Peak Transing

[Apollo440]

This thread on AIBU has been joined by some aggressive TRAs who are doing sterling work peak transing the more delicate areas of mumsnet.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3634784-to-not-want-to-sign-off-my-emails-with-preferred-pronouns

Real TWAW No debate or your c*nts type. Carry on I say!

Not entirely sure how you come to that conclusion

I come to that conclusion because you have provided no specific reference to any credible objective evidence to support any assertion you make.

It is that simple.

[Note that when I refer to UK law as a credible reference to support my assertion I copy and paste the relevant clause plus provide the link that gives full context to that relevant aspect of UK law.]

That is my standard. I demand the same standard from you when conversing with me.

Christ, I'm supposed to scroll through the entire two threads now?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove now, tbh. So no, not if you don't think you'd find anything there to support your case. Whatever that is!

If Roses cannot substantiate any assertion with related objective evidence, Roses has zero credibility. It's that simple.[Reminder: anecdotes received via PMs do not constitute objective evidence.]

I've provided the links to the threads where people have said they have, without posting any PM anecdotes, you can see it on the threads if you want to see it that is.

I’m supposed to scroll through the entire two threads now?

Well, yes, when you say there are posts on there that proof your conclusions, it is expected you do the work to show us the evidence and not tell us to do the work to guess what your evidence is.

I mean this is rather basic level principles for argument.

So no, not if you don't think you'd find anything there to support your case.
I do. I even said a name of a poster on there, SuePerbly.
It's all there and linked
That's just one poster

*that prove your conclusions

Well I am sure that some people will turn away from these boards. That some people will find their life’s experiance at odds with the bigger picture as seen by many here. That’s like normal. ITs useful ifvthey explain.

So what exactly does that prove?

I've already said, people have repeatedly asked me to provide evidence that people have been turned away.

And it took you so long, to post 2 threads that literally ran out of posts, because nobody is here because they have all been turned away?

Do you not see how utterly ridiculous this is?

If people had been turned away, there would't be a raft of TRAs monitoring and reporting en masse to try and silence us.

If people had been turned away, there wouldn't be hundreds of threads almost every day.

Would there?

I wonder how many poster have peaked compared to how many have been "scared off"?

I've provided the links to the threads where people have said they have, without posting any PM anecdotes, you can see it on the threads if you want to see it that is.

Inadequate!

Please copy and paste very specific factual posts to support our assertions.

To do otherwise is comparable to me demanding that you read the entire Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to locate the clause to which I refer.

I demand that you meet the exact same standard I use when conversing with you.

If people had been turned away, there would't be a raft of TRAs monitoring and reporting en masse to try and silence us. If people had been turned away, there wouldn't be hundreds of threads almost every day. Would there?
I'm sorry, but what are you actually talking about? So if people have been turned away from GC viewpoints that means there wouldn't be a raft of TRA monitoring as a result?
How does that even begin to make sense?

Well given how the public meet8ngs are getting bigger and some of the press is now reporting on this stufff, that there is an enquiry into ROgd, I say we is doing a good job overall.

How does that even begin to make sense?

Roses, this is a also reference to other social media beyond Mumsnet.

You say you are a woman, yet you seem to have zero understanding of how women's opinions and fact-based assertions are treated by males.

This is extraordinarily curious.

I'm sorry, but what are you actually talking about? So if people have been turned away from GC viewpoints that means there wouldn't be a raft of TRA monitoring as a result? How does that even begin to make sense?

Oh dear. Logic not your strong point I know but come on.

It's the fact that people are on here in their droves, and not being turned away, that makes it so dangerous.

Nobody gave a shit about silly mums on mumsnet until they started saying 'no' to men.

If people had been turned away, it would be silent in here. Right?

Interestingly, SuePerbly stopped posting, before you started posting. Weird.

Roses, why aren’t you pledging your support for Laurel Hubbard and JY on those respective threads? The discussions on those threads might be turning so many people away (unlikely, because I expect they are only peaking many more).

