gains. Much like the Catholic priest scandal of recent years.

To clarify, the analogy above is simply about a) someone demonstrating/announcing to the world that they have a belief i.e. they hold something to be true (e.g. that god is the father, that we all have a gender identity). They say all the things you would expect to hear from a believer and b) in truth their belief is either very shallow or not really there at all. It's just a convenient front behind which a nefarious actor can hide.

Obviously not all Catholic priests etc etc. But also obviously, nobody can tell the difference between a believer and a feigner until they see clues/patterns or after someone has already committed an offence.