How do we provide a face-saving way back to reality for the politicians / public figures who are currently transactivism's minions?

[WhereYouLeftIt]

I feel the tide is turning. Mainstream media are running articles on the current craziness and not just repeating verbatim whatever guff they are handed. Corporations and government departments are starting to distance themselves from Stonewall, and there have been some wins in the courts.

Sunlight is being allowed into the room, and the pigeons are coming home to roost.

But - many have publicly painted themselves into the TWAW corner. Very publicly. And if we're ever going to get them out of there, some, particularly the politicians, are going to need a face-saving way to get out of that corner, their political careers depend on it. And whilst I don't give a stuff for their careers, them saving face and stepping away from their current position will take far fewer years than replacing them with new and unbeholden politicians.

I really don't believe that many of them are True Believers Of The Faith (those who are we can probably do nothing about), just people trying to do a pressured job where time constraints have led them to take as fact the opinions presented to them by lobbyists.

So - what will make these people step out of that corner? What would make that look like a possible, even attractive, path? Carrot? Stick? Even shinier cause to espouse?

@TheFnozwhowasmirage

I think that you could be right OP. My MP,who was very vocal about her association with Stonewall and was full on TWAW has been noticeably quiet on the subject since the Kiera Bell case. Before that she was announcing meetings with Mermaids,papers/ focus groups on LGTB whatever it is now,every week. Recently we've had a concentration on issues that her constituents are concerned about instead,which is very out of character. I note that someone has already donated a copy of 'Trans' to her. Maybe she's done some bedtime reading?

That's really interesting @TheFnozwhowasmirage! Going quiet, as @BernardBlackMissesLangCleg said. Possibly sparked by the Keira Bell case breaking into her echo chamber?

I wonder though, how she would vote in the Chamber on any law changes. If she would speak in the debate. If she were on a committee, what recommendations would she back. In short, what would she do, follow her conscience or the loud shouting?

@LobsterNapkin

But I do think it helps to just accept people when they change their views, without bringing up old stuff.

This does actually stick in my craw. But I know you are right. I think back to my youth and the utter shite I spouted, no one now ever brings it up to embarrass me. They could of course, but they kindly dont. I think the difference is I was young and stupid and everyone knows that we grow up and learn and generally become less stupid. Here we are talking adults who in fact should have known better in the first place. Even when I was young I could think about perceived injustices and actually take them apart to see where others were coming from. But here and now for women, no one cared enough. That hurts in a way. We are just so bloody unimportant.

Golden bridge time - if Patricia Arquette has genuinely accepted that Wi Spa wasn't a hoax, then she's to be commended for that even if (and I don't know) her perspective remains the same.

She's standing up for changing her stance when the certainty of evidence changes.

People should be accepted once they turn. Raging at the newly converted would be self defeating. But it will take lots of gay men to speak up to tip the balance if homophobia is the answer. No one cares enough about what women/lesbians think.

Excellent question
I’ve been trying to get through to our HR diversity lead but...obviously she books all our speakers through the local LGBT lobby and is friendly with them, she’s in the firm LGBT committee and the industry committee and attends country wide conferences with her friends in the workplace. She has already implemented self is policies around toilets etc. She is following advice from ‘the experts’ and matching what other firms are doing. She is fully invested in making this work. I don’t know how she can save face on this.

Honestly? Why should we? Politicians are there to serve and if they are so foolish and lacking in judgement they espouse such a harmful ideology then they should be removed from office asap. It is a privilege to serve as an MP, as Hoyle has just said. They no longer deserve that privilege. We owe them nothing, they are accountable to us. There are many potential candidates who can do the job infinitely better.

I think just hold an amnesty, 24 hours in which people can backtrack, no questions asked. I know that people should be accountable for when their views have spilled from viewpoints to aggression and threatening, but you know what if it gave those who have since seen the light a way out, it would be good.

She is fully invested in making this work. I don’t know how she can save face on this.

She sounds like someone who would need a 'cooler' from within one of her communities. You and others might offer support for any useful shifts in attitude in response to evidence or particular events.

Aside from Echo Chambers,following the money and power and opportunistic bullies, there is some masterful use of "common enemy tactics" going on that drives the purity spirals.

Ironically for a movement that thinks it embraces difference, it seems to me to be filled with very socially conforming people who can be particularly vulnerable to this and be made to go along with anything, including attrocities if the social tide seems to be going that way. It's the flip side of being someone who seeks social harmony.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it though and if and when people realise they might not be on the right side if history after all or the tide changes, the shame will be quite extreme I imagine, so I'm not going to rub their noses in it. I'm going to forgive and welcome them back to reality . I expect most people will, because we are kind and we have empathy.

