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

Oh, I think I remember that one. Was it one of those youth groups with a worryingly large age range, possibly in Scotland?

Yes. It's one of the reasons that it is so frustrating trying to 'debate' with TRAs, because their language lacks clarity and their premiss lacks logic. It's like trying to talk sensibly and rationally with an overstimulated teen (or toddler). Except that with the latter, sleep or food or listening to loud music for a while has a good chance of bringing them back to rationality.
I don't know what can be done about this realistically though, in a society dominated by a social-media-led emotional disregulation.

I think Critical Race Theory is one of the three American campus originated theories which under-pin the american 'progressive' vision of society. All three have become blunt instruments that presuppose victimhood and oppression as the main articles of faith...with every societal grouping being perceived to be in a fixed and systemic hierarchy of 'oppressor' and 'oppressed'.

i think it has become a form of ideological group think and does not permit alternative perspectives. Alternative perspectives tend to be themselves positioned with the framework of oppressive constructs that are supposedly meant to disguise the true nature of oppression and exploitation. So, even mathmatics, for example, can become a form of 'white supremacy'. And 'people of colour' who may disagree with any of the edicts are 'coconuts' suffering from false consciousness.

I think certain brands of feminism fall into this group think tendency too....... in which everything comes down to oppression and 'the patriarchy'.

Do you not perceive that transwomen's needs (i.e. men's) are privileged and considered much more than transmen's (i.e. women's)? They are practically absent from most of the debates (apart from when SexMatters brings up to the SC about their rights when pregnant!).

Gennies as in 'genuine women'.

Well, yeah. Shows how far back the hatred of actual women by men pretending to be women goes. We see it still today where women are told that men pretending to be women are better at womaning than them. It's the patriarchy at it's most bat shit. Men are best at everything, don't you know?

I can't remember if the term is gennies or jennies or similar but it's a disparaging term for actual women and IIRC, the article talks about how actual women will eventually become obsolete (apart from breeding purposes of course).

I can remember reading a piece by a woman who identified as a transman (I can't remember if she detransitioned or not) who discussed the dynamics in their local trans group and how the men who identified as transwomen were controlling of the (often much younger) female members.

The men who identified as transwomen were 'oppressed' and the women who identified as transman were 'oppressors'. Therefore, the females always had to give way to the males. The males' behaviour was described as very predatory, and there was sexual abuse by these older males of the younger females.

I have a feeling that this was all after the cotton ceiling debacle, and that the bloke who wrote about the cotton ceiling was one of the males that the author had known. Morgan something, maybe?

Can I just establish... are you anti CRT? Intersectionalism was originally about understanding that White Feminism isn't helpful or relevant, but is harmful to many non-white women. Is this something you contradict or oppose?

No it doesnt mean that emotion always blinds you to rationality. This why reading and understanding words is so important in discussions. I said it can. "Can" means that there is the potential for something to occur, but it doesn't mean it will always occur.

Learning to communicate about things that you feel emotional about without letting that emotion lead your interactions is a skill one learns with practice. You have to understand why it is important and keep company who insist on those standards for it to be a priority for you though.

It's not 'trans' IDing women who are pissing on statues in protest against women who say no, threatening dissenting women with 'splintered rolling pins', demanding access to women's spaces. It's 'trans' IDing men who are obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women.

"Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Buschi)"

How is this present in the trans movement if we are expected to accept both trans men and women as their chosen identity?

So youre talking about the 70s? 50 odd years ago?
What is a Gennie?

Some of the ones I report are deleted. Many are not. That's my point... the only ones that are ever deleted have personal attacks so obvious, the moderators cant allow it to stand and still act as if they guidelines mean anything. You have to say something really quite extreme about trans people for that post to be deleted. Far worse than you could ever say about a racial group, for instance.

Comparing some of the movement to how cults operate will not get you deleted. You will have to say considerably more than that.

Contemporary 'progressive' politics constitute a form of ideological group think. I'd say. There is a high degree of uniformity of perspective across a range of issues ( which form what is now referred to as the 'omnicause').The american university campus originated theories, namely 'Intersectionalism', 'Queer Theory' and 'Critical Race Theory' form the foundations of this contemporary type of group think.

Group Think perpetuates itself through use of mantras and slogans which are repeated endlessly in order to embed the message. Think of the Labour party just a few years ago with the repetition of the mantras 'TWAW' and 'No Debate' - and those demonstrations we have become accustomed to seeing in which one person chants a message/slogan/mantra and then the assembled crowd repeats it over and over. Repetition acts as a form of brainwashing and thought control.

