Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Be Kind 2.0 and the "Persuasive TRA"

436 replies

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 01/06/2026 12:00

This is a spinoff from another thread so as not to derail the original.

I thought it would be helpful to have a separate thread to discuss, and document, a phenomenon I have been seeing more regularly recently: the Persuasive TRA.

It occurred to me, after a few posters noted that the recent U-turns by a couple of politicians, and the wheedling TRA responses to the EHRC guidance, were akin to an abuser changing tactics and also asking us to "help" them in the new single-sex regime, that the whole thing is starting to pan out exactly as an abusive relationship often does. When is the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship? Normally, when she is leaving.

Well, women are leaving the abusive relationship with non-reality that men forced upon us some 15 years ago, and I would argue that now might be our most dangerous/difficult moment.

This is what I posted on the other thread:

I'm starting to see a bit more of what I am calling (in my own head) "Persuasive TRA." Now that they have lost everything that they bullied women for, some activists seem to be changing tack. Women must now fix the situation that TRAs have found themselves in. It seems to pivot on a sort of Be Kind 2.0.

I think women who have been in the game long enough will see through it, but we should be watchful. Stonewall is pivoting, activists are pivoting, and they will be preying on women's socialized kindness: watch for the destination and be on your guard.

I have read several posters on different threads appealing to everyone (women) to help calm trans-identified people's (men's) fears about what this new reality will look like, what it will mean for them (the men) now that they can't just do whatever they want anymore. What about the men's toilets? Are they safe? Where will they go? (Who will fix this problem?)

Well, apparently it is a problem that women can fix, if they just take a moment to think about it. Trans-identified men will be unsafe in the men's, so women need to join the fight to give these men something of their own.

Notice the pivot? The pleading? If you just... If you weren't so.... It can be different if you just... Sound familiar? To any woman who is in, or has escaped from, an abusive relationship, this will be all too familiar.

This is Be Kind 2.0. It's very similar to the original, except that instead of being forced to enjoy our abuse, we are being asked to fix it. And the "Persuasive TRAs" seem to be mobilizing, from what I have seen.

It won't start in the middle (with the women); it will start at the top (infiltrating government, think tanks, charities, etc.) and the bottom (schools). But they will use women to get this moving. Why not? It worked so well last time. And I believe that organizations like Stonewall will be leading the charge: the campaign can be something like Safe Spaces for Trans+ : All of Us Together.

If anyone else has seen this in action, it might be useful to keep a record of it here.

I imagine this thread will eventually be taken over by activists, but, until then, I would be interested in your thoughts.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
Keeptoiletssafe · 19/07/2026 13:12

I have a very long report which acts as a risk assessment and equality impact assessment for changing single sex toilet blocks into enclosed universal toilets. Conclusion:don’t do it.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 19/07/2026 12:49

The latest EHRC guidance pivot: the guidance doesn't mean what it actually says (especially with regard to toilets)

[The argument] seem to be suggesting that we need case law to establish that males do not have the right to access services for females on an individual basis.
'This is bollocks.' (thanks to @nutmeg7)

It is the latest pivot to try to dismiss the guidance: 'but wait, the EA2010 has to be challenged for toilet usage before any male person should be expected to respect female people’s needs to single sex spaces!’ after all the rhetoric such as ‘it is not against the law because it is not a ‘crime’’ style statements.' (thanks to @Helleofabore )

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2026 18:46

I know 🔥

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 16/07/2026 17:42

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 16/07/2026 17:22

And they always say they're not using AI. It's too hot, and there posts are soooo boring, round and round we go. It's actually starting to look like desperation on their part. GOOD. Let the desperation begin.

