Peak TERF

[MiraWard77]

Like many women I've been through a 'peak trans' moment sometime in the last few years.

We hear a lot about online radicalisation. I've heard GC feminism described as "a cult" and have wondered if I've been radicalised as much as the ROGD teens have been.

So if people have been radicalised to a 'peak trans' point, can the reverse happen?

Has anyone started off from a fully informed gender critical point and instead reached 'peak TERF' and embraced the flags and TWAW etc?

If the TRA narrative is valid, 'peak TERF' should be happening at an equal rate as 'peak trans'? Right?

Or does it depend on which "cult" you fall in to first as to which path you follow in learning about the whole field?

I suspect you are going to need to rewrite this to make it Mumsnet rules compatible.

If you mean in terms of abandoning the gender critical point of view, then, no, I don't think I'll ever drop my opposition to an ideology that puts children on a medical pathway leading to sterilisation and a lifetime of medical interventions.

Ooh, I might get my first deletion! 10 years!

Agree that you might not get away with the language. But no - pretty much no one goes from a position of scepticism to full on TWAW. Because once you start thinking critically you can’t unsee the flaws in the argument. In fact there are no flaws in the argument because there isn’t an argument - there are only slogans backed up with threats and insults.

@nauticant but if the TRA arguments are valid, as many in the mainstream and social media insist, then there must be arguments that would help you/us see "the light" and understand their POV.

There must be people who've gone from "TERF"/gender critical to pro-trans-narrative.

Maybe I'm asking in the wrong place? Although there are usually plenty of people here who disagree with GC views.

Also, if I do get deleted, I'd still like to have the discussion.

Which bits am I going to have to change to repost the same question?

I think using the terms as they're used outside MN is important. I haven't said anything inflammatory about trans people or an individual. I haven't been rude to anyone.

There are people that have decided they aren’t in step with the full set of rad fem beliefs (ie Posie) or fallen out with some of the notable individual feminists (ie Amy) but I don’t know any that have changed their mind on the crux of the GC position which is that humans cannot change sex.

Unsurprisingly, because humans cannot change sex

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Those who support TRAs do so for a variety of reasons - but rarely logic. It’s more usually tribal - I’m a leftie or I’m an inclusive person or I’m countercultural so I must be in favour of the TRA demands

Others are motivated by a generalised dislike of women or feminism. I’m sorry to say Matthew Parris seems to be one of these. He disagrees with JKR but can’t say which bit she’s wrong about. And thinks she should just hush up and put up with the death threats.

Others believe the false stats about suicide etc. Although even if they were true they still wouldn’t be evidence against the existence of women as a biological fact.

Some believe sex is a spectrum or that biological sex doesn’t exist. They have nothing to base this on barring a fundamental misunderstanding of intersex conditions.

Yes. There was a Donald Trump post a couple of weeks ago where someone argued that rolling back abortion rights including banning treatment for ectopic pregnancy (which would mean for every 100 live births 1-2 women would die needlessly and in agony) was worth it for increased protection against trans rights.

Wow, @Eskarina1 I missed that. That's quite some argument

but if the TRA arguments are valid, as many in the mainstream and social media insist, then there must be arguments that would help you/us see "the light" and understand their POV.

But that's the rub isn't it? TRA arguments are not valid, not even rational so there's no other 'light' to see.

It was in specific reference to Trump, so along the lines of they'd happily vote for him knowing he'd do both things. It kind of got lost in an argument about something else.

That’s definitely not a radical feminist position though!

If the TRA narrative is valid, 'peak TF' should be happening at an equal rate as 'peak trans'? Right?

If the TRA narrative is valid, being gender critical is just like being racist or homophobic, and as soon as people are 'educated', they should go from GC to TRA. So we should expect far greater numbers of people to go in that direction. Of course, they don't, because it's the TRA position which is based on homophobia and sexism.

In the UK trans people already have the same rights and protections as everyone else.

Of course not and it's extreme (though not the only extreme view I've seen on this site) and it damages the arguments of people on this site with legitimate concerns in the same way that the posting of extreme TRAs damage the point of just ordinary trans people. And it has the potential to create a peak moment.

In the same way as dismissing everyone who isn't anti trans as bandwagon jumping or incapable of independent thought.
'

There has been a spike in stories about people supposedly 'escaping the GC cult'. Most of those people are either trans (so naturally aligned with trans ideology) or seem to have fallen out with individual feminists.

The TRA narrative also changes in a daily bloody basis

Here's what I don't understand, though - you can read that post about Trump and think that the person supporting him has gone way too far, doesn't see the consequences of their position, is actually anti-feminist - however you want to put it. You disagree profoundly with them.

How does disagreeing with one extremist on the GC side lead someone to think 'actually, humans can change sex'?

If the TRA narrative is valid, being gender critical is just like being racist or homophobic, and as soon as people are 'educated', they should go from GC to TRA. So we should expect far greater numbers of people to go in that direction. Of course, they don't, because it's the TRA position which is based on homophobia and sexism.

Here's how the 'argument' tends to work:

1. "TWAW! Fuck t*rfs!" (GC response - "define woman.")
2. "It's anyone who says they're a woman! Science supports TWAW." (GC response - "that's not a definition. And show me this 'science', please."
3. "Die in a fire/choke on my ladydique/violent threat after violent threat..."

Do you think there's anything that would convince you to agree with TRAs and self-ID etc?

I know the temptation here is to just state "nothing would make me change my mind" but if we're thinking critically, then we must be open to hearing out the evidence/arguments too, and to change our position in light of new evidence/argument.

I don't know my answer to this question yet. What do you think?

Why don't proper "males" get it?

"A man in a dress you say?! A dress..? That's no man... If it's wearing a dress, she's a woman! Relax, there's no threat to our masculinity here, move along..."

Can they really not see how moronic it is? I'm quite sick of toxic masculinity.

That's the crux of it for me, @DameHannahRelf, and why"gender critical" is the most appropriate term.

Gender stereotypes are the issue for those feeling "a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity" (from the NHS page on gender dyspeptic).

Gender stereotypes, alongside sexist/misogynist societies.

I've just deleted several rambling rants about that. Unpicking all that isn't what I came here to ask. Must not derail my own thread!

Nothing will change my mind about allowing pre-op trans women into female only spaces. However, I'm not longer sure about the blanket "no transwomen in female only spaces". Once they've had surgery, they are at risk of the same sexual assault that biological women are. But how do you police that? There isnt anyway for them to prove they should be allowed (without having all their dignity taken away).

Its confusing and nuanced. Transwomen who generally look feminine and dress like it wouldn't be safe in male spaces. But women shouldn't lose their space to make up for that.

But trans people dont seem to want a separate gender neutral space; they want our space. That's my main problem; they can be given their own space but they want to remove ours.

Even things like "chest feeder" and "menstruator". Why cant organisations say "breast feeders and chest feeders" and "woman and menstruators".
If we must be inclusive of trans, then why does that follow that we must exclude biological women. Why cant we use both acceptable terms to include everyone?
But trans people dont seem happy with that. They want to erase any words which elude to a separate biological womanhood.

Why cant be include both? I really dont understand.