The new religion

[xxyzz]

So many things coming together over the last few days have brought home how much gender identitarianism is truly a religious movement. (I could call gender identitarianism transactivism, or trans rights activism, though that would give the misleading impression that this whole business is led by trans people or in any advances trans rights, neither of which I think is remotely true.)

The Amnesty Ireland case this week - twitter.com/JinnysJoe/status/1329847671063015424 - has made clear the religious nature of every aspect of the attack on women's rights. In a country where organised religion still holds huge power, blasphemy laws which have only been repealed over the last couple of years live on in the desire to cast out women who blaspheme against the gender identity religion from the community of the righteous. These women may not be heard, for by their words, they are now sinners. "No debate" is no more than a modern formulation of "Thou shalt not blaspheme". Even the term 'trans' itself, tied to the idea of a soul magically transforming matter, reflects transubstantiation, the seen-to-be-literal changing of bread and wine into the body of Christ.

Janice Turner's great Twitter thread today, being discussed elsewhere - twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1331606970252599298 - refers to true believers compelling women to agree that "science is erased by magical thinking", with threats of violence if they refuse. She talks about believers in biology being "hounded" if they refuse to agree with the "quasi religious concepts" of gender identity over biology. Like nearly all religions, as Janice points out, this religion is patriarchal and virulently misogynistic. I could add homophobic to that list too; many of the 35+ staff members who resigned from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) - www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962 - did so citing concerns over transition being used as gay conversion therapy by homophobic parents.

As Suzanne Moore points in her fabulous long piece today - unherd.com/thepost/suzanne-moore-i-felt-absolutely-betrayed/ - while the new gender religion (like most religions) demands that women "be kind", adherents to this new religion have shown no reciprocal kindness towards women and our "fears and concerns". Instead, women who dare to speak out in favour of biology, science, women's rights, have been branded as witches and threatened with the kind of ritual attacks ("Die in a grease fire", anyone?) previously reserved for witches.

TRAs often wonder why the UK has so many T**fs .Seeing what has been happening in Ireland this week, seeing the way gender identitarianism has overtaken the US left so thoroughly, has overtaken Spain last week - twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1329500723734843402 - I am beginning to wonder if what has left British women particularly impervious to the siren call of this new religion has been our lack of religiosity as a country. Iran is another religious country where transition is actively encouraged, even as homosexuality is forbidden and women's rights even to show their own hair are curtailed. It would certainly be interesting to see how far adherence to organised religion maps directly to organised gender identitarianism aka transactivism.

I've also thought that there is something different about the UK (especially from the US) in terms of our irreverence to political ideologies as a whole. We're not a country that draws big political rallies and marches.

At the risk of getting a telling off, I think it's about skepticism being a characteristic that's, traditionally, widespread in the UK while the US is a country that elevates belief. Religious belief in some cases but not in all, take for example "The American Dream" as an article of belief and countless positivity movements where if you believe something strongly enough it will come to pass. These movements get supporters in the UK but many will scoff which tends to get people in the UK labelled as being negative.

Yes, Arabella, agreed.

Where did that "sex doesn't matter" idea come from? Feminist theorists never said it; their allies did. It's the mainstream dumbed-down misunderstanding that was popularised and accepted. I see that paralleled all too clearly in genderism.

Yes absolutely "sex doesn't matter" as a concept is similar to some of the aims of feminism, as in, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, you can still be a fighter pilot, PM, go to university etc. And then that is used to make the claim that feminists should agree with trans ideology.

But quite clearly and factually, sexual dimorphism does matter for a specific set of things, and for those things it's extremely important or essential - reproduction, sport, safety etc.

It's obvious to anyone who gives it sone thought that equality of opportunity for the sexes, and necessary protections for the sex is most at risk from the other sex, does not mean and has never meant "there are no sexes".

It's just more of the woolly thinking that is such a problem in this whole issue and that has been very much manipulated and exploited by transactivists. I think that is a key difference in the GC / trans ideology opposition - as a GC person I only want to refer to logic, sense, reality and empirical evidence. That's the basis of why I think what I think, and I'm prepared to debate and reason on that basis all day long, and change my view in the face of evidence if there is any.

