Where is the drive coming from?

[Teriyakieverything]

I don't get it. Time after time, so many high profile cases where institutions and corporations push for self ID/gender ideology/queer theory and the impacted people or customers have clearly said 'no', and I thought that must be it, it'll stop after this - it doesn't, it just carries on, wave after wave of this BS, it's relentless.

It's like they don't care what the customers think even if they get boycotted, e.g. BudLight, Maybelline, Costa, Dr Martin are recent cases that come to mind. Do companies not care about falling sales and bad PR anymore, do they not care about making profits, how do they continue to exist?

Schools - where is the drive to keep going with this BS despite parents objecting and pupils calling it out. Drag queen story time in libraries, why are some councils pushing this?

🤣🤣🤣

Have you actually been following the news regarding Bud Light etc?

🤨 I take it you don’t know that Bud Light has been in a massive decline in popularity since 2008 and the boycott actually did nothing to change the pre-existing downward trend?

Of course the boycotters are going to claim their efforts have had an impact, that is rule #4 of the activist handbook, claim credit for anything and everything regardless of whether it is true or not.

Genderism relies heavily on sex stereotypes to promulgate.

'is totally socialised to be kind to "vulnerable" males. Socialised to believe that older or firm-minded women are hags'

This movement could never have got so far had the sex roles been reversed. It has exploited the kindness of women, the misogyny of society, and also women's ignorance about men's sexual proclivities.

A lot of that has been on the back of both post modernist boundary demolishing and liberal feminist sex positivity, possibly even rooted in 60s sexual liberalism.

I'm not saying all if these things are wholly wrong; but several of them are ripe and wide opne for exploitation.

I'm thinking of how PIE got embedded in society and legitimised, and also how Saville was enabled and excused, how Rotherham was ignored.

Men's sexual appetites, inclinations, paraphilias and desired are a giant elephant in the room in contemporary society.

We could also look at the contemporary crisis in masculinity.

I think in Britain, it's a case of follow the money. Stonewall were becoming largely irrelevant, with equal marriage etc, so they needed a new campaign and trans fitted that bill, while handily also assisting with the promulgation of "queer" theory and removing sexual barriers.

A lot of the stuff we see, and experience in our lives, on this issue is downstream. The drivers are EDI/ESG, and EDI/ESG was a white-washing policy created by Larry Fink to rehabilitate the financial world after the crash of 2008.

As to why, trans issues have risen to the top of the EDI/ESG pie, there are two reasons: big pharma can make shit loads of money out of it, and there are powerful forces who wish to alter humanity (either through transhumanism or population control).

Don't look at what is said, look at what is done. Look at what the end results are. People are being sterilised, young and not so young. Anyone with a brain in their head realises this is what GRS and cross sex hormones do, and how the trans agenda actually interfaces with human bodies.

We've let the billionaires get too rich and the powerful get too powerful. This situation will end in war, somehow. It always does.

The numbers involved in terms of sterilisation are proportionally low. It's perhaps more useful to look at who is being sterilised. Vulnerable children - look at the comorbidities and other associated factors. 'Gender affirming treatment' and trans ideology is creating a cohort of damaged, confused, medically dependent people who are focussed on the Other as the source of all their problems. It's been described as a subculture before, I forget who wrote on this quite eloquently ... might have been Exulansic.

And I think that while it's possible a war may be on the cards, gender issues/queering are a side effect of that cycle, rather than an actual motivating force. I often think of the people in the Capital of the Hunger Games when I look at, say, Drag Queen Story Hour. I agree that culture can get too unequal and that can drive both decadence and pushback.

We also have the problem of how the subject is affecting public faith in society and authority. Loss of faith in democracy being part of a society heading towards authoritarianism - people start mistrust the media/government/establishment - undermine the authority - this happens in moribund systems being run top-heavy and in an authoritarian way (Sturgeon, I'm looking at you - fish rot from the head down) - so we have the ruling administration parrot absurdities, chanting mantras that are patently untrue - watch the populace lose faith in order and truth and society overall.

It's hugely unhealthy, corrosive to social order, and yes could be part of a dangerous slide towards more authoritarian regimes.

The thing is, these are divisive, once they jump on the issue as a company.

But there is no reason a beer company, or most other companies, need to say anything about most political or social issues. No one is boycotting beer producers for just having normal beer ads with regular people drinking beer, or showing cans of beer, or whatever.

The choice to include it opens them up to people who disagree, no matter what stand they take, that could be a lot of people.

100% - corporations have no business ‘lobbying’ the public on political issues.
Boycotts only work if a majority of customers participate such that it actually affects their bottom line.

The public may buy “spin” as they don’t really track a corporations financial performance, but their c-suite isn’t going to buy it.

I also have wondered if in the EDI world, trans is a group where it's easier to control or create a certain message.

