They have made believing TWAW such a badge of progressive self image, and to consider that may not be true such a badge of transphobic hate, that many people who might otherwise engage and think critically just can’t get past it.
Once cognitive distance has been sown one either bunkers down, or it sparks one to think about things more. Obviously those that bunker down won’t move until it becomes impossible for them to do anything else. Others once they have doubts sown will start to think a bit, and question things over time, I have seen this with former female believers going back many, many years. For example, there was a young woman who had taken male hormones she then read a feminist book and after she thought about it for a time she left gender ideology and joined with feminists. I’ve seen many other similar examples of young women having the penny drop after being exposed to feminist’s counter arguments.
Basically, the argument about whether TWAW or not is the one that TRAs want to have because it’s the one they can frame with emotional arguments like “denying existence”, “a civil rights issue just like [x]” (where [x] is totally unrelated of course), “reducing women to biology”.
I don’t think this is true. I think those ridiculous arguments can be easily countered, someone arguing that ‘denying existence’ sounds off the beam anyway to most of the public. I would say I don’t deny a believer of gender ideology exists, anymore than I deny a believer of MRA ideology or a fundamental christianity exists, I just don’t believe in those belief systems and think they are regressive and misogynistic and here is why... The civil rights issue is also easily countered with no other advantaged/oppressor group claims to be a member of the group they disadvantage/oppressed, that would be a colonising tactic, not a civil rights issue (examples of other groups colonising can be given they know this is effective and is why they don’t want it used). And of course it is easy to say women are defined by biology what else would we be defined by, a feeling in a male’s head, a set of stereotypes, a medical procedure, that is very regressive and misogynistic. Answering all these questions reveals how regressive the ideology is. Most of the public have not seen the arguments countered in mainstream media, and I think that should be a good next step, rather than just accepting their arguments have any value or worth. When one points out why the ideology is morally bankrupt as is is based on regressive misogyny and homophobia, and that it is just the same old male entitlement most people do get it. Most of the public are not in academia and are not students, most people don’t like to think they have been manipulated, once they realise they have been, they can do something about it.
I think it’s far more effective to have the conversation TRAs don’t want to have, which is the practical consequences of redefining (or if you prefer, correctly recognising) Woman as a mixed sex group. It’s more effective and more powerful because it gets away from who is morally right or wrong and focuses on how this change impacts female people.
Everyone has been highlighting the harms to women for a long time, the problem is that it is considered by many to be a price that women and girls should pay, and the argument goes it a small amount of males, the males are a special category, any problems are isolated, you are accusing all of X etc. I think the TRAs don’t want their ideology challenged hence ‘no debate’.
I think both points need voicing. The harms to women of adopting the ideology needs to be voiced, as well as a challenge to the idea that there is a special category of male, based on feelings or cosmetic procedures, who it is progressive to champion.