Do you ever wonder...

[Whyrmengreattiltheygottabgreat]

...if some of the Uber-Woke secretly do question some of the current rhetoric, but have painted themselves so far into the corner that it’s almost impossible to extricate themselves.

I know a few people who are involved in an extremely “Woke” organisation. If anybody involved in this organisation were to express any GC belief, they would certainly lose their jobs, a large portion of their social circle, possibly even relationships.

There’s a bit of me that feels quite sorry for people like this. If they were to question any part of this, they would lose so much. No wonder the same arguments get repeated over and over.

I often wonder how the big names will u-turn on this when they do (and they will, 100%, it's when not if). I reckon Stonewall will go first, maybe when they get their new mouthpiece, probably smearing Hunt as having got it all wrong. Obviously they'll still be trans inclusive but I reckon the TWA literally W thing will go and they'll try to say that it was really a metaphor all along. Someone will spread it through the Tumblr-sphere and everyone who tries to claim TWAW will suddenly find themselves denounced as "conflationists" or some other made up word. There will be some new bollocks philosophy about TW and women being like parallel lines or something and everyone will try and claim that was what they've been saying all along. Screenshots to the contrary will be called Fake News and dog whistles. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

The thing, sadly, that many trans people don't seem to have figured out yet, is that these big charities and the Queer Theory academics/ activists give not one single solitary fuck about them. Not one. So far they've thrown women, children, LBG people, transexuals, dysphoric trans people, and drag queens under the bus, all to try and square the TWAW circle. But it isn't working, in fact it's gathering momentum against them, and once that narrative is no longer financially viable they will sell every last bloody one of you down the river to find one that they can still cash in from.

If you think you're safe because your brand of identity is flavour of the month right now, then you need to open your eyes.

It seems to me that Bespin can see into our souls. It's making me panic. Maybe I'm a man and never realised. My sexed body of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I'm male or female.

I'm not sure why bespin thinks it's funny that they perceive men masquerading as women on here?

Oh wait...

No, I don't think people would think like that. Any more than the ultra-GC ever think 'hang on, I'm being a bit bigoted here'

Rips my knitting right up the middle

No, I don't think people would think like that. Any more than the ultra-GC ever think 'hang on, I'm being a bit bigoted here'

How is it bigoted to be concerned about men in womens' and girls' spaces? Refuges, hospital wards, prisons, toilets? What is a 'bit bigoted' about that exactly?

so much of wokeness relies on the appearance of deep pondering while simultaneously doing everything possible to shut down rational thought (the use of mantras etc)

Yes, our pomo addled visitor on Tuesday was a great example

“I’ve got a super special degree in thinking”

And yet unable to define well understood concepts like male, female and sexist

First, to Bespin's early comment, I adjust my views pretty regularly, often in relation to new information. It's also a good idea for everyone to take some time regularly to consider their own motivations and attitude.

To the OP - yes, I think this happens in a lot of areas. The thread about checking balls made me think of the mammogram industry, which has many people in it whose jobs depend on mammograms being promoted and used. When groups, even charities, associated with mammography oppose research that says ts not all that useful, one wonders how much of that is really about feeling like what you are doing was really important ad also protecting your livelihood.

I know a few people who I think struggle with the trans issue in particular because to change their minds would create a sort of crack or rupture in their self-image as progressive.

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving Way upthread you said
Who knows, maybe someday someone will define it [feeling like a woman] in a way that'll make me think "yes! I do experience that and it is in line with my biological sex" and then I will gladly adopt the label cis and give the idea that "gender identity" is a meaningful way of organising society some serious thought. Until then, I don't know what trans people are talking about. And neither does anyone else I've asked. No non trans person I have ever spoken to offline knows what it means to identify as something that they obviously just are. In no other area of life would we be trying to write something that no one has even a basically working definition for into law.

This is so true! You've put your finger on a function of what TRAs mean by 'cis privilege'. Something impossible to define, and which only a small group of people in their own closed linguistic system can identify. Once authority to define terms has been ceded to them it's going to be very difficult to win it back. And that authority has already been ceded in so many areas, by people who acknowledge that their 'privilege' incapacitates their faculty of understanding, instead taking on trust what other people are telling them.

Once we get past the obvious need to prevent harm to and discrimination against people who don't conform to gender stereotypes there shouldn't be a lot left to argue about. But there is. It's important not to lose sight of who's asking for what, from whom.

Do GC people ever sign up to Trans specific forums, like Susan’s Place?

Or does this telling off thing only flow one way?

rufus it matters when you call trans woman things like mate

I'm 60. I've been calling people - men and women - "mate" all my adult life. As have many of my friends - a close female mate emailed me wrt to a proposed theatre trip recently and began with the words "Sorry mate, can't do that date..."

Hey, Bespin, mate - it is not anything to do with what sex I perceive you as.

