Jolyon jumps the shark - is trans a cult?

[CantDealwithChristmas]

Jolyon 'fox killer' Maugham has been on one for 6 days straight now. It all started with Streeting's PBs ban and ratcheted up when JoMo sent Streeting a list of 25 questions which Streeting ignored - and on a Sunday too. As of yesterday JoMo, a KC (though Guido Fawkes reported his licence expired in May), was encouraging people to break the law by accessing banned PB drugs from abroad. As of today he has well and truly jumped the shark with the below, horrible post on X.

My question to this board is why do TRAs feel the need to ratchet up the emotional temperature of the debate so high? Why do they so quickly devolve the conversation to death and suicide? It's an ugly strain that runs right through all TRA talking points. I personally think TRA is an eschatological cult and the focus on death is a intrinsic part of that. Others may think it's all about emotional blackmail.

Either way, please use this thread to discuss JoMo, Streeting's unaccounably cruel ignoring of him, and TRA emotional hysteria / threats in general at this crucial time just after the PB ban was announced.

EDIT - could not upload the screenshot of JoMo's post but it reads as follows:

"And don't underestimate the political tail of Wes Streeting's decision. His colleagues will slowly be coming to terms with him locking them into a future of bereaved parents tipping ashes outside Number 10 and a revival of mass die-ins wherever they go."

They don't believe the question is being asked in good faith. They don't have a good answer but they also don't think they need a good answer since anyone who would ask that question does not deserve to be answered anyway.

From the TRA perspective, asking how to distinguish between trans women and men with bad intentions is like someone told your their dear friend is dying of the most horrible bowel cancer and on top of everything else they now have to deal with being incontinent and your first reaction is "but what about the white sofa?" Ok yes, that is an issue, but what is wrong with you to think that is the most important thing to worry about here?

Plus, they think men with bad intentions toward women who would also willingly choose to claim to be women when they are not trans are incredibly rare. They genuinely seem to think that claiming to be a woman is so utterly awful and humiliating that only a man suffering deep deep genuine distress about his sex assigned at birth would ever do it. It's yet another of the underlying misogynies of the ideology - that for a man to identify as a woman is so debasing that anyone who does so must be genuine about it.

(And the fact that the venn diagram of "men who genuinely believe they are women because of something they feel that they believe to be how women feel" and "men with bad intentions towards women" has a somewhat large overlap is, I fear, beyond their comprehension.)

If 'HE' in your post stands for Higher Education, and you are referring to academics, then surely research is the whole point of academia? In which case, shouldn't the people you refer to be naturally inclined to research all the effects and outcomes of espousing a biologically radical political position, before they espouse it? So not knowing about the outcomes is no excuse, and I think we can comfortably class that in the category of intellectual failing.

On a related note, I didn't go to Uni and I've always assumed that universities are placing full of learning and highly intelligent people. I STILL find it chilling that actually, it would seem, some unis are full of people who latch onto the latest fashionable thing in order to get into the in-crowd and don't do any actual research about it. I find it chilling that uni graduates and DOCTORS seem to think it's possible to change sex.

I'm not being facetious here, it genuinely upsets me. People with degrees tend to be treated with more respect in this country than people without. But if WE know more about the world than THEM, what the hell are we respecting them for and why the hell are we giving them the best paid jobs in business, government and education?

That’s a quote from the Kevin Costner film Field of Dreams about an Iowa farmer who creates a baseball diamond in his maize field after a dream, then baseball players arrive.

Or maybe it was Ray Liotta. It was a ling time ago.

Oh, that was me. It is from Field of Dreams which, in turn, paraphrased a quotation from the Bible.

I think I should point out that I am not God lurking on Mumsnet, although if I were I would say 'Down with this sort of thing' and I would smite foxbashers.

It's a misquotation from Field of Dreams, apparently. The line in the film is "If you build it, he will come."

Ray Liotta spoke the words that Costner's character heard.

It is from Field of Dreams which, in turn, paraphrased a quotation from the Bible.

Is it a paraphrase? In Genesis, God just tells Noah to bring two, or seven, of each creature to the Ark.

Good post Rhinos.

In relation to professionals working in HE overlooking research...... what reliable data is there for them to review?

I don't think many are in the 'it never happens' camp, but there are accusations of both under and over playing significance.

Clearly, every single incident is one too many. However, it's difficult to analyse data when we don't have clear definitions with which to group people.

