What is your definition of TRA?

[Betweenthe2]

Just curious, I am have always read this as someone who is an activist for trans right, but I feel like it is sometimes used on here for anyone who isn't fully GC. What do you mean when you say it?

What's a a TRA?

A trans rights activist.

Yknow, those fellas in black balaclavas that shout at women for attending meetings.
Those dudes at pride who scream at lesbians.
Those online keyboard warriors who send death and rape threats to women.

You know who they are, we know who they are.

Why the disingenuousness?

An actvist could be seen as anyone who actively pushes a certain ideology.

What rights do trans people want, that they don't already have?

It’s not disagreeing that makes the handmaiden label applicable, it’s dick-pandering at the expense of other women and girls.

We get people commenting on these threads who are not gender realist, they are looking for something to say on twitter. Assuming every poster is genuine is naïve.

What do you mean by "someone who is not fully GC" though? Do you mean the people who havent really thought about it or the true believers? Those who are not actively promoting the ideology are, by definition, not activists.

Facists and bigots who shout down and vilify/name call anyone who thinks women and girls should have sex-based protection rights. Masked, aggressive people who aggressively shout down and call peaceful protestors vile slur words. People who will not debate. Their way or the high way. People who believe that lesbians are transphobic for refusing penis of the trans-identifying variety. People who think women need to shut up and know their place and accept what they are told they need to accept. People who think PTSD-suffering rape victims are vile transphobes when they don't want to be forced to describe their rape trauma in the presence of a male.

This.

If you campaign for trans 'inclusion' but can't see the issues of homophobia and sexism AND ACKNOWLEDGE present in GI during discussion then you ARE a trans right activist.

I'm definitely not on twitter, I hate it!

I would say that not fully GC could be someone who hasn't fully thought about the issue, or someone who has thought about it and come to some different conclusions than the prevailing narrative on here.

Those who are not actively promoting the ideology are, by definition, not activists.

I agree with this. However TRA is used as insult here, along with "incapable of critical thought".

People who believe female only spaces should include people born male.

They believe the male's right to identify into that space trump's every woman's right to keep it single sex.

Well, if it helps OP, Tickle asked the same thing on Twitter to Jane Clare Jones.

aa below

“Hi JaneClareJones, I know this might sound a bit weird but work with me pls. How do you define TRAs? I know what the acronym is but many people seem to be using it to conjure up a non-flattering identical image every time it is used in every situation. It perplexes me.”

The best answer referred Tickle to look in the mirror (as someone who as sued and significantly harmed a woman’s business who had stated the business was for female people only and this male person has dragged her through court as punishment. Look up Tickle vs giggle).

https://x.com/theroxyepoch/status/1793148203111747705?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

What does OP think. Is Tickle a TRA?

“However TRA is used as insult here, along with "incapable of critical thought".”

And what are the contexts that you have seen people being insulted by being told they are not thinking an issue through critically?

And are you offended by what you see as insults, rather than thinking through why someone has said what they have said? Is saying someone isn’t capable of thinking critically an insult or observation?

Particularly when someone has just repeated mantra like and thought terminating terms and phrases that are framed by ideological belief rather than objective consideration of evidence and material reality. I have seen many posters simply plop down links or repeat the words of a person they believe has the answer, only to find that person’s ’answer’ is based on false or very weak evidence. But the poster has plopped it down and fully believes that it is a robustly presented concept. Can you explain why in that situation the statement that the person has not used critical thinking to reach a strong position is insult vs observation?

Or do you believe the term is always insulting and should not be used on a discussion board ? Do you believe that people’s opinions should not be analysed and just accepted? Even when it is attached to a scolding?

I don't have an account on twitter/X so I can only see the top post and no replies.

I know about the Tickle vs Giggle case and Tickle is obviously a TRA.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here, obviously those that just repeat the mantra TWAW aren't using critical thinking but that isn't what I have seen happen on here.

