To what extent are we allowed to discuss parallels between cults and gender ideology?

Yes, it's been completely motte-and-bailey'd.

I understood the original meaning of 'safe space' actually was somewhere where difficult or challenging views could be aired and discussed without censure.

No more 'safe spaces' in education, where that actually means that no one can challenge anything, play Devil's advocate or go against the correct views.

This isn't what 'safe' means.

It should be that students are able to debate anything, get things wrong, try again, practice analytical skills, develop critical thinking, strongman an opinion they don't hold, etc.

And the next important thing to consider is how to guard against cultist behaviour and totalitarianism gaining too much influence.

Of course freedom of speech, thought, belief and expression is fundamental.

Second is robust critical thinking and discourse.

I suggest academia needs to self interrogate far more.

The Internet and its propensity to create bubbles and echo chambers needs attention.

Ask questions, keep asking questions. If youre not allowed to ask questions this is a red flag.

Apply safeguarding lessons with rigour. Unfortunately these become hollow virtually as soon as written; it must be a constant and continually process.

I think you're right about those parallels @Mauvemayhem. In my PhD research I found loads of similarities within some of the New Religious Movements of the 1970s, and more established fundamental/evangelical religious institutions and covenanted religious communities, as well as several radical left political organisations'

I'd suggest a big part of the problem is that activists have gamed politics' own processes. Govt doesn't mind manipulation, obfuscation and selective understanding of 'truth' because those tools are useful to them.

If it worked for 'gender' it will sure as fuck be used for other causes/purposes.

Such an important post. Look at the appalling publicity today the govt have for inexplicably delaying the EHRC guidance. Evidently lying when saying they support the law and trying everything they can to continue allowing men to breach women's boundaries.

This was simple yet - so extreme is the power trans lobbyists have that all over the media today they are being openly accused of being incompetent, liars and failing to safeguard women and girls.

It was so simple but they couldn't make themselves do it.

The comments on this Reddit thread are pretty mindblowing.

archive.ph/gWM2I

When anyone says 'MN is just another cult about this and we should respect other people's beliefs' I'd ask them to consider the following.

If you have an impossible belief it remains an impossible belief. Reality will get you in the end.

The same goes for sex - there will always be situations where it absolutely matters. You can't just decide it never matters and it's a social construct anymore than you can decide you believe you can fly.

I believe I can fly? Reality says splat.

The wall of reality doesn't change.

MN recognises this.

I completely disregard Lifton's study, which has led to the now-discredited belief that people who join what you're calling cults have all be "brainwashed". In my PhD research of the exit narratives of the memoirs of people who have left such institutions, those who claimed they had been hoodwinked or brainwashed into joining were seeking almost any means to “prove” their own innocence and the institution’s culpability rather than accept any sort of responsibility for their decision to join. The more honest memoirs came from a more reflective position, where the ex-member was looking to examine how the person they now perceived themselves to be had had that experience. In my opinion, when the authors’ intention was to remonstrate with or repudiate the former institution, or, to lay blame by "airing psychic damage”, the memoirs were less effective, and spoke to a narrower audience, than those which were self-interrogative. Those memoirs which sought to portray life within a total institution as complex, perhaps even exploring how people did the wrong things for the right reasons, were more compelling than those that adopted a dichotomous adversarial approach.

It is what Keffles said too:
“Being a trans woman isn't about trying to imitate women. It's about trying to be better than women.”
He would know.

ETA- this was a reply to knittedsloth.

Lots of the concepts from Second Wave Feminists had good intentions, but have had horrible unintended consequences for women and society:

• Intersectionality, or overlapping systems of oppression, has morphed into the ‘concept creep’ with the use of the word ‘oppression’ being used to describe discrimination. That’s led to the TRA claim that their TWAW movement is a civil rights movement!
• The concept of the oppressor and the oppressed, framing it in terms of something specific to a particular group in society. With the spread of women’s studies in university departments, the concept was generalised as a way of describing virtually all relationships in society and giving permission to label anyone you disagree with as an “oppressor” or bigot or fascist.
• Viewing gender as a social construct in order to argue that biological differences should not lead to different treatment in society, such as lower status, lower salaries, and fewer opportunities for promotion. This has been bastardised into the shitshow we currently have over anyone who “feels like a woman” is one.
• Considering the personal is political, which although initially was focused only on women, the idea of ‘individual experience’ as a foundation for understanding society within the social sciences and humanities spread alongside the theories of postmodern philosophers, and with the rise of neoliberalism. It’s legitimised a market-driven focus on individualism, personal responsibility, and consumer choice, turning it into a justification for individual pursuits rather than one in which we act within and with consideration for our community or society. It’s also introduced the idea of “relative truth”.
• Bodily autonomy was promoted as an individual's asserted ‘right’ to decide on their own body without coercion, violence, or external interference. This includes choices concerning health care, reproduction, sexuality, and personal integrity. This has led to an abdication of any responsibility we might have to a greater society as a result of our personal actions.
• Substantive equality or equity advocated for equal opportunities by using the state to reduce socioeconomic disparities in wealth, income, and access to essential services such as education and healthcare through taxation and legislation. Instead, it has become a “victimhood Olympics” in which groups and individuals are claiming moral status through narratives of trauma and injury, often assigning blame to others to secure recognition, resources, or political advantage.

