Have you noticed the competitiveness thing?
LGBT Goldsmiths was desperate to prove they were more leftie than anyone else and they were more righteous because of how good the Stalinists were at their height.
Lily in going on about giving birth, is desperate to prove their ability to give birth more than any other trans person.
All are desperate to prove how they are more oppressed than everyone else.
It's extreme in its desire to 'prove' what we demonstrably know to be untrue. The confidence with which is said is designed to make you doubt yourself and capitulate in some way.
Why this need to constantly go further and more extreme?
Attention yes. But also because of a deep desire to convince themselves and to reinforce the fragility of their own facade. And perhaps more sinister to convince followers.
Hence repetition after repetition and the idea that anything that challenges that fragility is unkind or nasty or harmful.
The problem is that the truth was that millions died under Stalin - why create a narrative than sanitises that, unless you want to replicate in someway?
Why create a story about how you can still have kids, when the truth is you are knowingly encouraging others to harm themselves and in the process end their child bearing ability?
And the extremeness of they illicits greater emotional responses in individuals, than comments which don't go as far. Their power is in their extremeness - and who they are targeted at. Its people 'like them' and this desire to create victimhood and enemies in order to manipulate and psychologically control.
These are not neutral comments.
There is a programme about lying/telling the truth on BBC Iplayer at the moment (watch it, it's good). In it there's one point when the psychologist talks about why Trump can get away with such lies, and he explains the use of a psychological device to effectively manipulate people. We are designed to instinctively to trust our instincts in a fight or flight response. The effect can be used in order to elicit trust in dubious politicians by provoking emotional response in the same manner. This lowers our guard and makes us vulnerable to political messages which suggest we (or our people) are under threat and makes us more likely to trust the person 'warning us' of the 'threat'.
Look at this through this lens and think, what is Lily doing here? Deliberately provoking women to 'attack' (challenge the lies) in a way that tries to frame Lily as a victim?
Its an attempt to lower the guards of people who emotionally connect or feel sympathy for Lily into accepting the 'truth' Lily tells by confusing their instinctive reaction to protect Lily with what Lily says.
The more extreme and the more emotive the more power it creates for a leader over followers.
There is a slight clash here, I might add when it comes to women. Women are conditioned - because of our role in looking after children - to be hyper aware of these kind of tactics and threats in everyday life. It's no different when it comes to politics.
And whilst the political tactic still works on women, it's noticeable that the effect is perhaps different and less effective in women who have previous experience of manipulation or have children. They seem more immune to the effect of the abuse of power. #Metoo's emotion provoking response is so powerful in its truth as a result of the same thing.
And in the case of extreme TRAs, women are also identifying correctly, how this effect is being used against their interests.