"their posts" - obviously. It's too hot. 😎

OP posts:
BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 16/07/2026 17:22

And they always say they're not using AI. It's too hot, and there posts are soooo boring, round and round we go. It's actually starting to look like desperation on their part. GOOD. Let the desperation begin.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2026 17:05

Some AI classics on other threads today. Wonder if AI is learning how to deliberately manipulate people.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2026 16:49

Yep @Waitwhat23

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 16/07/2026 16:13

Denton's playbook

As we start to see things shift, once it sinks in that the law and guidance about services actually supports single-sex spaces, women's rights to services and spaces of their own, and our right to say "no," I thought it would be useful to have this close at hand:

James Kirkup's Spectator article about Denton's playbook, from Dec 2019:

(with thanks to @Ereshkigalangcleg for reposting the article on another thread)

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists | The Spectator

Starting with the final paragraph from his article:

I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.

I know many of you will already be familiar with Denton's, but I don't recall ever having read this article before. And many of you will still be unaware of the deliberate tactics employed to get gender ideology embedded into our societies. It's an easy read and points out the tactics clearly.

There will be activists right now working behind the scenes, "in the shadows," to salvage something of what they have built, in order to shift to something new while we are busy restructuring society along lines of reality. This is why we watch Stonewall and their partners, why we need to keep an eye on Compass (links to Andy Burnham through Neal Lawson (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/22/whos-who-in-andy-burnhams-team/

(https://www.compassonline.org.uk/)
and why what has happened at Amnesty UK is so important.

Let's bear in mind that Denton's playbook could have been used for any number of desired goals, and it could be used again.

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists

A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain id...

https://spectator.com/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

OP posts:
Waitwhat23 · 15/07/2026 20:11

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/07/2026 19:07

More beautiful examples today on the “sex and gender discussions” thread.

Is that the 'but you're only talking about sex and gender issues, here...on the sex and gender board!!' arse?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/07/2026 19:07

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/07/2026 20:23

Yes, absolutely. Faux concern to scold women for prioritising sex based rights campaigns.

More beautiful examples today on the “sex and gender discussions” thread.

SereneUmberBiscuit · 15/07/2026 18:22

I think JKR's comment that "It's perfectly acceptable for a grown man in a bikini" says it all

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 15/07/2026 18:04

So that's where it comes from! 😆

OP posts:
Waitwhat23 · 15/07/2026 17:52

I love 'nom de scold'!

I saw on Twitter refer to the Herbert polycule as a ménage à twats earlier which also made me laugh.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/07/2026 17:47

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 15/07/2026 13:36

@FlirtsWithRhinos
It has reliably been suggested that this is "motte and bailey" tactic:

(from online search)
The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a type of argument where someone presents a controversial claim (the "bailey") that is difficult to defend, and when challenged, retreats to a more modest and easily defensible claim (the "motte"). This tactic allows the arguer to avoid scrutiny of their original position by shifting to a safer one.

But I think it sounds more like a "bailey yet motte" tactic: use the defensible claim to bolster the controversial claim.

What do you think?

thanks also @Ereshkigalangcleg

Edited

Sure, that works. I think the term applies whichever way round the argument is put.

As an aside, accusing Feminists of using motte and bailey tactics is a long time favourite of one of the regular TRA pigeons (that's pigeon in the pigeon chess sense). I just realised where his latest nom de scold came from 😂

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 15/07/2026 13:36

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/07/2026 13:19

From the latest EHRC thread -

Make the case for including trans women in female-only provisions or language based only on the exceptional few, but then apply that justification to the whole group without exception because it's too mean or too hard to apply any distinction even though your initial argument relies on it.

"Some trans women are harmless and have taken steps to transition eg I.e hormones, surgery. So they should surely be allowed in. But there's no policing of spaces. So I guess we just have to let all the men who claim to be women in then, amirite? After all, it is obvious that it is better for women to be deprived of single sex spaces altogether than for a man who claims to be a women and might have got away with a bit of harmless casual toilet deception loses out, surely you monsters can understand that?"

@FlirtsWithRhinos
It has reliably been suggested that this is "motte and bailey" tactic:

(from online search)
The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a type of argument where someone presents a controversial claim (the "bailey") that is difficult to defend, and when challenged, retreats to a more modest and easily defensible claim (the "motte"). This tactic allows the arguer to avoid scrutiny of their original position by shifting to a safer one.

But I think it sounds more like a "bailey yet motte" tactic: use the defensible claim to bolster the controversial claim.