If you look at feminist identity politics, well, lots of women don't buy into it, you can see them all over, and they will say so. THe same is true for racial identity politics, plenty of non-white people don't buy into it or actively oppose it.

But gender identity politics, fewer people overall perhaps, so special media spokespersons are what many people see rather than friends, family, and co-workers. There is the possibility for many who do but into the desired narrative to simply identify into the group. And the group itself consists of a large number of children and confused young people, people with other barriers like autism or mental health problems, and certain narcissistic males. These people either are vulnerable to manipulation, or are manipulators.

I guess though it still leaves the question, what is the advantage for them? Attaching to anything divisive has to be a risk, why take a risk if you don't need to?

Yep, the EDI grift that sank Nat West’s reputation and its CEO.

It’s not really a risk to the parent corporation to have Bud Light go for the T crowd because Bud Light is only one of over 100 brands of beer owned by the Anheuser-Busch corporation.

With that many brands of beer, the way you dominate the market is to market different brands to different niches of customers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66398296

Most instances of nefariousness are motivated by factors that book down to power, money and sex. And most of the time the power side is really a money or sex thing deep down.

An important part of sexual motivation for progressives is the desire not to be thought of as “uptight”, which codes to them as politically conservative and probably religious.

Thus the admonition not to kink shame, “sex work is work” and so forth. And in particular, not to be uptight about other people’s naked bodies. This is why trans issues actually attract such vehement “allies” relative to allies of LGB: ensuring young women see penises in the change room is not a bug, it’s the whole point, to ensure they don’t become uptight and frigid.

sexually motivated men combined with people of both sexes who don’t want to seem sexually uptight result in an environment where indecent exposure is reframed as a good thing, sexually explicit shows in front of children is reframed as good for their development etc etc

You've nicely explained a general feeling I've had about this for ages, but hadn't quite formulated, thank you!

I've been rewatching Star Trek Enterprise and yesterday got to the episode with T'Pol and the creepy Vulcan. Bad enough when he's following her around trying to corner her, but his self righteous defence afterwards when Archer tackles him 'I was helping her shed a lifetime of inhibitions . . .'

Framing women's choices and tastes and preferences and self-protections as 'inhibitions' is deeply insidious.

(Archer sends him packing, but T'Pol is never the same again. It isn't a physical rape, but it's really well done. STE was very unappreciated, but I think it holds up well - apart from the theme song, and the final episode which people should just not watch - it damages the rest of the show.)

I work for a very woke American company, woke in many senses. We have so far had 3 trans awareness trainings / seminars this year, all of low quality. I think many employees actually don't attend and questions are very much screened and discouraged. The driver seem to be very much the LGBTQ network group, run by gay males. HR seem to be more passive and are ok with being influenced by the LGBTQ network. I doubt anyone in senior management have thought about this longer than ensuring that the ESG report looks nice.

hopefully we will get more revaluations like the current scandal at Coutts/NatWest which was a fully paid up member of all this current evil. Numerous people have had their accounts closed because they objected to the rainbow flags etc.

it is censorship to keep people quiet. I did not know about this evil until the Mr Farage case, and it continues to bite them in the backside. All the banks are doing it, the even de-banked Gina Miller

And how does this gel with all the MeToo cases where men's careers are ended for getting it out in front of women, in lifts, auditions etc?

It's too easy to say this is just sexual liberation 2.0 on steroids.

My take is that, yes, the dropping of all mores is part of it. But it's also a mutation of the New Atheists movement of the 90s and 00s where all prurience and moralising are to be shunned and eliminated.

Not so much anti religion as anti all imposed societal standards and boundaries.

So "no sex outside marriage, gay is evil" etc have been memoryholed, now we're onto "no, a man cannot become a woman, and no, it's morally wrong to put teens on a medical pathway, and no, lesbians should be able to exclude men who've transed" as the new moralism that must be torn down.

Throw in the trans child as an almost chimeric like concept for a whole elites class who've consigned traditional organised religion to the dustbin, and you have a very powerful, metaphysical concept mindset.

And the cheerleaders are in DEI, politics, medicine, arts, social sciences and the media.

Not so much anti religion as anti all imposed societal standards and boundaries.

^^And I think this is exactly what Queer Theory combined with 'Marxism' does... the relentless drive stems from considering all societal norms and boundaries as a form of Oppression that must be destroyed/dismantled, 'for the greater good'. As those outside of 'norm' are considered Oppressed (by definition, REGARDLESS of whether they actually are or not), and those within the 'norm' are considered the Oppressors. It gives destructive power to those CLAIMING victimhood, and those Allies who are helping to destroy Oppression. Hence why there appears to be so much social kudos accorded to those claiming victimhood points.

Haha, told you it would be deleted....

I would say unbelievable...but then, what over the last decade hasn't been unbelievable?

What's the justification for mass deletions using those three letters acronym?