How did people start to believe in this trans stuff?

[IsThereAnEchoInHere]

I’m talking about the ’allys’, the one’s who believe in all this?
How did it make sense to them that women have penis’ now, that transwomen can compete with women, that men who were so oppressive yesterday can today be the most oppressed transwomen?

How did they get to that point?
How did it make sense to them?

To be complitely honest, I tried/ am trying to ’be nice’ and understand, but the more I read (from trans people, allys) the less it makes sense.
I wanted to understand, but my brain won’t let me.

Sorry, I know this is a long way back now, but I’m late to the party, and in case no one else has posted it, I feel duty bound to post this critique of the whole “two spirit” thing:

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/toward-an-end-to-appropriation-of-indigenous-two-spirit-people-in-trans-politics-the-relationship-between-third-gender-roles-and-patriarchy/

It wasn’t the progressive, enlightened marvel that so many allies want to pretend it was: on the contrary, only those cultures which enforced strict gender roles and in which women were viewed and treated as second class seem to have gone this route.

Sound familiar?

Here’s a (rather) long excerpt:

“Before we start: lumping all non-gender-conforming people in indigenous North America into a single “third gender” or “berdache” or “two-spirit” label is problematic. The cultures of pre-Columbian North America were incredibly distinct from each other, with significantly different gender roles to be observed even in Indian nations that were very close to each other.

What gets even more interesting when you look into the two-spirit phenomenon is where it doesn’t pop up–or doesn’t pop up with the same frequency.

The Iroquois Confederation historically had no two-spirit people in spite of keeping significantly more detailed documentation of the lives of its people than many other American Indian nations. For that matter, neither did the Apache, who treated two-spirit people respectfully and cordially when they met them but did not themselves have two-spirit people as part of their culture.

What would make the Iroquois and Apache different? It’s not a matter of genetics. That’d only be possible if there were no intermarriages between American Indian people from different nations, and that’s simply not true.

The Iroquois had one of the most politically egalitarian societies for men and women in the world, at the time when white folks set out to destroy them systematically. Women had significant amounts of political power, and the society was not simply matrilineal (which can sometimes still involve huge patriarchal gender role issues–hello, Orthodox Judaism!) but involved real equality of authority.

The Apache were famed for their skill in battle, which may mean you’ve never heard one of the most fascinating parts about their culture. Because war was a near-constant fact for Apache adults, while adults tended to have sex-segregated roles in society, children were actually given a very non-gendered upbringing. Girls were expected to know how to do “boy” things, and vice versa. Why? Think about the home front during World War II. It’s a good idea if all your people know the basics, just so that when there are war parties gone, or a sex imbalance after raids, you don’t lose all of the missing/dead people’s knowledge and skill base.

Neither of these societies–which have in some ways more progressive and egalitarian places for women and/or girls than contemporary societies–had two-spirit people. Was this because they were evil and repressive?

Let’s take the Lakota, one piece of the Sioux nation, as an alternate example. Please note that I’m speaking about the Sioux nations from the perspective of someone who has taken time to learn a great deal of a Sioux language and has studied these cultures both in historical and contemporary contexts. The Lakota have a longstanding tradition of two-spirit people, documented as far back as the written record goes. Among the Lakota, polygyny was accepted, and gender roles were extremely clearly established for boys and girls from an extremely early age.

The Lakota two spirit people are never born women. Almost all of them, historically, have been men. Claims of intersexed/hermaphroditic people from the 19th/early 20th centuries should ALWAYS be taken with a significant grain of salt, because of the trouble Europeans in this era had distinguishing between homosexuality and hermaphroditism (both male and female homosexuals were often thought to have hermaphroditic qualities–a historical fact we’ll talk about in another entry!).

Were no Lakota women “born this way” while men were? Let me postulate a different theory: that it’s men in power who impose gender roles, and that Lakota men’s patriarchal society had to have somewhere to put “men who don’t ‘act like’ men” because of male gender policing. Lakota people put two-spirit men in the part of the camp where women and children lived, which was generally not as well cared for and considered not as prestigious because of the patriarchal way that they lived.

While there were occasionally women in the Lakota and other Sioux nations that became part of war parties, they were not regarded as “male” in any way relating to their oppressed status at home. There was no need for the patriarchal Sioux to create a category for gender non-conforming women, nor to give them special status or specific supposed talents (Lakota and Dakota two-spirit people are said to be excellent namers of children and are thought to be able to see visions of the future). That’s something men do for men, because just by dint of having a penis, gender non-conforming men deserved to be able to have their own group and identity.”

