This is a good thread about female trans allies

[Doyoumind]

twitter.com/overpow_erin_g/status/1156003798898241543?s=19

Thoughtful insights into how some women get drawn into the wrong side of the debate.

I can't believe you're defending the blatant misogyny of a thread trying to advance the position that any young woman supporting trans rights must be doing so because she's too stupid to research climate change, too susceptible to 'hive mind' to come to the 'right' conclusion about transgenderism, and not pretty enough to be popular on Instagram.

Are you so hellbent on your cause that you're really willing to defend such breathtakingly explicit sexism?

Are you really going to join ranks with the vast hordes of men patting women on the heads and telling them that if only they weren't so shallow and stupid they would be able to understand things properly?

Take a bloody good look at yourselves, you ought to be ashamed for turning on women in this way.

Good lord, Rose, analysing social dynamics ≠ slagging off individuals.

What you articulate, and what wider choicey choicey empowerment feminism articulates, is radical individualism. It's pure Thatcherite neoliberalism: no such thing as society, no social power structures or dynamics.

It's no wonder you react with such angry personalisation to everything radical feminist and interpret it as personal attack on you or other individuals. Individuals do not live in a vacuum.

How this postmodernism has hijacked the so-called left is utterly beyond me. We're not just dealing with the anti-materialist self-identification of sex; we're dealing with the anti-materialist self-identification of leftism too.

This Twitter thread is about social dynamics, not the individuals caught up in them.

What, like saying those who disagree are fucking traitor cowbag bitches

I only skim-read the thread, and my comprehension can be a bit iffy, but even I know that's not what she said.

I only skim-read the thread, and my comprehension can be a bit iffy, but even I know that's not what she said

As you say you skim read the thread, maybe you missed this bit
But it is hard to restrain the decidedly un-feminist ‘those fucking traitor cowbag bitches’ thoughts
That's what I was referring to. It's on the thread.

Catching up just wanted to comment on this

'^For women who don’t fit the IG beauty obsessed standards forced on young women today'

The responses that this means women who are ugly is really interesting.

I read it as adhering to the fairly extreme model of femininity (makeup, hair, nails etc) ie the grooming standards. Which is what it says.

I agree that the images presented and consumed as what young women are 'supposed' to look like have got very extreme indeed and really around a certain 'sexy' look. Lots of girls will look at that and not identify with it /want to present themselves for male het gaze (which is what it boils down to). So where do they go, where are the alternative role models. Seems to be, opt out of feminine =opt out of female. How did we get here?

And an idea that not adhering to the standards makes you ugly? I'm sure it wasn't meant like that but still.

Well, I am far from a fascist, right wing Christian and I suspect there are very few people on here or in this country who are so it doesn't seem to be a particularly well thought through stance to take. If you are going to be an activist it is important to get your facts straight.

Here is another lengthy Twitter thread - from a reidentified lesbian (aka detransitioner) - articulating basically the same thing. Well worth reading.

twitter.com/Exacerbati/status/1156246934748712961

The other point here is that you can't tell what someone thinks by looking at them

Plenty of conventionally attractive women / women who prefer a groomed look questioning all sorts of things.

For the tribal young though, these things are often obscured I think, the look says it all. It did in my day.

Juells, your comprehension is fine. If you don't mind I'll quote what I said entirely, just so the context is there:

"That rings very true with the handmaidens I know - right down to the MLMs.

I am conflicted. They seem desperately unhappy, deeply anxious and lacking in something they need. My feminism should be for women, even women like them. But it is hard to restrain the decidedly un-feminist ‘those fucking traitor cowbag bitches’ thoughts. Mostly ‘unfollow’ has helped."

I'm expressing that women betraying women - not women having a different opinion, women tearing down other women and behaving like a cultish mob - gives me a visceral angry reaction and this is how I express it. In my head. I don't call them cowbag bitches to their faces or anything of the sort. I despise what they're doing and these are my feelings about it. I don't think they're stupid, just as I don't think women who do MLMs are stupid. I think they have been targeted with some rather cruel emotional manipulation specifically designed to hit all of their buttons about feeling valued, admired and heard. The effect on their targets, however, is horrendous.

But, you know. Female anger isn't okay. Women having mixed feelings, processing things, or not having 100% committed to an ideological position - not okay. Women using their authentic words, absolute no-no.

Yes, you've added your entire post, fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that you think anyone disagreeing with you are fucking traitor cowbag bitches.
It's there in your post.

The point of the cultural war is that you have to 'pick a side' as part of your identity on a fundamental level.

This means you can not diverge from 'the right way' of thinking in a critical manner. You have to accept what you are told as 'the right side of history' or you do not belong to the collective and are ostracised.