Whereas enforcing the trans agenda involves perpetuating lies and misunderstandings.

What is it that we always say on threads about personal feminism? We never realised our sex mattered until suddenly it did. We learn it the hard way.

We don't all learn it at the same time though. I think that gets missed a lot. They used to say "give me a child until he's seven" and there's truth in that, because what you learn the hard way in those early years sticks.

Well, most feminists say that culturally conditioned rules governing what women can do or be or look like are gubbins, there is no inherent reason why women cannot do or behave the same as men.

So in that sense, the sense of equality of humans, sex does not matter.

However, the reason we campaign is because sex exists and affects women most especially in a system that has evolved to benefit and advantage the male sex.

As I've said many times, in a multicultural, secular society, mutual laws can only be based on material reality, and in material reality, sex exists, and if women are going to have a full share in society, this needs to be reflected in laws and public policy.

Lots of people have lots of different views and beliefs about the place of women, inner identity, personal morality etc. But we are not a theocracy, and no one group's views about such metaphysical philosophies should form the basis of how society as a whole is run.

Believe as you wish. But you have no right to force compliance to your beliefs from others, nor do you have the right to harm children and young people, and indeed women on the basis of those beliefs.

I've no interest in converting Genderists to accepting material reality, tbh. I'm content to just keep them the fuck away from policy and legislation.

And that's enough FWR for today.

I've been thinking about kindness and gender ideology in secular cultures and wondering if that sense of biblical 'kindness' that perhaps one found in a Christian community, or rather in the love of God (the idea of a loving father holding one up spiritually) is missing from people's lives and in an unkind world the desire to seek kindness and to bask in the glory of being seen to be kind by your quasi religious community, is some how replicating that? It's every bit as hypocritical as religious kindness can be because it's often not extended to those who contravene the rules. Apologies for the waffly word dump, but I see similarities in the cruelty of the current kindness movement with religious intolerance.

Well, most feminists say that culturally conditioned rules governing what women can do or be or look like are gubbins, there is no inherent reason why women cannot do or behave the same as men.

"Inherent" is the point of contention, I think.

Does it mean born this way, or does it mean became this way? Different sides interpret the word differently.

Btw Floral I wish I'd seen your thread about "valid" at the time, because it's a great example of a niche concept being misapplied by the mainstream.

Inherent might be replaced by a better word, and I'm sure I could work out which one, but I genuinely am trying to be on FWR less, and I'm trying to plan a legal separation at the same time, so I'll let someone else do it!

We never realised our sex mattered until suddenly it did. We learn it the hard way.

Quite.

And in this incarnation of female people learning it the hard way, the insistence that sex is not real and biology is irrelevant is being enforced over the top of rigid sex based thinking and oppression.

We're not supposed to be able to tell who women are without silly accusations about 'genital checks', but there is no problem at all in proponents of this knowing exactly who has the power and who makes the rules, and who will accept a subjugated place or else, based entirely on having been born with female biology . The threats of violence and sexual assault are all directed entirely towards those born with female biology. The assault on rights is all directed entirely towards those born with female biology.

One last reply, but yes Michelle, so true.

Witness the wheedling pleas to the ego of John Cleese, based on the whiners being long term fans, and oh so disappointed and please would he reconsider.

And compare and contrast that with Jo Rowling, when she shared her experience of violence, receiving highly sexual threats and a desire to wrench her own work away from her.

What could be the significant difference between these two figures? Is it something to do with star signs?

I think it's not just the male/female, though. I am also starting to think that mother issues are very deeply rooted in this movement/ideology. JKR, storyteller for a generation, is seen as a mother figure, I think, and I think mother-hatred is prevalent.

Because it's not just women that get it (although they all get it eventually) - it's the older women, the Karens and the boomers. Oh, and the lesbians. I suppose it's just women who are no longer 'on the market' in MRA terms? Yes, because that's sullying the image of pornified 'woman' as sex object for the consumption/gratification of male desire.

Is this all virgin/whore crap? I suppose misogyny has been ongoing for centuries, just keeps popping back up in new incarnations.

JKR, storyteller for a generation, is seen as a mother figure, I think, and I think mother-hatred is prevalent.