It is often used here as a sweeping statement about anyone who isn't GC rather than as a point against a specific person who is making an argument.

I am not sure if this will be allowed due to TAAT rules but. as an example there is a thread running currently about someone who is concerned about meeting up with a friend of her husbands who is she thinks is a TRA. There is a lot of talk of "critical thinking" on that thread even thought the TRA isn't posting. This isn't an analysis of her argument as she hasn't made one. It's just a way sneering at a person who hasn't even posted on the forum.

Do you accept that critical thinkers can come to different conclusions to each other?

Do you believe that people’s opinions should not be analysed and just accepted?

Of course not. This is also applicable to your (and my) opinion.

To be a trans rights activist, one has to state that one believes that people can change their sex, that people have a gendered soul and that sex is assigned rather than observed at birth. All of those statements indicate, to me, that the person doing the believing is lacking in critical thinking.

Do you consider them an activist for stating this belief, (which to be clear is not what I believe) even if they aren't involved in any form of campaigning for the world to reflect it.

There is a difference between someone who actively pushes for gender identity to override biological sex in law, policy, health settings etc, who I think of as a TRA (well, actually I think of them as TDEs or TPAs - trans demands extremists or trans privileges activists) and someone who would agree TWAW and we should 'be kind' and use their 'preferred pronouns', who is a trans ally but doesn't do anything specific to further the GI cause or to insult women who stand up for their rights.

(But then not everyone who agrees that biological sex is a reality and men can't become women is actually "gender critical" by the original definition of the phrase, and even fewer are true radfems, but that doesn't stop us all being badged as "GC" or "T*RF" by those who follow the GI religion.)

@Betweenthe2
I was replying to the issue of critical thinking, rather than defining activist. If someone is discussing their views with people who do not agree with them, then there is, to me, an indication of attempting to change the other person's mind, thus activism of a sort.

This, I think.

For me a TRA is someone more active than just accepting the Be Kind bullshit that puts the rights and dignity of women and girls at risk.

If someone passively believes TWAW without giving it too much thought I would not call them a TRA. If they hear the school
has introduced mixed sex/gender neutral toilets and thinks that’s a good idea, still not a TRA.

If someone emails their local school to suggest inviting Mermaids to give a talk or querying why the school isn’t in the Stonewall scheme, that would make them a TRA to me.

Active engagement on supposed trans rights to the detriment of others = TRA

(This is of particular concern locally because of a high proportion of children from religious and cultural backgrounds who are excluded from participation and facilities once mixed sex becomes policy.)

This.

We all have the same rights. TRA want others slices of cake as well as their own.

Anyone who is publicly active in promoting gender ideology, whether in terms of convincing others to believe in GI, or promoting GI in organisations or public life,, or engaging in protests against women who are GC.

Someone who holds private beliefs in GI but does not seek to publicly promote those views, I would not call a TRA. IME most of these people change their mind once they understand what GI actually is.

That's an interesting point.

It's making me ponder, where the line is where conversation becomes activism? Is it activism if the other person initiated the conversation and asked for their views?

If they hear the school has introduced mixed sex/gender neutral toilets and thinks that’s a good idea, still not a TRA.

Just as an aside, a friend of mine is a teacher and at the school he works at there is one set of gender neutral toilets which children struggling with gender identity can use but the rest are single sex - and I mean sex not gender. This to me seems a sensible way to deal with the issue if the school is large enough to have enough toilets to accommodate this and also have sufficient single sex provision.

But isn’t that just healthy discussion? I have talked about this with many friends and some of us have very opposing views, but engaging in good faith in conversation wouldn’t make either of us activists, I don’t think.

(I would say I am an activist as I go to protests, contribute to legal funds, support by donation, write letters, sign petitions etc, but my discussions with friends who disagree aren’t what make me one)

The local school has gone down that route as well, which seems a sensible move. As long as the line is maintained for single sex provision for those who want or need it, a third space it great.