The victimhood claim is a common one.
The way I see it work is:
Step 1: In your post, and it could be the first post you make on the thread, include inflammatory language, or quote a post using that language saying ‘ I agree!’
This language might be directly stating that MN or a poster is transphobic, ie ‘You won’t be able to have any discussion here, MN is transphobic’.
Words like echo chamber, anti-trans, lack of nuance, toxic, right wing, DM readers, hateful - the list is endless.
Or it could be indirect but still inflammatory. Such as using words to frame disagreement as being hate, ripping into, ripping apart, piling on, silencing, etc.
Step 2: When people respond to the inflammatory language, write more negative and denigrating posts while claiming that they are not inflammatory nor denigrating.
‘Echo chamber / anti- trans / ripping into (whatever example) is not inflammatory at all. Why are you all so mean!’
or, alternatively, reply about how of course MN is transphobic. The poster sees transphobic posts on MN all the time. And when asked to produce examples the posters cannot, will not or just double down.
And eventually it is discovered they are referring to posts that have been deleted!! But, of course, the regular posters are responsible and are the ones being deleted…. But on closer inspection aren’t.
Or the transphobia is calling someone male, when they are male, or other misgendering.
Step 3: Is to claim you have an answer that no one has seen or posited before ….. apparently. You know how to resolve this! This week was one, for example, about ‘including trans people in a sports committee making policy’ as a compromise. With the implication that trans people positively shaped the policy (based on what evidence I am still waiting for because if you read the accounts of the trans people involved the resulting policy wasn’t anything they wanted).
Step 4: Claim or continue to claim victimhood and throw in a personal attack or two. Call someone racist, or a child abuser, or demented, or a stalker, or a bully, or a misandrist, or choose any of a long list.
Step 5: Return to using inflammatory language while announcing that you probably agree with posters more than disagree, while never having posted anything indicating you agree with posters at all on the thread, but that ‘you are all so mean, you pile on, you don’t allow alternative opinions, you are hysterical, loud, self-congratulatory, joke making, (insert denigration), that no one will listen to you anyway!’
Remind posters that tone counts, while ignoring the posts you posted directly or indirectly that were inflammatory. Tell posters they are blunt, cruel, etc and should be nice, welcoming and don’t push back on those making inflammatory posts. Just be nice.
Make sure you mention you might agree, but don’t want to be associated to such mean, blunt and horrible people.
Deny again that you have been derogatory or inflammatory at all! Ignore the real transphobic, or misogynistic posters because they may have been the poster you quote posted in Step 1, or those other posters have also attacked the posters you thought were mean. Or you never actually read and thought about the meaning of the posts from the transphobic/ misogynist poster because on the surface they appeared to be arguing something similar, and you skimmed the words that showed the true intention because it roughly looked like someone agreeing with you.
Point out how posters think they are intelligent but really aren’t.
And flounce from the thread or from MN completely.
I saw this happen on a thread this week. But I have seen this happen on others regularly.
It is a tactic. It is either someone who doesn’t understand what women are campaigning for, or hasn’t really been involved on MN FWR so doesn’t see the wide range of threads we interact with every single day, and has a prejudiced view shaped from their own reading about the feminists of FWR or are not used to the constant tactics that start with Step 1.
Or it is someone who simply doesn’t agree that the rights of women and girls are being negatively impacted by the demands of one group.
Or it is someone who wants to shame posters for their very own reasons.
Either way, once you have seen it, it will run roughly to that script.
And why do we respond? Oh, yes that’s right, because apparently women should just take the negative labels and derision and rise above it. We shouldn’t point it out for any reason. Even if we do it to show readers the tactic so they can understand how activists seek to silence women they disagree with or others just want women to be ‘kind’.