Do you know, that is exactly what Germaine Greer said in a radio interview (maybe 5 years ago?)
"They want to be women, only better".

This is exactly it. A cult of the individual. You are who you say you are, what other people see matters not. So of course there is no Grand Poobah of GI. They can all be individual leaders of their own worlds. My brother is a classic NPD; he isn't trans because he wants to follow a great leader. He is the important one, everything centers him and the belief he has that he is a woman. In fact having a leader would diminish the importance of him.

So it's a cult, but with a sprinkling of differences because reasons.

Very well put.

And to zoom out a little on this point, we also apparently didn’t antipicate that we might need rules that explicitly preclude convicted terrorists from running for election but here we are.

I feel for the poor chap - Eric Firkins, a British citizen who was kidnapped and held hostage in order to bargain for the release of said convicted terrorist from prison. Four other tourists were murdered in the attack.

He faces the prospect of the guy who instigated his ordeal and the murders of British citizens being elected to a position of power in Birmingham. He evaded punishment for his crime. It appears that those currently in power hold us in contempt and are enabling more likeminded people.

Thanks so much, ILike. I will have to watch that later to remind myself of their points.

NRFT yet but this was GNC Centric, Benji. A detransitioner.

I tried and failed to find the youtube where she discussed this with Glinner, but it is probably on this one as well (don't have time to find time stamp):

Exactly. I came here at the time of the Sandie Peggie space and found people who'd question, argue, revise opinions and learn. I also found the other sort, but I am ruler of the internet. One click of my mouse and you all vanish!

There are always and always have been and always will be people with disordered and unhealthy belief systems.

What there hasn't always been has been activists in governments, NHS bodies, media, etc to embed the disordered beliefs into law and regulation.

This nonsense ideology has tested all of our institutions and proved them quite alarmingly fallible and pervious. (Is pervious a word).

If govt would stop buggering about trying to avoid the law and basic reality they may do well to consider how and why all our systems, organisations, and frameworks were so vulnerable to takeover.

In a few short years they had the Prime Minister claiming women could have penises. They had a porny bloke flashing on the White House Lawn. They had the NHS sterilising children, and virtually every media and arts personality chanting the mantra, wearing T shirts reifying fetishistic men, and waving their daft, ugly flags. We had wife beaters praised on national TV, rapists in women's jails, and a man winning a gold medal for punching women in the face. Regular witch burning, an organisation that is openly terrorising politicians with impunity, and a convicted torturer and attempted murderer let off for threatening to punch women in the fucking face on stage, to cheers. CSA material posted on NHS Scotland website. Etc.

Societal norms tested, twisted, upturned and undermined. VAWG justified and excused, child abuse ignored, evidence based science and medicine thrown out the window.

That reveals a society with astonishingly vulnerable areas.

I'd say it operates more as a society wide form of thought control. A whole society prey/subject to a radical and authoritarian ideology.

We could apply and/or identify the characteristics below to any number of current phenomena or situations:

"There is a comprehensive collapse of individual autonomy, public sphere boundaries, and ethical standards. The ideology acts as a comprehensive worldview, dictating education, art, and personal morals, demanding unquestioned conformity to a false reality crafted by propaganda.

The "Silent Majority" Factor: Totalitarianism relies on a passive, fear-driven majority, as well as a small, fanatical elite that elevates censorship to a virtue.

The population often adopts a "mass formation" mindset, where individuals lose their critical thinking, experiencing deep paranoia and free-floating anxiety.

Totalitarian systems thrive on identifying enemies (internal or external), creating a continuous atmosphere of threat, panic or war to maintain control and justify repressive measures.

Surveillance and Informal Informants: A secret 'police force' works in tandem with an informant network composed of everyday citizens, turning neighbors and families against each other. ( in the case of FWR a continual monitoring and reporting of posts to the moderator with the aim of eliminating key players and threats to control)"

Ah, we're a cult so.

Brilliant. This means everyone will now fall in fucking line and do as they're told. What a relief, its been like herding cats. For years.

(AND I'm still waiting on my Christo fascist dollars, my T shirt, and a lesbian wife, btw. If GC is a cult I have to say the admin could do with a boot up the arse.)

Very true. That particular poster gave us a perfect example. The mirrored counter-claim “no you’re a cult” and a planet sized reach for arguments to try and back that.

It makes me wonder if it will ever be possible to reach the ‘true believers’. They have shielded their brains and thoughts with mindless mantras and just dig deeper into denying reality.

https://saferinternet.org.uk/report-harmful-content

This is an example.

And a ‘genocide’ that sees the target population grow exponentially over the years 🤔

I heard an interesting discussion - possibly Sarah Philimore- who said if it was political that would be easier to deal with. This has moral underpinnings which makes it much more tricky