I think she's more seen as a father, within the community at least, because we grow up steeped in "god the father/creator" symbolism etc.

In my fandom days, the author was seen as God-the-creator. The nurturing/empathetic/emotional-crutch associations with mothers weren't there, or at least not so consciously. The author was the dominant and all-powerful Other. Which fits nearly next to the "father" space in so many people's heads because so many people's fathers were just that, in those crucial early years.

From the outside, though, she looks like a mother because she nurtured the minds of the young.

What the obnoxious twats on Twitter are doing is railing against god-the-father in the form of JKR.

One salient aspect of the trans agenda is that to claim a "gender identity" that makes you unusual or "transgender", you have to have a rigid gender category to tell yourself you're pushing against. Trans activists routinely misrepresent "male" and "female" gender categories as if they are very strict and inflexible when in reality people have always found ways to step outside them, challenge them or not conform to them, plus they differ through time and in different cultures. It's part of the agenda to pretend that women are always fantastically feminine and gendered, for example, so you can express your woman-ness or lack of it through cultural stuff which is actually far more nebulous and non-specific than they claim.

For example that non-binary poet who got ratioed for that performance poetry rant about not being able to get a haircut, openly pretended that hairdressers were extreme zones of masculinity and femininity, when we all know that most hairdressers are unisex and even if not, tend not to turn away the "wrong" sex. But acknowledging that would make a nonsense of the concept of "non-binary", so lying to yourself about gender is essential.

Both sexes suffer from having gender expectations thrust upon them but women far more so in almost all cultures. The TRA need to ramp up gender expectations so as to have something to be different from / identify with expresses itself most fully with the "woman" concept
being depicted as frilly, girly, childlike, mothering, decorative etc.

Good call OP. Sorry for the essay, I've got a lot to get of my chest.

I think it's more dangerous and pervasive than a religion, but I think widely recognising it as a belief system is really important.

Pluckrose and Lindsay in Cynical Theories look in detail at this issue and I think what they say makes alot of sense.

They are not lone voices but they have made it very accessible. They see gender activism as a secular ideology, a significant part of the Social Justice Movement, which though seemingly innocent and charmingly titled is a very well padded out counter culture framework (more like communism than a religion, though something entirely new)

Pluckrose and Lindsay postulate that Queer Theory is the purest example in the SJM of reified postmodern thought in action.

An entire collective consciousness that believes as fact, that any dominant cultural meta narrative is just part of an incumbent power structure, race /collonialism, feminism/patriachy, gender/sex binaries (even academia, science and the scientific process itself) which are inherantly unjust should be "queered" or inverted. That truth itself is just the dominant discourse on a given structure and language is the way that "truth" is crafted.

Trans people in the traditional sense (i.e. intense dysphoria, so severe they need to transition for their mental wellbeing) and the LGB community are part of the existing binary, hence they are just tangental to the cause.

Thus all the labels of the non binary dictionary, TRA's, the TWAW mantra are at the frontline of changing language and discourse, not trans people and their rights. They appear to be centered but they are not.

They have made an abstract set of ideas (queer theory) into a concrete actionable revolutionary goal, the goal is to cause chaos and disrupt the meaning of things by "Queering" them. That women, actual Trans people and some gender non conforming people are being materially harmed is just collateral damage to the greater goal of the unmaking of the normal/ the status quo

I don't think most 'adherents' are conciously aware of the framework they are caught up in, they have no idea they are part of undermining the very liberal society which is (slowly and imperfectly) delivering true social justice.

Though it is utterly incomprehensible, the trans agenda is to fuck with language and its meaning to the point that normal itself is changed and thus alter the meta narrative and invert the power dynamic. I think that is why many feminists are sold, they think it inverts the power dynamic of the patriachy. Think Contrapoints and Alex drummond. It does not.

Of course it also opens the door to sports cheats, predators, misogynists, men with mummy issues, any one with a kink they haven't been able to openly indulge until now, and it platforms snowflakes and drama lammas, though I think that is tangental.

On a superficial level, it's very idealistic. It apeals to good people who are sensitive to real and existing, injustices in society, in the same way that Communism appealled to people who were sensitive to socioeconomic structural inequality. , it's just bonkers.