This is authoritarism.

This actually ISN'T about being stupid.

Its important to make that distinction and how it works. The idea that if you are clever, you are immune to this sort of manipulation is a fallacy that has long been dismissed in research into cults.

Cults work by acting to stop critical thinking, though social compliance and manipulation. Highly educated and intellectual people who are both male and female can and are be suseptable to this. Cults tend to instead focus on some sort of weakness or insecurity as a way to recruit people to a cause. Its about feelings rather than rationality.

If you are gender critical, you tend not to be as susptable to this, because your 'sacred value' is to analyse an idea rather than feel a need to belong.

This is because a gender critical thinking is based on the liberal principles of debate and compromise. It allows a range of position and no overall agreement - instead preferring a consensus being established after a process of debate and compromise. You do not have to 'conform' to a strict codified set of rules in the same way or to the same degree. There is a breadth of views and opinions.

As you get older you generally don't seek or need the same level of validation from your peers cos you are more secure in yourself or just don't give a shit what other people think of you. So the things that suck you into this sense of belong don't have the same weight as they did as they did when you are younger. This isn't always true as some older people do have exploitable vulnerabilities, but it is part of the process of how we develop socially as adults.

Its not patronising to point this out. Nor is it pitching women against women.

The climate change issue isn’t to do with not putting in effort.

It’s that the kind of postmodernist ideology that transgenderism has emerged from prevents people from building the skills required to think about materially real problems.

Generally people who haven’t been exposed to post modernist higher education find it straightforward to grasp political issues.

And where are the men in all this?

Why is it some women vs some other women over what a small group of men want?

Great thread Lang

Agree Red.

Most men don’t care about women’s rights.

As you say you skim read the thread, maybe you missed this bit
But it is hard to restrain the decidedly un-feminist ‘those fucking traitor cowbag bitches’ thoughts

No, I didn't miss it. That isn't what you accused the poster of, though. You said "What, like saying those who disagree are fucking traitor cowbag bitches" which is a completely different thing. You're twisting what was actually posted to fit your narrative. The intent of the sentence is perfectly clear, and it isn't what you're claiming.

www.apologeticsindex.org/265-who-joins-cults-and-why
This is a page on who joins cults and why.

Its the very first that came up on my search.

Read the link and compare with the thread.

I also stress the following, with this extract:

While we are at it, let’s shatter another myth: people who join cults are not stupid, weird, crazy, weak-willed, or neurotic. Most cult members are of above-average intelligence, well adjusted, adaptable, and perhaps a bit idealistic. In relatively few cases is there a history of a pre-existing mental disorder.

Anyone is capable of being recruited (or seduced) into a cult if his personal and situational circumstances are right. Currently there are so many cults formed around so many different types of beliefs that it is impossible for a person to truthfully claim that he would never be vulnerable to a cult’s appeal.

Cult recruitment is not mysterious. It is as simple and commonplace as the seduction and persuasion processes used by lovers and advertisers. However, depending on the degree of deception and manipulation involved, the resultant attachments can be even more powerful.

The internet is doing a lot of harm

Could not agree more with this. There is so much pressure on young people and so many dubious groups seeking to groom them, across a broad range of issues.

I wish our politicians would look seriously at social media as a whole. Teenagers are incredibly vulnerable, given to idealism and also often rigid thinking, it is all too easy to push them towards extremism and truthfully adults aren't exactly doing a bang up job of leading by example online. We have become ridiculously polarised, seemingly across the Western World. I don't know, it's all still new, maybe things will settle down but I'm not optimistic right now, it seems too big of a problem.

I've often thought the trans ideology can often read as an attempt at pushing women into codependent relationships with trans people. Something women have for decades being working to recognise and escape as a dynamic in domestic relationships, particularly ones that have become abusive.

That really makes a lot of sense to me, Michelle. Massive lightbulb moment!

Women/girls are still massively socialised to be co-dependent. Massively. I think it goes bone deep and maybe in a sense women’s collective self esteem is still, after all the thousands of years of patriarchal control and domination, not high enough to allow even women who identify as feminists to really put themselves and other women first.

It’s not just these young/white women doing this, either. Look at Stella Creasy, AOC, Loretta Lynch - just a few examples off the top of my head, there are loads more. Women who really do fight for other women, who have overcome disadvantage, whose voices I would happily support on most other subjects.

I know women IRL too who are mothers, who are over 40, who have had to deal with all sorts of shit that comes with being female, but who nonetheless are TRA allies to the hilt. Who look on my views with horror and bewildered incomprehension. (at least that’s mutual 😂)

As I understand it, co-dependency arises from fear and insecurity. So for example, a child whose needs go unmet has to develop coping strategies: putting others first is one of those strategies. It distracts from the painful reality of the situation. Putting others first will also probably elicit approval, especially for a girl; win-win.

