Be Kind 2.0 and the "Persuasive TRA"

Given the number of them we encounter just on FWR, evidence points to "no" - for some of them, it must be their entire lives, or at least their only hobby. Then you have the employed who have become activists at work. And then those who went looking for jobs where they could continue their activism...

Then again, there are times when I think it would be so much more rewarding to work for Sex Matters 😀but I'm too old to start over now!

Ok, following on from my last post, we are definitely looking at a concerted effort to Confuse Everything and Everybody. The activists have finally realized that they have lost the one with the Equality Act, so they are getting desperate. The next step is to just break everything that disagrees with what they want and increase everyone's level of confusion, while the activists work in the background to dismantle everything they don't want.

This is clearly a growing trend, as evidenced by the NSPCC thread and the Nadia Whittome thread about changing the EA 2010. I hope you don't mind me quoting the following in full, which explains very nicely where we are:

(Thanks to both)

From the NSPCC thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5578237-latest-nspcc-schools-guidance?page=3

@AstonCanKissMyArse

Then why issue ambiguous guidance to say that 'technically' it would be OK?

And then frantically backtrack, while sounding like a toddler caught with their hands in the biscuit tin when questioned, rather than say 'yes you're right that's not very clear we will amend that bit'?

Guidance is supposed to decrease ambiguity, not increase it! Its literally the only point of bothering to publish it. If its not doing that one job, the writer/publisher has monumentally failed.
[my bold]

From the Nadia Whittome thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5578674-nadia-whittome-calls-for-a-change-to-the-equality-act

@nauticant

Part of the goal will be to change the leglislation and then argue that because the law is now different, the cases decided under the "old" law are now moot. This would (arguably) clean the slate of all the successful cases and it would be time to start again.

Even if this would be a bit of a try-on it would increase uncertainty. Uncertainty has been a major fuel for the genderists' cause for years

[my bold]

Before I forget, from the recent NSPCC thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5578237-latest-nspcc-schools-guidance?page=1

Rename and Reword Everything: Confusion of terms makes everything we want to do possible

(Ok, not exactly new, because it's a tried and tested abuser's tactic, but gaslighting children, teachers, and schools about what constitutes abuse of children is about the lowest of the low. By the NSPCC!)

Ok,so not just me thinking this was weird, good to know!

I thought I read one poster comment that the EA 2010 actually has a specific exception for Dads to take their daughters into the women's toilets- that was an extreme reach, I thought??

ed. sp.

Thanks, yes this is exactly how it read to me: what about what about what about... trying desperately to find that one perfect reason to have the chocolate bar right before dinner. "It has milk in it, doesn't it? Isn't that healthy?" 😝

A fairly straightforward AIBU thread has taken an interesting turn, and I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this:

Aibu feeling uneasy about men taking little girls to the toilet in the womens toilet? | Mumsnet

There are a couple of posters on that thread who have said that fathers should be taking their very young daughters into the women's toilets, rather than the men's, for reasons of "safeguarding" and that women should accept that because little girls have rights to "single-sex spaces" too.

One even said that if women keep insisting on female-only spaces, eventually we'll just end up with all mixed-sex spaces, because why on earth should a father take his daughter into a nasty, risky space such as the men's toilets (completely dismissing the argument put forward that she will be with her Dad!).

The argument seems to be that

a. men's toilets are disgusting
b. men's toilets are full of half-naked men
c. men's toilets are fine for Dads with their little boys (for some strange reason that hasn't been explained) but not their little girls
d. there has been no arguing that women should be taking their little boys into the men's (not that I have read so far)
e. safeguarding little girls should come before adult women's rights
f. little girls also have the right to female-only spaces (completely ignoring the fact that once her Dad is there, it's become a mixed-sex space)
g. if we keep on insisting that women have their own spaces, there will be nowhere for Dad to take his daughter to the toilet, therefore, we women are talking ourselves into mixed-sex spaces only

I can't see this becoming a serious tactic, because:

a. a man would either have to take his daughter everywhere with him or
b. borrow someone else's female child every time he wanted to use a female space (!)
and
c. having only mixed-sex spaces everywhere would be indirect discrimination against women.

Anyway, without wanting to rehash the entire thread here, just wondered if anyone had seen this being put forward as a serious tactic as a way of arguing men into women's spaces? Someone on that thread mentioned that it has been gathering speed in the US, although where activists would go with this eludes me!

Thanks for this, it's a useful list of supporters to keep an eye on. I'm entirely unsurprised to see Amnesty UK International on there.

I'm contemplating starting a new thread, because I don't want this to be buried here, and I don't want to completely take over SSSIS' Draft Conversion Bill thread, however for now, I'll stick it here:

After having watched Stonewall and partners for a while now, I think I can finally see where their main focus is going to be, at least for now: "conversion therapy."

Evidence seems to be growing that activism is coalescing around the Draft Conversion Bill, gathering activists in psychotherapy professional bodies, Stonewall, and the Government together.

A few of us have posted information on various threads, but seeing it all in one place really shows the momentum:

from the Government:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill

from UKCP and PCPB:
https://www.pcpb.org.uk/consultation-opens-into-conversion-practices-and-gsrd-guidelines/
There is concern about how this consultation is being conducted.
https://x.com/i/status/2093715470847197559

from Stonewall campaigns:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/ban-conversion-practices

from Nick Wallis' GenderBlog, re The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP)
https://genderblog.net/call-for-nhs-therapists-to-educate-clients/

from TerfTimes:
Caring will be criminalised | TERF Times
https://www.terftimes.com/p/criminal-caring/

Stonewall haunting No.10 | TERF Times
https://www.terftimes.com/p/stonewall-still-haunting-government/

If the Conversion Bill actually takes off (and I think there is some doubt about this, as no one seems to like it as it is right now), I believe it will be used to prise open other doors relating to non-binary, reduction in single-sex spaces in favor of mixed-sex (however indirectly discriminatory these may), and self-ID of a sort.

I expect that as long as the draft bill still has legs, this will be one of the most important arenas for activism that we should be watching.

Just realized that this was previously noted by @JanesLittleGirl thanks. Looks like it's becoming a "popular" tactic. Or perhaps all the posters are the same person!

Round 'em up and conquer, rather than divide and conquer?

It's a belittling tactic, isn't it? Force women to argue about and waste time on trivialities. I guess the only way to counter this is to not engage at all, as difficult as that is sometimes.

I like the Dancing on the Head of a Pin.

I suppose we could also just call it Squirrel! 👀

(or, The Way My Brother-in-Law The Lawyer Argues When He Knows He's Wrong But Will Never Admit It) ... [you know who you are] 😆

Another variation on obfuscation of the law:

From the psychological burden thread:

The Law Doesn't Actually Mean What It States (or I Don't Understand the Law and I Don't Like the Law, So I'm Going to Pretend That There's a Nuance Here That You Forgot About)

"A conflict in rights requires a balancing of rights or proportionality test that depends on the particular circumstances involved."

(ignore the fact that the SC ruling has already explained about "balancing of rights" and "proportionality")