Furthermore, members of the group:

• Believe in Inherent Morality: The group ignores the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions, believing their cause is righteous.
• Rationalization: Members collectively discount warnings or negative feedback or alternative perspectives that might challenge their assumptions, convincing themselves their decision is correct.
• Direct Pressure on Dissenters: Members are pressured not to express arguments against the group's view, often portrayed as disloyalty.
• Self-Censorship: Individuals suppress their own doubts or counterarguments.
• Illusion of Unanimity: The silence of members and refusal to critique is interpreted as agreement, creating a false sense of complete consensus.

In all tight knit groups, whether they be religious or political, a high degree of conformity tends to follow, as people prioritise belonging and the feelings of emotional and social security that conformity brings. Doubts, questions,alternative readings are suppressed.

Has anyone got a link to that odious piece from the 70's which talks about 'gennies' and how men pretending to be women are superior to them?

That's such a boring trope though, isn't it? If you're emotional you're not rational so your strong feelings can be ignored. Hysterical women and all that.

Find me the rationality in believing a man becomes a woman because he says so. Maybe the search for logic and reason should begin there.

"Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Buschi)"

How is this present in the trans movement if we are expected to accept both trans men and women as their chosen identity?

Yes emotion can blind you to rationality.

"Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Buschi)"

How is this present in the trans movement if we are expected to accept both trans men and women as their chosen identity?

Oh absolutely: all the ones who are too "emotional" about the subject. If people could be less emotional then everything would be clear to them.

Too much heat, not enough light. People just need to calm down. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's an emotive issue, for both sides. Everyone just needs to take a step back. We all need to get along. Etc.

My PhD research studied the exit narratives of former cult members (what are also called "total institutions" in that people who join them have invested their entire life in them and believe that they will remain in them for life, that “this is IT”).

Some of the parallels that I can see between my research and the current trans movement are:

• Most hold world transformational views; In addition to a sense that the members of these total institutions were saving the world, they also felt they “were preparing something new and [. . .] dazzling” (Ayers 2001, 71), revisioning how society would work in the future.
• In the 1960s development, most members were “white, middle class, and of college age” 10 (Jacobs 1987; Roszak 1969); members of 1960s/1970s alternative movements were drawn principally from “the educated, privileged children of the American dream, who found their society flawed and failing” (Daner 1976, 7)
• Members of total institutions were usually dependent on the institution for their friendships.
• Adaptation to the total institutional norms generally involved a process of change. Often members were asked to renounce their personal possessions and/or alter their appearances, in order to become divested of the “identity kit” (Goffman 1961, 20) they had within the norms of the “outside” society.
• Members often adopted new names
• Members used an in-group language; the use of in-group jargon reinforces group identity, allowing members to feel “privy to momentous revelations” (Levine 1984, 89) or otherwise “in the know”.
• Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Busching 1988; Johnson 2005)
• All members of total institutions – men and women alike – adhered to common ideological norms concerning behaviour. Women, however, were disproportionately marginalised in these organisations, with control over many aspects of their lives “abdicated” to male authority (Jacobs 1984, 166). This made for a very unequal exchange in terms of who had power and what status was accorded various members in these total institutions.

The things that are generally present in “cults” but not necessarily (at least on my reading of it) present in the trans movement are:

• Members usually lived communally
• Total institutions typically have a strong authoritarian structure, generally with a charismatic leader at the top, a middle-level group directly responsible to the leader, and a larger membership of low-status “ordinary” followers. Thus, information and power flowed from the top downwards; the immediate authorities controlled the day-to-day activities of members, engaging them in full-time organisational tasks (Goffman 1961; Daner 1976; Bromley 1991a; Jacobs 1987, 1984; Bromley and Shupe 1980; Eister 1972).
• each total institution would have a set of rules that members agreed to obey (Fuller and Martin 2003)
• Members of total institutions were usually dependent on the institution for their livelihood
• Authorities typically restricted members’ participation in conventional social institutions to only those activities that were deemed absolutely necessary (Bromley and Shupe 1980; Bucher 1983).
• most of these institutions were evangelistic, necessitating the memoirists living in several different places across their institutions; Some of these total institutions kept dyadic partners separated, by engaging them in organisational fundraising and recruitment activities to such an extent that little time was left for the relationship. This both weakened the non-institutional nature of the relationships, and ensured that institutional goals took precedence over anything else (Wright 1986).
• A common feature in total institutions is the need to control exclusive relationships, with various prohibitions against emotional intimacy, and how controls over exclusive bonds of dyadic relationships are implemented by those in authority. This is a group self-protective measure, lest energies get drained away from institutional obligations (Wright 1986; Simmel 1950; Slater 1963; Kanter 1968, 1973b).