Break it down for me? 2 - General Break it Down archive thread

Just a reminder of this resource of the list of male criminals in female prison. In the USA.

notourcrimes.info/prison-data.html

ANOTHER ANALYSIS OF HOW DIFFERENT EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATIVE ARGUMENTS WORK.

Another video that analyses the arguments used that we so often see. Often they are in the same post or in subsequent posts.

x.com/hothingsgirlsay/status/2051375505362784316?s=46

“This is a masterclass in persuasion layering:

– Presuppositions disguised as questions
– Emotional stacking (past harm → present threat → urgency)
– Moral framing that makes disagreement feel unethical
– And a critical factor bypass at the end

“Even if you don’t understand…”

That line removes the need for thinking and replaces it with alignment.

That’s not accidental. That’s design.”

It covers things like the emotional manipulation we see.

The ‘if you don’t understand our identities, that is ok, you just need to support us any way you can’.

This speech she is analysing even uses moral arguments to support groups and people financially through ‘giving back’ or making purchase choices. And it is an interesting one because it uses the sacrifice argument we sometimes see. The ‘it is hard to make ethical decisions about supporting this group but it is worth it’.

The swerve that ‘well-informed people need to see us as people, not as political ideologue or ideological’ was a great to see this male speaker try to us.

He then swivels into the historic reference. The false leverage of historical groups opressed for being same sex attracted that actually have nothing to do with transgender identities. And then ties it to this ‘new wave of trans hate that seeks to erase’ trans people.

The next segment tries to then use the ‘you know us’ plea which reassures people that people with transgender identities are in everyone’s lives in an attempt to reassure people. MJ Murphy points this out as Proximity anchoring as a part of the emotional manipulation. Well, this one we know and what is strange is the number of times though, that activist posters accuse us of not knowing any trans people. It seems to always be an exaggeration - they are everywhere and never cause any concern or we have never met them.

I think she raises some good points here.

The most significant point though was the call to ‘bypass critical thinking’. That bit about ‘if you don’t understand us, that is ok, just support us’.

NAOMI CUNNINGHAM ON PRONOUNS AND WHY SHE NO LONGER USES INCORRECT SEX PRONOUNS

This thread, by the way, was in answer to beccajiggens posting:

"Deliberately misgendering trans people in such aggressive ways is conduct unbecoming of a barrister. Again.
@ barstandards"

(my edit to remove auto formatting, but the barstandards was a tag on twitter, intended to bring Naomi's post to the attention of the regulation board)

Naomi's answer:

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2079302831215902930?s=20

" Because I am a dissenter from gender ideology, the pronouns I use are almost invariably determined by the sex, not the gender identity, of the person I am referring to.

I understand that some people think my choice in this is unkind, or rude. I might have thought that myself a few years ago.

I no longer think that, for a number of reasons.

The first is that courtesy is freely given. A "courtesy" demanded with menaces loses its quality as such, and becomes a gesture of submission to bullies.

The second is about truth. If I say "she" of a man, I am implying that he is female. Men aren't female, so I am saying something untrue.

We all tell polite lies sometimes when it doesn't matter much. I think back when I was willing to tell this one, I thought it didn't matter much.

I know better now. What I know now is that many of the men who want to be referred to by feminine pronouns also want everyone to be forced to treat them for all purposes as if they were women, to the detriment of actual women's privacy, dignity and safety.

I think it matters a lot that we should be able to say "no" to those men, and to explain in plain words why we say no (because they are men).

The third is about clarity. Even if everyone knows in theory that the man we're all referring to as "she" is a man really, referring to him as "she" is confusing.

Clarity is fundamental to my job as an advocate: I need to be able to put my arguments as clearly and vividly as possible.

The fourth and perhaps the most important is about what's known to propagandists, advertisers and psychologists as the "repetition effect." People will believe almost any lie, however obviously untrue, if you repeat it often enough.

Lies don't get much more obviously untrue than "trans women are women."

It is repeated like a mantra by trans activists and those who see themselves (or want to be seen) as "allies."

But this lie has a superpower. The superpower is pronouns.

The near-universal compliance with "preferred pronouns," even by many of those who dissent in other ways from gender ideology, means that the lie is repeated with almost every utterance about a man who says he is a woman (or a woman who says she is a man).

And it's repeated not as an assertion, but insidiously, subliminally, by the use of little grammar-words that are normally handled on autopilot and barely registered by either speaker or listener.

It's brilliant propaganda. It's especially brilliant that so many dissenters have been induced to reinforce the lie in this way.

I'm not prepared to.

end/ "

Thank you, Naomi. This is succinctly worded yet detailed.

