EHRC Guidelines are an attempt to erase trans and intersex people from public life, this document is genocidal in nature

Ffs. Genocide, again?!

I really feel like they need to learn some new big words.

Hyperbole might be a good start.

Yup, peanuts are legumes not nuts.

'OMC sang How Bizarre in 1995'
and
'Peanuts are not nuts'

Everyday a school-day, and that's Music and Botany ticked off😁

Yeah thanks for that, StellaAndCrow!😁
'How bizarre, how bizarre' - I had to google it, and that revealed that it's not a case of having forgotten who did it, but that I never knew who it was- it was a New Zealand band called OMC ('Otara Millionaires Club').

Every day a school day, eh?

Delusions of persecution are a very classic aspect of cult thinking. "We alone know the truth and everyone is after us because of it" reinforces the cohesion of the in-group by setting it against an out-group: "We're all in this together. We need to stick together to survive!" It encourages the dismissal of personal reluctance, or the examination of personal concerns, in the face of a far greater danger from the outside.

Basically: when your group is literally on the verge of extermination, you can't waste time and energy examining the actions of people in your group, or testing the veracity of the arguments you're fed. Either you accept and defend in it all in the name of survical, or you're complicit with the Bad Guys in your own death and that of everyone else in your group.

What?? Nah, you're having me on!

True; but it is still nut free, because peanuts are legumes not nuts.
So I suppose peanuts need a third, legume-friendly space 😁

I've said before - this rise of genderwoo is going to make rich pickings for future sociologists - and psychologists too, as you suggest, Ereshkigalangcleg.

It's not unprecedented for demonstrably daft ideas promulgated by a small group to sweep through society, and for otherwise fairly sensible people to lose the head altogether over something like tulips or the South Sea Company, or more damagingly, over witches, or women having babies out of wedlock.

I expect that's how genderwoo will look in the rear-view mirror...

Like Naomi Cunningham's excellent analogy: if something has peanuts in it, it's not peanut-free.

Just realised what you did and now have an earworm, damn you.

Oh natch.

It is rather self defeating to whip trans people up into a frenzy claiming they'll be subjected to genocide, I agree.

Unless the sole motivation is to just whip them up. Which of course it might be. Partly for the lolz, and maybe for the donations? But them being inflamed and riled up just further destroys their credibility.

There's definitely a tipping point between hyperbole making people sit up and take notice, and it jumping the shark and initiating an entire series of eye rolls.

And claiming genocide is definitely one of them.

It's unlikely it will be because TRAs don't want to argue on protected belief ground (because their beliefs are true facts!).

I'm not so sure about this. I wonder if they would try this route, if only to keep the grift going, once they have reached too many dead ends? It would certainly help keep them relevant for a while, once the rest of the world, including most trans-identified people (I assume), have moved on to "living in the real world." Which I think will happen at some point.

I know that the past 15 years or so has felt like an eternity for most of us heavily involved in it, and watching it unfold in real time, but there was a time when trans activists existed only in the margins and in very small numbers. Now, of course, we know what they were doing under the radar and what they were planning, but most of the human race just lived our lives and fought for causes that seemed to make sense.

Maybe I'm just feeling more optimistic today (despite Labour and Burnham)? Possibly deluded. It's hot.

ed, SPAG

There's a significant cohort of TRAs who clearly relish the opportunity to whip the T+ "community" into a frenzy of most-persecuted. They seem to actively enjoy reinforcing the idea of everybody-wants-to-kill-us.
But I'm sure they would deny doing so, or getting a weird kick out of it.

It's bizarre. Why would you want to deliberately frighten and demoralise the community you belong to? Especially when you're aware that that community contains a fair amount of people who are young or mentally fragile?

Picking a thread title off reddit as an example: "With the bathroom bans and identity denial the puberty blocker trial is just an intel gaining / forced detransition camp"
Why would anyone use hyperbolic language like that? It's entirely self-defeating.

Yeah, but that study would be actual genocide. Even thinking about doing that study is actual genocide.

Like you @MarieDeGournay the mental landscape of TRAs and their allies fascinates me. It would make an amazing psychological study for anyone brave enough.

Yes, given that these people probably care about Palestine, how do they think the average inhabitant of Gaza would feel about “genocide” being used for a UK code of practice based on a Supreme Court judgment confirming that men are men and women are women?

The guidance is based on the bizarre notion that services cease to be single-sex if trans people are allowed to use them

Yes, the bizarre notion that services cease to be women-only if men use them.

How bizarre, how bizarre. Doo do do Doo do do Doo do du du.

Yes, exactly.

This is such a good example of the use of non-factual hyperbole by TRAs to manufacture and maintain a high level of hypervigilance and fear amongst transpeople - especially the more vulnerable ones.

They keep making these clearly unfounded claims about annihilation, marginalisation, and [most insultingly of all to people who experience literal-literal genocide] 'literal genocide'.

These claims are patently and demonstrably untrue, but we live in a post-factual world, where any old guff can be spread over social media to a self-selecting audience, and a certain percentage will believe it, and will defend it against any rational debate, often by totally irrational words and behaviour, and by attacking - sometimes physically - anyone who questions it.

The most serious aspect of this is that it legitimises violence in the minds of the people who, whether through gullibility, vulnerability, or 'Oh great, a new way to bash women that makes us look cool and edgy!', buy into the 'annihilation/genocide' discourse.
It's self-defence. We are fighting for their lives. TERFs are Nazis. They want to kill us all. By any means necessary. The oppressed have always risen up.
We are martyrs. Our violence is justified and brave.

I suspect there's no point in arguing with people who think like that, they are long gone. I think the only way forward is to keep chipping away at the status of the likes of the Lemkin 'Institute', keeping the issue in the sight-line of politicians, challenging bias in the media, and trusting that the general public seem to be quite good at seeing through gender-ID nonsense.

They make these wild hyperbolic claims to scare people away from taking necessary action to protect women's rights. In the current climate, where few people care about evidence or "innocent until proven guilty", you don't have to have done anything racist or genocidal; the mere accusation is damaging enough.

It's unlikely it will be because TRAs don't want to argue on protected belief ground (because their beliefs are true facts!).

I occasionally fantasise about applying for a declaration of incompatibility of the GRA with Article 9 (freedom of belief and conscience).....

(It cuts both ways: forbidding people to 'be trans' would be an Article 9 breach too, and an objectionable manifestation of GC belief.)

You sum it up well. Have cake, eat cake.

The guidance is based on the bizarre notion that services cease to be single-sex if trans people are allowed to use them.

FFS, in what world is this a ‘bizarre notion’? It’s just a fact. They want us to think sex and gender are the not the same thing, except when they want to pretend they are the same thing.

(Of course a trans person can use a single sex space; as long as it’s the space that matches their sex; but that’s not what they mean).

Yes mine too. They’re not the only ones to affect surprise that people actually think this - see Ian Dunt’s woeful piece recently and Akua Reindorf’s response.

https://withinthelaw.substack.com/p/the-ehrc-code-explained-a-response

"(NB any belief which requires the mandatory participation of non-believers is surely not WORIADS, and therefore not protected.)"

That's an interesting point - it hasn't been tested in court, has it?