What do you think?

thanks also @Ereshkigalangcleg

OP posts:
BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 15/07/2026 13:22

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/07/2026 13:19

From the latest EHRC thread -

Make the case for including trans women in female-only provisions or language based only on the exceptional few, but then apply that justification to the whole group without exception because it's too mean or too hard to apply any distinction even though your initial argument relies on it.

"Some trans women are harmless and have taken steps to transition eg I.e hormones, surgery. So they should surely be allowed in. But there's no policing of spaces. So I guess we just have to let all the men who claim to be women in then, amirite? After all, it is obvious that it is better for women to be deprived of single sex spaces altogether than for a man who claims to be a women and might have got away with a bit of harmless casual toilet deception loses out, surely you monsters can understand that?"

Beat me to it! 😃Thanks!

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/07/2026 13:19

From the latest EHRC thread -

Make the case for including trans women in female-only provisions or language based only on the exceptional few, but then apply that justification to the whole group without exception because it's too mean or too hard to apply any distinction even though your initial argument relies on it.

"Some trans women are harmless and have taken steps to transition eg I.e hormones, surgery. So they should surely be allowed in. But there's no policing of spaces. So I guess we just have to let all the men who claim to be women in then, amirite? After all, it is obvious that it is better for women to be deprived of single sex spaces altogether than for a man who claims to be a women and might have got away with a bit of harmless casual toilet deception loses out, surely you monsters can understand that?"

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/07/2026 21:16

Heggettypeg · 14/07/2026 20:54

So they'll not be taking their employers to court if they're unfairly dismissed for being trans, then?
Because being taken to court proves that you are in the right...
I despair.

So slam dunk for SEEN in the latest tribunal, and DEFRA.

moto748e · 14/07/2026 21:12

Heggettypeg · 14/07/2026 20:54

So they'll not be taking their employers to court if they're unfairly dismissed for being trans, then?
Because being taken to court proves that you are in the right...
I despair.

If you're looking for logic, you won't find it here!

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 14/07/2026 21:02

Responding by threatening them with lawfare isn't a victory, it's proof they were correct.

I'm sure I've heard a version of this before...?

Is it from 12 Angry Men? Or To Kill a Mockingbird?

Probably much more prosaic than that.

OP posts:
BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 14/07/2026 21:00

Heggettypeg · 14/07/2026 20:54

So they'll not be taking their employers to court if they're unfairly dismissed for being trans, then?
Because being taken to court proves that you are in the right...
I despair.

Don't think too hard, it's not worth it!

OP posts:
Heggettypeg · 14/07/2026 20:54

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 14/07/2026 20:43

Brand spanking new, from the Large Amnesty Thread:

(regarding the threats of lawsuits against Amnesty)

Responding by threatening them with lawfare isn't a victory, it's proof they were correct.

So that's how they will justify all the lawsuits and tribunals!

So they'll not be taking their employers to court if they're unfairly dismissed for being trans, then?
Because being taken to court proves that you are in the right...
I despair.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 14/07/2026 20:43

Brand spanking new, from the Large Amnesty Thread:

(regarding the threats of lawsuits against Amnesty)

Responding by threatening them with lawfare isn't a victory, it's proof they were correct.

So that's how they will justify all the lawsuits and tribunals!

OP posts:
Heggettypeg · 14/07/2026 20:08

moto748e · 14/07/2026 19:04

Men can afford not to know what sex they're dealing with.
Women can't.

Obviously it's worse for women, but sex by deception is wrong and a crime, whichever way round it is.

I agree. Sexual deceit is very wrong in either direction.
It's just that when a woman discovers too late that what she thought was a woman is actually a man, it can be harder for her to do anything about it.

murasaki · 14/07/2026 19:10

moto748e · 14/07/2026 19:04

Men can afford not to know what sex they're dealing with.
Women can't.

Obviously it's worse for women, but sex by deception is wrong and a crime, whichever way round it is.

And that's why that TiM was jailed for it last year. It applies equally, as you say.

Swipe left for the next trending thread