Why are Trans Rights Advocates suddenly repeating "It costs you nothing" as if they're reading it off a script?

[Durgasarrow]

Just that. I have been finding this phrase increasingly irritating. After it was used twice in another thread, I wrote,

"It costs you nothing" is an incredibly insulting and demeaning phrase. It devalues the opinions and feelings of the person to whom it is spoken. It is a chiding, superior, condescending turn of speech used to invalidate and dismiss another person's reality. It is also a phrase that is a dead giveaway that a trans rights advocate wants to tell women what they need to do and how they need to be controlled."

After that, two TRAS still used it in posts! Poster Erishkegalangcleg's brilliant riposte? "Is "it doesn't cost you anything" the new TWAW?"

Meh. It works both ways. It costs them nothing to agree that humans can't change sex.

It's following the evolution of any meme, not so much a script but a shared idea which spreads easily. It's also harder to argue with a simple sentiment that demands a complex answer.

I haven't seen the threads but shall now be on the lookout for it.

Why not point out what it does cost you?

Just tutting at them about their insulting use of language isn't the most compelling argument.

I've seen it about any woman expressing any concern recently. It's a "shut up and do as you're told" phrase.

I thought tut and walk away was the nuclear option according to Jolyon Whatzizface? Extreme measures!

People endlessly explain. There are thousands of posts patiently explaining and pointing out. Most of it is wasted breath.

"It doesn't cost you anything"
"Bollocks."

That pretty much covers it really. If the person wants to question further why you think what they're saying is bollocks they're free to do so.

I've seen it about any woman expressing any concern recently.

Good women are doormats selfless. Goes with the whole massive sexist females are subhuman and exist only to facilitate men thing.

I am sometimes curious what people's "next ten words" would be.

Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. [ West Wing ]

And that's putting to one side the area of social psychology that addresses why persuading someone that they're conceding on something that costs them nothing is an effective interrogation/propaganda technique.

Because it is a script. The same talking points endlessly circulated by people who are skilled at regurgitating other people's words and think critical thinking is a thought crime

It’s because “no debate” and “trans women and women” didn’t manage to hypnotise they general public so they are trying a new chant out to see if it works.

It costs men nothing.

Actually, that's a good point. The previous slogans are past their sell by date. Also, the more egregious attacks on freedom of speech, the more media coverage from the media sources that haven't drunk the woke Kool Aid. It costs nothing is an acknowledgement of cost/benefit and as we all know, the costs of capitulating to the new totalitarians is legion. The old slogans aren't working. The new slogan is bankrupt.

It would cost men nothing not to be mean to non masculine men in the toilets 🤷‍♀️

Because critical/original thoughts are banned by cults?

"Well I'm still not buying it".

It's a cult

It's a form of condescending gaslighting IMO. "It costs you nothing" kind of means "You're so petty that you care about financial cost, and I'm pointing out that this is free so you should do it."

Much like "It's really not hard to respect someone's pronouns" means "don't worry dear, this won't tax your thick little brain".

It's obvious that feminists and other questioners have much bigger, more political reasons why they don't want to bow to transactivist demands. These phrases are an an attempt to deny and slap that down and imply the reasons we don't want to are because we're tight/stupid/sheltered.

And the want to do that because they don't have an argument that stands up against an actual reasoned, rational, political argument.

It's yet another way in which this whole situation is like dealing with a narcissist abuser.

I think it is a close relative of the killer argument for the hard of imagination "rights are not like pie".

So now I'm torn. Which Man For All Seasons quote to go with?

It's either

• Damn it, Thomas, look at these names. Why can't you do as I did and come with us for fellowship?

• And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience... and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship

or else it's

• Father, God more regards the thoughts of the heart than the words of the mouth. Well so you've always told me. Then say the words of the oath, and in your heart think otherwise.

• What is an oath then, but words we say to God? Listen, Meg. When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water. And if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again. Some men aren't capable of this, but I'd be loathed to think your father one of them.

Either will do.

"Well I'm still not buying it".

Perfect response, Qcng.

How about... “It costs us everything.”

Which Man For All Seasons quote to go with?

The whole work is so on point and quotable.

“So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

“Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

“Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

That was the second film I ever saw at the cinema. TBH the only quote I could remember is the 'For Wales?" one but I like this :

Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.

It costs my personal integrity, actually.

"Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world," [sighs More,] "but for Wales?" (More to Richard Rich.)

It costs my personal integrity, actually.

^^ Yes.

Discussion of Cialdini's The Art of Persuasion.

According to American investigators after the war, nearly every captured American soldier collaborated with their captors in some form, at some point during their imprisonment. How can this be? ...

So, what did the Chinese do that led to such extraordinary results?...they understood one of the most powerful driving forces behind human activity: the desire to appear consistent. ...

For instance, prisoners were frequently asked to make statements so mildly anti-american or Pro communist as to seem inconsequential (“The United States is not perfect.” “In a communist country, unemployment is not a problem.”). But once these minor request were complied with, the men found themselves pushed to submit to related yet more substantive requests. A man who has just agreed with his Chinese interrogator that the United States is not perfect might then be asked to indicate some of the ways in which he thought this was the case. Once he had so explained himself, he might be asked to make a list of these “problems with America” and to sign his name to it. Later he might be asked to read his list in a discussion group with other prisoners. “After all, it's what you really believe, isn't it?”

www.thegameoffew.com/blog/consistency-in-korea

It's why some of my attitudes have hardened and are uncompromising to a degree that would shock my younger self.