And further:

‘You see this in large numbers of patriarchal American Indian cultures: societies where there’s a firmly established “third” gender that men can elect to participate in (sometimes as older people, sometimes from an early age), while women’s gender roles are firmly entrenched and allow for little variance. What’s amazing is that many people are invested in the notion that third gender was egalitarian. Check out how careful this website is to show us both male and female two-spirit people–in fact, having morestories of female two-spirit people–while making no mention of the fact that female third gender individuals were incredibly rare compared to male ones.’

A very interesting commentary on the way the two spirit concept is carefully curated and manipulated into being “proof” of how eternal/progressive gender identity ideology is, when the reality is it shows anything but.

Sorry, I know it’s a bit off topic, I just think it’s really important that the propaganda that gets bandied around on this is challenged in an evidenced way.

After all, I suppose that is one of the major ways so many people did start to believe this stuff. The proliferation of so many half truths, misrepresentations, and out and out lies, the sheer scale of the propaganda which was enabled by the internet to be spread like wildfire. Which people unquestioningly accepted.

I never believed it myself but I talk to people all the time who repeat back to me the most absurd, outrageous nonsense that I have seen debunked over and over again, but the truth has never reached them in their echo chambers so they believe it like it’s gospel.

@RoaringtoLangClegintheDark

Sorry, I know it’s a bit off topic, I just think it’s really important that the propaganda that gets bandied around on this is challenged in an evidenced way.

It's not off topic, and it's fascinating. Thank you.

Really interesting, LangCleg - thank you. And the correlation with rigid, patriarchal societies fits very well with what I know of the phenomenon in Indo-European cultures.

Well I think you perhaps don’t understand the logic of liberal left ideology that aims for ultimate individual freedom, even freedom from the constraints of nature itself and thinks society must facilitate this freedom. Where else is that going to lead when it’s in its most radical form.

Also calling someone right wing isn’t a slur. Only the far left think that is a slur because only they think it is morally bad rather than just a set of opinions that many people hold. Right wing is something that describes a large chunk of the population. Calling someone far right however is a slur because that means ethno-nationalist. For example the BNP are far right, UKIP isn’t. I have never come across a GC feminist who is far right.

Being gender critical isn’t even necessarily right wing. It’s just not left wing. Most people are either not political or are right wing. I’d guess less than one in five people in this country are ideologically left wing. The majority of the political class and cultural elites might be ideologically left wing but most of the country aren’t. We saw just how different the general population and the political class and cultural elites are when we had the brexit referendum.

Calling me right-wing would be considered a massive slur by me. I’ve never used “right-wing” as a compliment about anyone.

Maybe you’re just bigoted in the dictionary definition of the word, intolerant of other people’s opinions? I mean if you think a neural term that accurately describes millions of people is a slur that would suggest you think there is something inherently or morally wrong with having right wing opinions? Hence a bigot in the original meaning of the word? Intolerant of other opinions.

So I guess people who try to de-platform feminists are also bigots, because they’re intolerant of opinions other than their own too? It’s just a thought not a personal attack.

I'd call the BNP extreme right and UKIP / Reform far right.

Well what is the dividing line? On economic policy the BNP are centre.

I would say one’s belief in human nature ultimately determines if they are liberal or conservative, whether one believes in equality as a goal separates the left and the right and ethno-nationalism is the line that separates the right from the far right.

in your opinion when does something become far right and when does it become extreme right, can you clearly define those lines?

Jo Brew has written some interesting articles about "the Left" and Transgenderism, particularly the "Brothers" on the Left.

Transgenderism is the new Socialism
This essay looks at why the supposed champion of the underdog, the Left, has not sprung to defend women or material reality in this clash of rights.
https://jobrew.substack.com/p/transgenderism-is-the-new-socialism

Fratriotism
Fratriotism is love of the rule of the brothers, like patriotism is love of the nation. The swift spread of transgenderism is caused by spontaneous fratriotic acts, not just "capture" or force
https://jobrew.substack.com/p/fratriotism

This one isn't specifically about "the Left" but is applicable:

Transgenderism: A New Operating System for Patriarchy
How has a single movement captured institutions at record speed? First published in early 2021 in 4W, this article attempts to explain why institutions have adopted transgenderism en masse
https://jobrew.substack.com/p/transgenderism-a-new-operating-system

Thanks @Bosky - that was a really interesting read.

Well what is the dividing line? On economic policy the BNP are centre.

How about racism? Are they central on racism?

Anyway, this isn't the thread for that.