Until then, I have no intention of being kind. Because it isn't kindness, it's madness in a cheap kindness costume.

I think the key to the Golden Bridge is to point out that we had many, many common goals in the first place.

Didn't everyone want to make life better for the really small cohort of people who suffer distress and prejudice through being transgender? We WANTED to help them get the medical care they needed and we WANT them to feel safe and accepted in public life so there is a way we can all move forward together.

There needs to be processes that protect against abusive men - of course, these have been eroded in the past decade by the TWAW crew, but a smart activist will be able to reframed that - TWAW, but 'woman' means different things in different spaces.

Something like that.

I have a gang of really close friends who all have teenage daughters, and in trying to discuss this I have been quickly shut down by a chorus of 'I don't see a problem. Does not bother me.'..... Of course, they all have a fear of arguing with their children who are 100% behind the ideology, think it is cool and great and think I am a dreadful old dinosaur..... I really think it will take one of those girls having an uncomfortable experience before anyone will start realising. And I pray every day that it won't be too serious.

I had a couple of pals, though, who I don't think I will ever speak with again. Even if there is a fall back on their very aggressive stance, I challenged them, I questioned thrm and I called them out and they had no response, I showed them up. When they tried to do the same with me, I held my own and provided all the evidence to back my arguments up. I wonder how I can mend friendships with those people and then realise, there might not be a way to. It wasn't that I was right and they were wrong - it is that I dared to speak up in the first place.

Is this the acceptable face of reverse ferreting? More of this to come? Gender ideologues exit strategy? Are we ok with this...

@HeddaAga

Is this the acceptable face of reverse ferreting? More of this to come? Gender ideologues exit strategy? Are we ok with this...

My initial thoughts reading that are that I'd worry about getting splinters up my arse trying to stay on the fence like that.

But maybe that's just me.

As Helen Joyce says, eyes on the prize.

Do we need social and organisational change that will stop the:
– irreversible medicalisation of children?
– mixing of women's prisons?
– mixing of NHS wards?
– erosion of freedom of speech and thought?
– progress towards authoritarianism?

Conversation with everyone with interests in these areas has to happen if 'coolers' are to appear. We have to create golden bridges, encourage every step towards them and all progress across them.

Otherwise, what solution is there?

@HeddaAga

Is this the acceptable face of reverse ferreting? More of this to come? Gender ideologues exit strategy? Are we ok with this...

No….I’m not

Same with politicians

@HeddaAga

Is this the acceptable face of reverse ferreting? More of this to come? Gender ideologues exit strategy? Are we ok with this...

Does she explain what the reasons for single gender spaces might be?

Isn't that excluding people who don't hold the belief that they 'have' a gender?

I think it will be the non binary and genderfluid group that open the door to a way out. In the way that LGB found themselves too wedded to the T that they were taken by surprise by the coup, I think the Q part will run all over the dysphoric T.

Someone famous and non binary will start campaigning for a third space and people will breathe a sigh of relief that they can support safe spaces for trans people without being dragged into women's rights.

@Alltheprettyseahorses

Honestly? Why should we? Politicians are there to serve and if they are so foolish and lacking in judgement they espouse such a harmful ideology then they should be removed from office asap. It is a privilege to serve as an MP, as Hoyle has just said. They no longer deserve that privilege. We owe them nothing, they are accountable to us. There are many potential candidates who can do the job infinitely better.

These are my thoughts too when it comes to politicians. I don't see any need for face saving in any of this. How does it go - 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them'. As has often been said it's PIE all over again.

As to the wider world, it will just go quiet and get memory-holed. But I'll always remember those who stood with women and those who didn't.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

It's hard isn't it HeddaAga - it all feels so enraging and despairing. But the OP and is right - somehow as LobsterNapkin points out, we need to accept people's right to change their minds without keep pointing out "but you said"...

Having said that, there are some very influential people who I don't think I could keep quiet about.....

There are snippets of hope. In Ireland this year a Minister for Children said all new school builds will have unisex toilets. There was war over it on the radio and the Minister for Education backtracked and said the schools could decide. Which means it will be the parents decision ultimately. (Radio in Ireland is an important influencer - the Joe Duffy show in particular). Irish mammies and daddies are not going to stand for 18 year old boys in with 13 year old girls in the toilets.