Women, if bespin tells you he's doing a survey and needs to check your boobs and fanjo to see if you are really female, EXERCISE CAUTION.

I was also struck by grabthar's post upthread about trying to understand.

It made me think again about my favourite analogy, that of religious belief. I can accept and respect the sincerity with which others hold their world view without sharing it. In a liberal society accepting other people's different beliefs should be a foundation of society.

Where things become trickier is the practical and legal implications of beliefs. For example if a religious person wants because of their deeply and sincerely held beliefs, to make divorce harder (because they believe in the sanctity of marriage) or outlaw abortion, or try to get intelligent design placed in the school biology curriculum, I'm going to oppose that on a political level.

Similarly with trans issues. If the conceptual framework that transwomen are women makes your personal world view more comfortable for you, crack on. But don't expect entry to women's sports for eg on the basis that you sincerely believe it therefore the rest of us should too. Or insist that it be taught as fact in schools to my DC (along with accompanying anti-scientific guff about lady brains and clown fish).

Agree with that.... of course the trouble comes when person X labels as religion what person Y is certain is science.

You may have noticed a lot of climate change sceptics decry the 'climate religion' of 'ecoloons,' for example.

I think the OP makes a good point. My FB page is filled with this stuff and while none of my woke friends ever reacts to it, they will tell me in PM or in person they were interested / appalled / in agreement.

Tbh I view it as cowardice. They will jump ship like fleeing rats when the transship sinks.

I've been thinking more about the religion analogy, especially using religion to change things in society. It occurred to me that the specific beliefs in a metaphysical system like Catholicism or Genderism cannot and should not be legislated for. I've used the analogy of insisting on someone genuflecting before the tabernacle if they don't believe Christ is present there, being the same as insisting that someone recite TWAW if they don't believe it.

But I do think that your beliefs can spur you to attempt to change society, and that this is not automatically a bad thing. Fermats mentioned abortion laws or creationism in schools, one of which is contentious and the other ridiculously anti-scientific.

But religious people have, over time, campaigned for positive societal change, based on their religious beliefs. William Wilberforce springs to mind.

The distinction between much of these things is that when the mainstream religious have campaigned successfully for change in the modern age, they have done so through reason. Even in ancient times, when Christians sought to end the practice of exposing unwanted infants in the wilderness, and eventually the culture changed. The difference between mainstream religious campaigning that has been a positive influence is that it wasn't done by presenting the religious belief as fact and calling everyone who disagreed a bigot.

The trans movement has repeatedly pushed lies and blocked investigations and debate about their claims. They simply demand acceptance by fiat. The religious campaigns that have been presented on that basis have been rightly scorned - like teaching creationism in schools.

If trans activists had wanted a fair hearing for their ideas, starting everything off with #NoDebate and violent threats if you don't comply was not the way to be effective.

For those interested in the religious analogy, the links between trans ideology and presuppositional apologetics are really strong. Sye ten bruggencate is famous for refusing to debate from any starting premise that denies his belief that everyone has a direct experience of God and knows for certain that he exists, and anyone who claims not to is lying. There are loads of clips of him on Youtube if you're interested. It reminds me a lot of how everyone is said that they must have a gender identity, despite scores of people saying that they don't. And he won't answer bible questions with atheists because accepting the truth of the bible is a necessary first step to understanding it. Just like TRAs insist anybody debating any point about transwomen must start from the premise that they literally are women (see Edward Lord and the CoL survey). It's the ultimate in begging the question. Even in religious apologetics it's seen as an extreme and easily ridiculed position, but in trans ideology it's the height of intellectual rigour apparently.

Blimey, I haven't come across presuppositional apologetics for ages. But yes, you make an excellent point.

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving
For those interested in the religious analogy, the links between trans ideology and presuppositional apologetics are really strong.
That is a brilliant analogy. I was casting around for something earlier but couldn't find a place in the mental filing cabinet. The way it's such a closed system it feels like a language game but one where we're all expected to obey the rules without understanding the actual meaning.

Argh. Just spent a bizarre day reading a little about surrogacy interspersed with some time perusing some of my old Greg Bahnsen teaching tapes.

Closed system is very, very much the case yes. That was one of the things I noticed as I started moving away from that particular sphere of Christianity - if you stay strictly with the bounds of the system, it makes perfect sense. Once you begin to think differently and explore, stepping outside of the strict boundaries of thought, it begins to disintegrate like candy floss in the rain.

What a fascinating turn this thread has taken.

I think you're spot on Floral that religion can inspire people to do really great things, but the crucial distinction is that they can articulate why what they are trying to do using argument from within a shared moral framework so that other people can see why they're doing it, independently of the religious feelings which maybe give added impetus to their desire to right an obvious wrong.

And Grabthar that stuff about presuppositional apologetics. Yes, very similar to #nodebate. (Love Floral's "begins to disintegrate like candy floss in the rain" - what a brilliant simile).