I'm interested in the idea that trans and non binary people have existed throughout history. I have no idea if this is true- but the only examples I have ever been given are women who presented themselves as men because they wanted to do things that societal and legal restrictions meant they couldn't do-like going to university, being soldiers, being doctors and so on. Or women who tried to buck the stereotypes in other ways, by wanting to wear comfortable, practical clothes, or be a butch lesbian, to name but two examples.

I also feel very uncomfortable when other cultures are called into play. All my life, people have used native Americans in particular to support their beliefs in many things. With no evidence at all-there being conveniently no written history, and tragically very few people left to continue any oral history. We rightly no longer appropriate barely understood traditional dress-but we seem happy to take on board barely understood culture, so someone who has never left Basingstoke can refer to themselves as "two spirit."

OP the allies don’t believe it. Nobody truly believes it. I mean young kids might believe if brainwashed enough but that’s it. Humans can’t change sex. They can change their outward appearance and that’s up to them as adults. Fine.

But the ‘literal believer’ in one sex changing to another by magic allies - they are gullible and ignorant and sexist and apparently trying to be nice. And/or they’re trying to kick against all the boring squares imaginary or real. And/or they have seen how the cultural tide around them is going and are purely performative allies who know they will be ostracised if they don’t join in and state their allegiance very loudly.

Some allies just hate women and love a metaphorical stick to beat women’s with in public. That will include some women with internalised misogyny which as we know can take years to rid yourself of, if ever.
And/or there can be allies joining in for extremely nefarious dangerous reasons about gaining easier access to women and children with if they get their way, no questions asked.

Well I think you perhaps don’t understand the logic of liberal left ideology that aims for ultimate individual freedom, even freedom from the constraints of nature itself and thinks society must facilitate this freedom.

Why do you label that 'liberal left'? It is certainly a libertarian idea, but this doesn't make it left wing. The idea that everyone should have the autonomy to alter their body in any way they want (which includes medical procedures) is more right-wing, in which everyone pays themselves for the medical treatment they want/require, than left-wing, where the state pays for healthcare and treatment is based on need rather than wants.

Individualism like this is not a left-wing (socialist) ideal at all. Thinking that "society must facilitate this freedom" is at odds with the idea that everyone in society has rights. If "society must facilitate this freedom" this makes for a very unequal society, where there are some people who are able to impose their right to freedom on others who are then disadvantaged. In the case of transgenderism, men being free to self-ID as women disadvantages women and children. This is not left wing.

But perhaps when you say 'liberal left', you're talking about parties like the US Democrats, which are somewhat to the right of the British Tory party. So not left wing at all really.

Ultimately transgenderism is right wing and libertarian. I can't understand why any left-wing parties have taken this on board at all.

On the subject of 'ultimate individual freedom', how does the cancel culture and campaign against freedom of speech which are embraced by the trans lobby fit in with everyone having freedom? It seems that they want freedom for themselves but not for anyone else.

OldCrone I agree with your analysis. Especially the narcissistic consumerism and solipsism of it all. It’s very much at odds with the ideal of society.

Yet the right wing libertarians like Spiked have been critical of gender identity while framing it as a left wing indulgence, so there seems to be a general resistance to anyone seeing this male sexual rights/male sexual access to women and children movement as a political problem of their own politics.

So now I think the solution will only come from women working within all poltical movements. And making cross-party efforts happen on the more ‘losing face’ risky party political actions that will be required. And getting men involved. Extremely practical political work unfortunately which should not be women’s problem to have to solve but here we are.

I can see two sides to the trans debate. Back in the 90s and 2000s there were very few people who transitioned. The amount of effort it took to transition was huge and the people who transitioned really were suffering from severe gender dysphoria in my opinion.
I worked with a trans woman in the early 2000s and never felt that she was trying to invade womens spaces. In fact she would use the accessible toilets in work and it felt natural to call her she. She definitely had passing privilege though. When we talked about the process, it felt like she had fought so much for it. I am no longer in contact but I really do feel for the people like this who have been assessed and want to live out their lives quietly.

I think the turning point was when people were able to start to begin to self ID. Men started to use it for nefarious purposes. I started to notice this about 5 years ago.

I have also worked in SEN education for years and I have witnessed first hand that there is an absolute pandemic of autistic young people who have been sucked into this ideology.

It saddens me that the genuine people will pay for the lunacy that is going on.