It's good that Irish parents will get a say Cailin66 There's a reason captured adults in schools never ask girls if they want to share toilets and changing rooms with boys - because the answer would be a resounding no.
BUT schools are remarkably good at reversing initiatives - once you've taught for a while you see the rolling turnover of initiatives being introduced as the new best thing, then quietly ditched and then 10 years on being reintroduced again.
The trouble with this one is the immense harm it's doing to children - and that's hard to forgive.

I would find it very hard to forgive my mp who said tw in women’s prisons are fine and who never responds to emails. He would have to publicly apologise and say he was wrong to get me to vote for him ever again. He has said a lot recently about supporting Afghan women and refugees, so is quite prepared to speak out on some issues, but not it seems on others.

There was war over it on the radio and the Minister for Education backtracked and said the schools could decide.

Will schools genuinely have a free choice? There won't be penalties if they don't or withheld budgets? (I have no confidence in politicians. I think it's sometimes easy for them to backtrack symbolically when they know that in administrative terms it will be impossible for schools not to implement what they had announced as policy.)

catzwhiskas I'm with you. I don't think that I can ever forgive and forget my MP's attitude and campaigning against women and girls.
She pretty much patted me on the head and told me to run along dear and there is no risk to women from self ID,and refused to answer when I asked which women's and safeguarding groups she'd consulted before writing a report to say as much.
She's now on social media,asking women and girls to pin point areas locally where they feel 'unsafe', I've had to sit on my hands.
There's been no rainbows or mention of pride from her either. Maybe someone has had a word?

She's now on social media,asking women and girls to pin point areas locally where they feel 'unsafe', I've had to sit on my hands.

Or, in line with the strategy posted upthread - if someone has had a word (a 'cooler') this would be a good time to support your MP. Would you be able to email her and say something as neutral as: Thank you for consulting women and girls about their personal safety. I look forward to learning more about the outcome of your enquiries.

Re politicians - I’m thinking of Lisa Nandy who supported male rapists in female prisons - who are in full support of TWAW even a retraction isn’t good enough. To support male rapists in prisons shows a lack of critical thinking and empathy. If they don’t have these skills they shouldn’t be a politician and representative of the electorate. These politicians haven’t even shown support for other women such as Joanna Cherry and Rosie Duffield and support of free speech even if they disagreed with their views. They don’t deserve a way back just a way out of politics.

Didn't everyone want to make life better for the really small cohort of people who suffer distress and prejudice through being transgender? We WANTED to help them get the medical care they needed and we WANT them to feel safe and accepted in public life so there is a way we can all move forward together.

There needs to be processes that protect against abusive men - of course, these have been eroded in the past decade by the TWAW crew, but a smart activist will be able to reframed that - TWAW, but 'woman' means different things in different spaces.

This is exactly what I think. TRAs aside, we have far more in common with the bulk of the genderists than we do with the (for want of a better word) regressive right even if in the short term, under a very superficial analysis, we seem to agree more with the latter on self id and TWAW/TMAM.

• Both GC and genderist people don't think the sex of your body says anything about your personality
• Both GC and genderist people generally want people to be freed from social expectations, stereotypes and prejudices
• Both GC and genderist people generally recognise that power structures exist that advantage some groups and disadvantage others

The difference is that

• genderists have been fed the concept of "gender identity" as something other than a clash between your social role and how you actually are (plus for some a trauma response). For historic reasons this got tangled up in LGB rights and added to the list of things that are "right side of history" so they have never really questioned how the idea even makes sense and have got themselves lost trying to save trans people specifically, as if trans people's suffering due to gender and patriarchy is somehow a different thing to every one else's and not just a symptom of the same underlying problem.

• GC feminists believe that while solving the underlying problem will benefit everyone, female people's suffering due to gender and patriarchy is different to males because society is structured to favour the male bodied, so even those males who are disadvantaged by patriarchy are disadvantaged in ways that don't map cleanly onto female experiences. That doesn't mean all males are the enemy or that disadvantaged males and females don't have a lot of common ground, it just means we are not interchangeable because we have our own needs as well.

I think the change will be framed (and for those who go through it, genuinely experienced) as an evolution not a reverse. They will never think they went in the wrong direction, they will think they took a journey to better and better.

So I think the way forward is

• to remember and recognise those shared values
• not focus on the rights and wrongs of gender identity, but just to highlight that it's not the same thing as sex and focus on how gender needs must be met alongside sex not instead of it
• don't get hung up on being right or vindicated. That's not the way people work. JKR will most likely always be called a transphobe by the people who believed it even as their own views soften into what she said all along. It sucks, but people are people