Social contagion, ROGD etc

[NoSquirrels]

Was reading the thread last night and Twitter posts where ROGD was being dismissed as a phenomenon, or cited as “the latest issue” evil gender critical rad fems are trying to popularise.

It struck me - how can ROGD as a phenomenon, but more widely than that the general principle of social contagion for things like anorexia and suicide (which are well-documented) be so quickly dismissed whilst MN’s “hotbed of dangerous radicalism” is simultaneously such a threat because it’s responsible for turning ordinary people (women) against trans people and “inciting hatred” and transphobia.

If people cannot be influenced by other people, particularly online, why is this conversational space such a threat? For the most part adult women with their own life experiences are being talked to and about here, so if social contagion doesn’t exist, we’re no longer a threat to the trans movement presumably? Because whatever we say isn’t going to influence others.

Or is it that - to borrow the argument that identity is innate and it just needs a light shining on it and more visibility for those who were “always female/male/NB/trans” to feel comfortable to speak up - that women who are adult females are innately gender critical and just need a light shining on certain issues to realise it?

So, I see we have been successfully derailed from discussing internal contradictions in the political positions taken by extremist transactivism. Sigh.

Yes, it does have the frantic air of a giant floating head telling us to not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

Sorry about that, the little darlings were so hungry, but all sorted :)

Now, where were we? Oh yes, something about women being comfortable with people they "think" are transsexuals. That's a very interesting concept. How do you they know?

BTW, I was commenting on the original OP but it seems to have been hijacked by people who want to talk about transsexuals. I'm OK with that though

Interesting read about unconditionally love.

amotherfarfromhome.com/what-unconditional-love-is-and-what-it-isnt/

ButterflyT, no. You do not get to dictate the conversation.

The topic is the internal contradictions of the Genderist extremist's arguments. If you have anything useful to contribute on that, go right ahead. I imagine sadly that you'll probably want to resume the parent-teacher forthwith. Surprise me.

Now, where were we? Oh yes, something about women being comfortable with people they "think" are transsexuals. That's a very interesting concept. How do you they know?

If you meant to say 'how do you think they know (that the people concerned are transsexuals)?', the point I was making that most women are giving a response in abstract - most people, in fact, assume that 'transwomen' are all transsexuals, rather than AGP fetishists, people with intact penises, full beards, etc and people with 'die cis scum' tattooed on their arms.

When people are asked in a survey or poll if they are Ok with 'transwomen' coming into their safe spaces, they answer in terms of transsexuals, not the whole panoply represented by the Stonewall umbrella.

Parent-teacher? Lol, I typed parent-bashing.

AGP fetishists? People with intact penises? I can see where you get your information from. Trans people are not a problem, but it's clear that some, if not all of you think they are. I'm going to leave you to it.

Bye then.

Cheerio.

ButterflyT
I've given this thread a really good reading, as I couldn't quite get why you thought you were misjudged and that you were addressing the OP about the contradictions of trans right activists arguments. As it did look like a bit of a derail.

But then I got it! I agree, you were demonstrating exactly what the OP was stating.

Your post at 16.19 stated unless you are trans you can't really understand what it's like

And then at 17.08 you followed up with trans women have an innate sense that they are female

As someone else has pointed out, you're demonstrating the OP's case in point as you're saying a transwoman can claim an innate 'feeling' of being female, but no one else can claim anything else.

Females aren't permitted to say 'unless you are female, you can't really know how it 'feels' to be female. Females can't say ' what you seem to be expressing is the external stereotypes of what this current society equates to be 'a woman'.

Update: Ah, I've just previewed my message and seen you're already flouncing. But I'm going to pop this post up anyway.

And given your last post bemoaning the inclusion of sexual fetish and intact penis - by the way, Stonewall's very definition of 'transpeople' -your earlier comment:

Oh yes, something about women being comfortable with people they "think" are transsexuals. That's a very interesting concept. How do you they know?

resonates with other a few other new visitors' posts along the lines of 'we've been in your space already' type stuff .

Many women here have heightened red-flag radars, for many reasons. You just sent one up the flagpole right there!)

pombear Yes! I agree with all that.

I’m so frustrated by these “because we say do but you can’t say so” arguments.

Either all opinions on identity are valid, or none.

Happy to respect anyone’s feelings if they respect mine.

Either social influence is a factor or it isn’t.

Either gender dysphoria is real and needs support and finance, or it isn’t and doesn’t.

Either penises are male, or they’re not. In which case someone should tell the men, rather than us women.

The derailment was a QED? Oopsy!

Or have we already expanded the bandwidth of QED? I can't keep up!

It has to be said, that the entire time this issue has been discussed here, not a single, solitary person has managed to make a coherent argument against women's objections.

Not one. Not a trans person, a lawyer, a doctor, or a politician.

Questions are left unaddressed, issues studiously ignored, threads are derailed, impossible things are insisted upon, with aggressive denials, in the face of contrary evidence.

When the discussions have taken their course, the only argument TRAs ever have left is why are you being so mean. Every single time.

It's quite extraordinary. They have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Omg youre fantastic pombeAr!

Such on the ball Ness such withitness.

It reminds me of that list someone posted earlier. Of dichotomies. It was brilliant.

Vickieeadie also well said. There is a lot of clever women on this website. Come in trepidation tras: you shall be beaten: we shall not be erased.

Contradictions?

TRA: affirm EVERY identity, if a child says it, it is true and innate. Children are never wrong or confused. Also ROGD is a myth

Child aged 4: I'm a girl
Child aged 6: I'm a girl
Child aged 8: I'm a girl
Child aged 10: I'm a girl
Child aged 12: I'm a girl
Child aged 14: I'm a boy

TRA: Disregard child declarations ages 4-14. Child was wrong/confused/lying. Child is categorically trans. Support and affirm trans identity aged 14.

Child aged 16: I've desisted. I'm a lesbian girl.

TRA: Child was never true trans. Desistance doesn't exist.