Likewise, women, as a class, have never really had our needs met, or rather, have been actively thwarted from having our needs met and prevented from being able to meet our own needs. We have always lived, and still do now, with fear and insecurity in our lives, with our second class status. We still don’t have anything like equal power in the world with men.

So we are primed to be co-dependent, to distract ourselves from the harsh reality of our situation by putting others first, even when we think we are fighting for women/ourselves. This just makes sense to me in terms of the passionate fervour with which so many otherwise amazing women devote themselves to the TRA cause. And of course the reward of approval is an incentive too.

I’m rambling. Don’t know if it makes sense to anyone else but thanks for that thought provoking post, Michelle!

Really good post @RedToothbrush.
All of it.

This started out as a fascinating discussion about why different groups of women could have such diametrically opposed views and thank you Red for getting the discussion back on track.
It is such an important challenge to find points of contact with women currently aggressively opposed to GC ideas (and it is interesting to see how determinedly posters on this thread are being diverted from the discussion)

www.apologeticsindex.org/266-cults-as-power-structures

Four interlocking dimensions make up the framework of a cult’s social system and dynamics. You can use this framework to examine your own cult experience. These four dimensions are clearly separated so that former cult members (whose memories of cult experiences are often confused and conflicting) can more easily deconstruct and understand each phase of indoctrination and control:

Charismatic authority.
This is the emotional bond between a leader and his followers. It lends legitimacy to the leader and grants authority to his actions while at the same time justifying and reinforcing followers’ responses to the leader and/or the leader’s ideas and goals. Charisma is the hook that links a devotee to a leader and/or his ideas.The general purpose of charismatic authority is to provide leadership. The specific goal is for the leader to be accepted as the legitimate authority and to offer direction. This is accomplished through privilege and command. The desired effect, of course, is that members will believe in and identify with the leader.

Transcendent belief system.
This is the overarching ideology that binds adherents to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group’s rules and norms. It is transcendent because it offers a total explanation of past, present, and future, including the path to salvation. Most importantly, the leader/group also specifies the exact methodology (or recipe) for the personal transformation necessary to travel on that path.The goal of the transcendent belief system is to provide a worldview that offers meaning and purpose through a moral imperative. This imperative requires each member to subject himself to a process of personal transformation. The desired effect is for the member to feel a sense of connection to a greater goal while aspiring to salvation. This effect is solidified through the internalization of the belief system and its accompanying behaviors and attitudes.

Systems of control.
This is the network of acknowledged or visible regulatory mechanisms that guide the operation of the group. It includes the overt rules, regulations, and procedures that guide and control members’ behavior.The purpose of the systems of control is quite simply to provide organizational structure. The specific goal is to create a behavioral system and disciplinary code through rules, regulations, and sanctions. The effect is compliance, or better still, obedience.

Systems of influence.
This is the network of interactions and social influence that resides in the group’s social relations. This interaction and group culture teach members to adapt their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to their new beliefs.The purpose of the systems of influence is to shape the group culture. The specific goal is to create institutionalized group norms and an established code of conduct by which members are expected to live. This is accomplished by various methods of peer and leadership pressure, and through social-psychological influence and modeling. The desired effect is conformity and the self-renunciation that is required not only to be part of the group but also to achieve the professed goal.

*I can't believe you're defending the blatant misogyny of a thread trying to advance the position that any young woman supporting trans rights must be doing so because she's too stupid to research climate change, too susceptible to 'hive mind' to come to the 'right' conclusion about transgenderism, and not pretty enough to be popular on Instagram.

Are you so hellbent on your cause that you're really willing to defend such breathtakingly explicit sexism?*

This. With fucking bells on.

Red's great post could be also perhaps be applied to this non-UK example

twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1156214959728156673

This probably deserves a thread of its own, but I just watched this short film after reading this thread and it struck a chord (and made me angry and sad and want to know how to help). Not just young women involved in crushing 'wrongthink' or wrong behaviour.

Everyone in this film believes they are on the 'right side'.

Red
The purpose of the systems of influence is to shape the group culture. The specific goal is to create institutionalized group norms and an established code of conduct by which members are expected to live. This is accomplished by various methods of peer and leadership pressure, and through social-psychological influence and modeling. The desired effect is conformity and the self-renunciation that is required not only to be part of the group but also to achieve the professed goal

Red
If you are gender critical, you tend not to be as susptable to this, because your 'sacred value' is to analyse an idea rather than feel a need to belong. This seems to apply to the brave women in this film who are no longer susceptible to the dominant view. But with more potentially serious consequences than some of us here saying a man cannot be a woman.