I do think that the beginning of the end is when normal people start to wake up to belief element, and that the way forward must come from liberal process and discourse, or the far right will eventually force it to a conclusion and that will be much, much worse. Like Nazism rose in response to communism. Vive la révolution libérale!

they think it inverts the power dynamic of the patriachy

Yet all it does is transfer power to a different tribe of men.

It's males with sex&gender issues who control the narrative. Female perspectives are only considered valid if they conform to the male narrative.

If they actually wanted to reverse polarity they'd be boosting and supporting those who have female bodies and acquired sex&gender issues. Yet detransitioners (who are largely female) are tossed aside as an irrelevance in the quest to champion the poor suffering willy-at-birth people.

Same old, same old.

agenda is to fuck with language and its meaning to the point that normal itself is changed and thus alter the meta narrative and invert the power dynamic

Which is destructive without purpose. There's no plan as to what happens then, no ideal of it being better or how, and most of it appears a childish enjoyment of smashing up everything with no goal beyond the enjoyment of destruction.

A counter elite is what this is currently creating in practice, and what the end point of that will be. And currently it's quite plain that those who would like to replace who they perceive as the elite will be far less inclusive, kind, ethical, just or even logical and safe guardians of society with the many, many ways of belittling, despising and expressed wishes to harm anyone not in their gang. Hence the constant ageism, ablism, racism, sexism, classism, homophobia..... despite claiming to stand for such things. A massive reality gap between the words and the actions.

The projection involved in this ideology is incredible. Here, a TRA likens believing in biological sex to believing in a soul.

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1331691360135622669?s=19

Which is destructive without purpose.

I think there is. What you do is disrupt as much as you can, causing chaos with the confidence that, when most people, institutions, etc are destabilised, you can do a land grab. This is an old idea. It's what big tech has been doing for the past 2 decades, it's what Cumming has been interested in, Trump does it to some degree, Richard Rich was at it.

The projection involved in this ideology is incredible.

Yes and it's one of the things that actually gets to me, because it reminds me so much of my gaslighting ex.

They project that TERFS are the violent ones, are guilty of DARVO, are detached from reality, make up stats and scientific findings, and don't care about GNC teenagers. It's breathtaking. But projection is what people do when they cannot admit any fault or illogicality in their own argument. They project, and cry "no debate", because what they are trying to claim would not survive reasoned argument.

[quote NotTerfNorCis]The projection involved in this ideology is incredible. Here, a TRA likens believing in biological sex to believing in a soul.

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1331691360135622669?s=19[/quote]
KM is interesting as I’ve seen KM use any argument made by GC feminists against - eg, ive seen KM use the phrase ‘thought terminating cliche’. I can’t think of any that we use, can you? Similarly, KM is turning ‘gendered souls’ on its head and saying that biological sex is like a soul. It’s so ludicrous but also clever. KM probably haunts this board looking for our own arguments to use against us.

Someone on a podcast (sorry can’t remember which one) suggested that it must be linked to Protestant world view because it maps on to the countries with Protestant traditions - US, Canada, Scandinavia, Germany etc but not to the Catholic tradition countries - Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mexico etc.

It is happening in Spain though. There was a great piece from a Spanish feminist in The Radical Notion. It’s becoming a big issue - same as here. There was also something on Twitter about a famous Spanish feminist coming a cropper.

Stripesnomore - it maps genderism to Protestantism?

Don't think that works, given both what's been happening in Ireland and Spain in the last week, both Catholic countries. And a poster upthread mentioned Sweden, who have started pushing back against genderism despite Protestant roots.

I also gave the example of Iran, because I didn't want this to be seen as purely stemming from Christianity - I think any religion which tends towards misogyny and homophobia at its fundamentalist ends (which most do) can give rise to genderism.

SmallPug - yes, I'd noticed that too.

Massive DARVO going on.

It’s been interesting that this religion hasn’t clashed with others yet that I’ve seen. The issue of single sex spaces is relevant to religions that dictate separation of men and women in certain circumstances. Are religious groups unaware? I don’t like the old religions anymore than the new ones, but everyone has a right to those beliefs.