It is like a MN FWR thread in a video.

thanks Teawithliberty.

x.com/teawithliberty/status/2080686524773937169?s=46

EA2010 EHCR GUIDANCE HISTORY SUMMARY

by KISHWER FALKNER AND AKUA REINDORF

5th August 2026

https://archive.is/iiXxD

This is a good short summary of the history of the guidance and how we got here

“The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) revised statutory code of practice for services, which is effective on Wednesday, is 342 pages long, but only a small part of it has received public attention: the section explaining how to implement the 2025 decision of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

The judgment did not change the law. It just clarified that in the Equality Act 2010 the words “woman”, “man” and “sex” refer to biological sex. On that point, the 2011 version of the code was wrong. It said that transgender people should generally be permitted to self-identify into single-sex services for the opposite sex.

It had been known that the old code was wrong since 2022, when another case established that “self-ID” is not the law. That is when hospitals should have stopped making female nurses share changing rooms with male colleagues who identify as women. It is when male prisoners who discovered a transgender identity between the courtroom and the prison cell should no longer have been placed into women’s jails. Female-only rape crisis centres should have refused entry to men who said they were women. And shops, leisure centres and pubs should have taken down the signs telling customers to use whichever toilets they felt comfortable with.

But those things did not stop. The law was widely ignored until the Supreme Court judgment hit the headlines. Legally, that judgment was about a minor issue: whether the 9,000 transgender people who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs) should be treated as their biological sex under the Equality Act, in the same way as transgender people who do not hold GRCs. The court decided that they should.

Stonewall quickly announced that the judgment was “not law” until the revised code took effect. That was irrefutably wrong, but it took hold. From the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinates policy for central government departments, to the Scottish parliament and government, to NHS bodies, police forces, local authorities and private sector businesses, organisations which were still operating on a self-ID model carried on, repeating the mantra that they were “waiting for the EHRC guidance”. So too did employers and unions, even though the code does not cover the law applicable to workplaces. “

And it continues on ..

“The code is finally coming into effect today. It feels like a victory for those of us who devoted months of anxious scrutiny to its creation.

But in reality it changes nothing. The law was already the law, and it will continue to be the law. It will still be disregarded by those who oppose it, especially if encouraged by continued government apathy about women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety. And it will remain unenforced by the EHRC, which simply cannot take up the cudgels on its meagre funding.

It is not a historic day for women’s rights. But the code is at least a tool in the armoury of those women and grass-roots groups who will have to carry on fighting this uniquely ferocious war. We salute them.”

SEX REJECTION

This is an interesting attempt to change the language to be more accurate.

https://x.com/v_sivadge/status/2085845959444136332?s=46

the tweet:

“Did you catch the language?

“Sex-Rejecting Procedures” has entered the chat.

“Gender-affirming care” is out.

That didn’t happen by accident. My incredible legal team fought to keep this language in the agreement—and succeeded. I’m told TCH was not thrilled about the change. 🖕🏼

For years, we've surrendered the language and allowed activists to wrap irreversible sex rejecting interventions in cute euphemisms designed to silence questions and disarm criticism.

No more.

Words matter because words shape reality.

And these procedures don't affirm a child's sex.

They reject it.”

The tweet is about the following text:

"Sex-Rejecting Procedures" means any medical, surgical, or pharmaceutical intervention provided to an individual that is intended to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming an individual's asserted gender identity rather than the individual's sex, where such intervention would not otherwise be indicated for a congenital, pathological, or non- mental disorder or disease-related condition. These include, but are not limited to:
**
a Puberty suppression: prescription or administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists or functionally equivalent agents, intended to pause or suppress pubertal progression.
**
b Hormone administration: prescription or administration of estrogen, testosterone, or synthetic analogs, or any other medication which blocks or otherwise inhibits the effects of the body's natural production of sex hormones, in a manner intended to induce physical traits associated with the opposite sex or to suppress traits associated with the individual's sex.
**
c Surgical interventions: any surgical procedure intended to alter, remove, or reconstruct primary or secondary sex characteristics, including but not limited to mastectomy, breast augmentation,
genital reconstruction or modification,
hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, and other surgeries performed primarily to approximate sex-typical appearance.
**
d Voice modification interventions: clinical interventions intended to masculinize or feminize a person's voice to approximate sex-typical vocal characteristics, including but not limited to speech-language therapy when undertaken to alter pitch, resonance, intonation, or speech patterns to align with a gender identity or pharmacological, surgical, or procedural interventions to affect the larynx, vocal cords, or related structures to modify sex-typical voice characteristics.
**
e Other ancillary or preparatory interventions provided in connection with any medica or clinical services described in the above sections (a)-(d).