@Neverplayleapfrogwithmrpipes

Your experience is interesting, it is rather contrary to mine. I’m older than you, I think, my first experience of MTF was at university in 1970’s , when a pioneering MTF was on the outskirts of my social circle. I also knew the child of another pioneer quite well. Then in the the Early eighties , some one whom I would describe as a reasonably close friend transitioned, and as a result I met several other people who were going through the same process.

I have never met an FTM person, although I knew several masculine presenting lesbian ( this would be their definition) and was in one case very, very close to someone who described themselves as a ‘diesel dike’. They never gave any sign of wanting to be men, or wanting to be accepted as men, although like most of us, they were keen to get their hands on some of the power and privilege that were much more accessible to men.

My feeling about the MTF I knew was that they were intensely self centred, they had very little perception of or interest in other people’s feelings and ways of life. It was all about them. Maybe this explains why it was so ‘easy’ for people like this to assume the right to enter women’s spaces, to coerce them into sexual acceptance, and recently to triumph over them in sport and politics. They literally don’t see what is wrong with it, they don’t or can’t care about the distress caused to other people.

I didn’t really feel that their becoming had cost them so much, or at least, it seemed to cost other people far more. Their partners and wives, their children, even to a lesser extent their friends, and now, people they don’t have any personal connection with, are paying just as much, if not more.

I worked with a trans woman in the early 2000s and never felt that she was trying to invade womens spaces. In fact she would use the accessible toilets in work and it felt natural to call her she. She definitely had passing privilege though. When we talked about the process, it felt like she had fought so much for it. I am no longer in contact but I really do feel for the people like this who have been assessed and want to live out their lives quietly.

And yet it was people like this who fought for the original GRA (complete with falsification of birth certificates) and who originally coined the term 'trans', so that there would be no distinction between transvestites and transsexuals.

‘We knew in our hearts at that time that policymakers and judges weren’t yet sophisticated enough in their understanding to contemplate rights for people whose difference appeared self-identified or impermanent or maybe even optional. That didn’t mean we weren’t going to try where possible.

...we arrived at a consensus that if we maybe all used the word ‘trans’ as an umbrella term – and words like ‘transsexual’ only when we needed to be more specific’ then maybe some of that would catch on gradually.

(From Christine Burns: Pressing Matters Vol. 1)

More about that here:

Yet the right wing libertarians like Spiked have been critical of gender identity while framing it as a left wing indulgence, so there seems to be a general resistance to anyone seeing this male sexual rights/male sexual access to women and children movement as a political problem of their own politics.

I think seeing this as a left wing indulgence comes from the framing of trans-identifying people as 'marginalised'. They are portrayed by the left as people with a terrible condition (which is not a mental illness) who are downtrodden by the rest of society. The invention of transsexual children has helped them to convince many people that this is true. It's also helped to deflect attention from people like Adam Graham/Isla Bryson and the Scottish butcher who are most definitely not oppressed or marginalised, and from others whose trans identities are obviously fetish-induced.

The left really need to take start seeing what is in front of them. Men who start off with stealing women's underwear and progress to identifying as transwomen have absolutely nothing in common with a troubled teenage girl struggling with puberty.

Yes, agreed. I didn’t say it very clearly above, but it seems like no political movement wants to see this as a problem of their own politics. And but TRA claims to power couldn’t have been so successful if they didn’t have a kernel of resonance with each part of the political spectrum.

Meaning that the left too, will definitely also have to do that self reflective work as well, if they are to dig themselves out of this awful mess.

And we have to brace ourselves- It’s going to be really fucking annoying for women of all political stripes to see the people who have ignored and berated women suddenly start to tell us what’s what, in this space. However, I will be relieved to see that happen if it actually creates legal change via Parliament.

I find the ‘these people work so hard and go through so much to be who they want to be’ is rather missing the point.

Women! Women have had to work so hard and go through so much to be who they want to be’! Yet, so few people who decide these males should have access to single sex spaces, to single sec services, women’s and girl’s sports, the opportunities set up to progress all female people after millennia of negative sexist discrimination understand they have prioritised these males who claim to somehow deserve these things are NO more deserving of these things they demand.

Do they deserve spaces and services that suit their unique needs? Yes. Absolutely! Why the fuck did they not campaign for them? Because they demanded and got access to the spaces, services and opportunities meant for women.

So, no. I never think these mal people have ‘worked so hard and endured so much’. That is some fuckwittery right there. It is hugely emotionally manipulative because there is no other argument that will convince people if it was presented rationally.

No male person has ever ‘done enough’ to be accepted as a woman. Because it is not possible. And letting people believe they have changed sex In situations where sex matters is cruel.