On the topic of the 76 kids, Professors Bailey and Blanchard (both experts in the field) describe social contagion:

The typical case of ROGD involves an adolescent or young adult female whose social world outside the family glorifies transgender phenomena and exaggerates their prevalence. Furthermore, it likely includes a heavy dose of internet involvement. The adolescent female acquires the conviction that she is transgender. (Not uncommonly, others in her peer group acquire the same conviction.) These peer groups encouraged each other to believe that all unhappiness, anxiety, and life problems are likely due to their being transgender, and that gender transition is the only solution. Subsequently, there may be a rush towards gender transition, including hormones. Parental opposition to gender transition often leads to family discord, even estrangement. Suicidal threats are common.
We believe that ROGD is a socially contagious phenomenon in which a young person–typically a natal female–comes to believe that she has a condition that she does not have. ROGD is not about discovering gender dysphoria that was there all along; rather, it is about falsely coming to believe that one’s problems have been due to gender dysphoria previously hidden (from the self and others). Let us be clear: People with ROGD do have a kind of gender dysphoria, but it is gender dysphoria due to persuasion of those especially vulnerable to a false idea. It is not gender dysphoria due to anything like having the mind/brain of one sex trapped in the body of the other. Those with ROGD do, of course, wish to gender transition, and they often obsess over this prospect.
The subculture that fosters ROGD appears to share aspects with cults. These aspects include expectation of absolute ideological agreement, use of very specific jargon, thinking of the world as “us” versus “them” (even more than typical adolescents do), and encouragement to cut off ties with family and friends who are not “with the program.”

Have you got any more compelling research to the contrary, Roses?

Some people can't handle the hard truth or find what's happening is too much for them to fathom so they stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la and pretend it's not happening. It's confusing, baffling, scary and batshit. Some of us have got our heads around it all and are fighting against the erasure of our rights. Others are fixated on how the ones fighting are no longer "nice" women and they feel uncomfortable asserting their thoughts or can't bring themselves to accept reality so they decide that women are the problem here and join the TRAs in erasing their own sex. Or pretend it's not happening.

There was Lang. There was letters from women prisoners in the prison newspaper where the women prisoners said they were harassed by these men and felt fear

Yes, here it is, Dog. From the prisoner's magazine, Inside Time. Never mind though, I'm sure Petrol will continue not to give a shit.

It's the fact that people are on here in their droves, and not being turned away, that makes it so dangerous.

Some have said they ARE being turned away though, why won't you accept that even when it's right in front of you?

If people had been turned away, it would be silent in here. Right?
No, it wouldn't be silent. It'd just mean you'd have a forum of the same views (albeit with the occasional couple of lone voices) as a lot just don't feel they are able to post.
Because of all the crap they're subjected to if they do.

SuePerbly .. initials are SP ... now which person in the transgenderist arena do we know who has the initials SP?

I did a quick AS on the poster Roses mentioned.

She was quite prolific on those threads; the only other time I can see her posting on matters GC-related was on another thread where she believed that if a TW had had their penis removed/had obtained a GRC they should be regarded/treated as a woman.

So not really 'GC', although she was clearly startled by & carefully considering the implications.

(I'm a bit dubious about posting about SP when she's not - as far as we know! - on the thread - it feels like talking about her behind her back. Don't mind if this gets reported/deleted if Not In The Spirit).

(I'm a bit dubious about posting about SP when she's not

Same, I was too and still am dubious about it, but people were adamant there was nothing on the threads even when they were linked, and kept asking for specifics so I did.

SuePerbly .. initials are SP ... now which person in the transgenderist arena do we know who has the initials SP?
Actually not a clue what you're on about.

Same, I was too and still am dubious about it, but people were adamant there was nothing on the threads even when they were linked, and kept asking for specifics so I did.

So where are these specifics?

A bit of a foxy problem, is it not?

So where are these specifics?

I've just said. And as I've also said it is utterly pointless trying to engage because when you do back up your claims like repeatedly asked, you get "nah didn't happen it's meeen sealioning" Nobody wants to see anything if they don't agree with it. It's weird