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

Interesting! Yes it is narcissistic. I mean even actual science doesn't apply apparently!

No we have a scientifically verifiable agreement that there are two sexes Male and female.

we quite often fall out with each other about who our bed fellows might be.

GC women are not necessarily politically aligned on other areas of politics, some refuse to define themselves as feminist.

the one thing that binds us is our desire to assert our rights as women to say no to males professing to be women.

We could argue about whether you in particular can be a feminist if you centre men.

frankly i can not be arsed.

TRA discourse is extremely narcissistic. Advocates think that only trans-identifying people's needs matter (amply demonstrated by some live threads right now).

So in a sense, the individual is the 'leader'. The cult is self directed.

No, they all think they are the leaders.

I wonder whether the lack of one clear powerful leader makes it less of a cult, and more of a social contagion. But unfortunately a social contagion that fits in well with the needs of the patriarchy and modern capitalism, and the power of which is boosted by social media (another arm of modern capitalism in itself, obviously). A sort of 'perfect storm'.

💯

This is the reason why I apply the sex realist label rather than gender critical.

I find myself quite critical of gender, it's difficult not to be. But my feelings are incompatible with what I see written about trans people in so called 'gender critical' spaces.

You haven’t given anyone a glimpse of anything. You made an incorrect statement and then refused to back it up. That’s ok though. We’ve all been here before.

One thing that is very cult like about GI is it's inability to think for itself.

We saw it with the thought terminating mantras (TWAW), chanted like doctrines, and we see it now with the arguments advanced by feminists being DARVO'd and repurposed (often without making the slightest bit of sense).

No one is slagging you.

please just explain how you think men can become women?

I don't have the stamina to face the inevitable onslaught of negative comments.

Happily I can debate this topic with friends in real life, and we don't just descend into slagging each other off; we can have a proper conversation and compare differing views.

I just wanted to give you a glimpse of the other side of the looking glass, where it's trans-exclusionary feminists who look worryingly like the cult.

And my perspective isn't flippant or knee-jerk, it's born of trauma and first-hand experience, and it's hard-won.

You haven't debated thpugh

If there isn't there should be.

I without a thought for myself offer myself up as the collector of the tithes.

Form an orderly queue and please have your pack of tea cakes snowballs or caramel wafers ready.

Motion passed

The Green Party also has some very uncomfortable bedfellows in people like me - an environmentalist and someone who considers end-stage capitalism a cornerstone of trans ideology! But it is what it is.

It's ironic how closed minded you are for one who speaks of 'nuance'

That's why I don't normally engage on these threads. It's not that I haven't tried to debate over the years, but debate is not welcome on MN, not on this topic.

That in itself is a cult-like feature.

You have not explained why basic scientific facts are 'dogma' in your view

It's ironic how all the responses so far are just reinforcing my point that on MN, trans-exclusionary feminists have a binary mindset: one based on dogma.

Coughs. I don't think you want to go down that route given the proliferation of (to put it mildly) creepy fuckers on your male pandering side.

Creepy bedfellows indeed.

The point is that you can't be a feminist if you put men's desires above women's rights and needs. Only the most bigoted misogynist would fail to see that

• a rigid belief set and dogma, refusing to add nuance to concepts such as 'biology'

The very fact that you have to put speech marks round 'biology' says it all really. Biology is not dogma

• adherents saying that if other women (or men) don't agree with them, those people cannot possibly be feminists. You're only a feminist if you embrace a gender-critical ideology.

Centring men is the very opposite of feminism. Obviously.

• terms such as 'peaked' to indicate people being converted to the movement. This sounds very evangelical.

In what sense is having a word for understanding what is going on 'evangelical'?

• people within the community 'othering' those who disagree with them. You're either in or out, there is no middle ground and no room for debate.

Well there is no middle ground on whether humans can change sex. Either they can or they can't. Which is it, do you think?

I'm a feminist who disagrees with gender-critical feminism. Is your ideological framework too narrow to acknowledge that there are different schools of thought within feminism (just as there are different schools of thought within Christianity)? Or are you going to tell me I'm not a feminist?

If so, you're cultivating a cult mindset.

Who cares.

Knowing that human beings cannot change sex is something that is a normal thing for people of all - or no - political persuasions to understand. It is demonstrably true, like gravity.

I am not a fan of Lysenkoism. People die when you 'bend' science to fit politics.

Jumping on stories of trans women criminals and saying that they represent the category of trans women as a whole.

Evidence please @cassandre

Nah, at the times the line was anything but clear.

I had a post zapped which talked about how distressed a family was at the transition of a daughter. I had the temerity to refer to an unidentifiable young adult as 'she', i.e. per her natal sex.

And boom, post gone. I was aware that 'misgendering' was regarded as capital crime by TRAs, but I wasn't aware that it was a zappable offence on MN.

Oh here we go 🙄

I'm sure I share many beliefs with Trump. That water is wet. That grass is green. That gravity exists. That the world is round.

Should we just throw those out too because Trump agrees?

Honestly, not enough eye rolls in the world for this kind of nonsense.