They believe that they are being kind and inclusive. Naive possibly.

But how can one be kind and inclusive to a policy that excludes and threatens girls and women? That's unkind by definition.

I'd class that as both a moral and an intellectual failing.

#bekind is such a dangerous tenet. It's impossible to be kind to everybody without discrimination. Civil, sure, unless one is given a good reason to be otherwise. But one cnanot be kind to everybody without letting down one's boundaries completely. Which is a massive safeguarding issue.

@CantDealwithChristmas and @GiveMeSpanakopita it is a paradox and is unfathomable to me but there you go. Normally highly intelligent people that do not carry their thinking beyond being kind combined with a lack of what you might call common sense and/or lack of awareness of ‘it’ll never happen’ happening more and more. I don’t get it either. At best what I see is how people (colleagues) who are attracted to supporting liberal and ‘progressive’ issues have been caught up in hearing only one side of so called trans rights and no, did no further research on the matter.

I think it's very clear there's an underlying belief in society, held by both men and women and across all political leanings, that it's acceptable even moral for women to sacrifice for the greater good.

The 'greater good' so often translates to things men want, things men consider important and things that generally makes men's lives more pleasant in a way of their choosing.

Transactivism is just part of that as it can apply to all kinds of things. I think it's so deeply ingrained a lot of people don't even realise they think this. Look how happy that man is with his spinny skirt and 1st place women's cycling trophy. What sort of monster would deny him that joy?

They can't even contemplate the disappointment and anguish of the woman it was stolen from or the woman who didn't even make the team because of the man. Women have routinely sacrificed or been passed over for a millennia so men can have big careers and other pursuits that bring reward and joy. Why would this be any different?

It's why on this board we often end up in the n+1 argument trying to pin people down on exactly how many women and girls are acceptable collateral damage before they decide perhaps it's a bit much. We rarely get an answer because the notion of 'a bit much' is abstract and not easily grasped by so many because women are just meant to be kind.

Yes, the theme, overt or covert, throughout history has been that women and girls are service humans at best, more often barely-sentient (let alone sapient) creatures to be controlled, used and punished. Only men are human and deserving of rights and consideration.

think it's very clear there's an underlying belief in society, held by both men and women and across all political leanings, that it's acceptable even moral for women to sacrifice for the greater good.

The 'greater good' so often translates to things men want, things men consider important and things that generally makes men's lives more pleasant in a way of their choosing.

Transactivism is just part of that as it can apply to all kinds of things. I think it's so deeply ingrained a lot of people don't even realise they think this. Look how happy that man is with his spinny skirt and 1st place women's cycling trophy. What sort of monster would deny him that joy?

In vain do we point out that if these men were actually women no one would care about their feelings.

Indeed - if these men were women the movement would never have had the official support it does.

Well, they're not highly intelligent then. I'm sorry and I'm not insulting your colleagues but I honestly cannot see how a person can be deemed 'highly intelligent' by society and yet fail to do very basic due diligence on settled and proven evolutionary biology, that's even before we get to the safeguarding implications of letting men into women's spaces, especially working class and vulnerable incarcerated women, I'd have thought any intellectual with even a passing knowledge of material dialectics or feminist history or just HISTORY would be able to see this.

I bet these people are higher earners too and well respected in society. The kind of people who get into media and government advisory positions and tell us proles what to think so as not to be gammon bigots.

Pffff. I find it funny, when it doesn't make me angry as hell.

I think it's very clear there's an underlying belief in society, held by both men and women and across all political leanings, that it's acceptable even moral for women to sacrifice for the greater good.

Oh hell yes. It starts on a family level where we are expected to carry the domestic organisation and mental load for our menfolk. And then extrapolates out to wider society.

It's the old cliche of women in the communist movement being told to make cups of tea for the men and keep quiet about feminism because the men were planning the REVOLUTION which is far more important and womens rights can wait.

That absolutely did happen and still probably does in those circles.

So yes the latest sacrifice we are expected to make is trans.

Nadia Whittome?

I mean 'a major figure' probably isn't that major.

The secret of TRAs success was right from the beginning to team it with LGB and then to influence any liberal ‘progressive’ institution. Such that people with liberal progressive values (as in supporting social justice) came to see the trans demands as the same as LGB demands for equal rights (the right to marry etc) or racial justice demands (to be free from discrimination). Those demands were right to be supported so trans rights must be too. We’re seeing forced teaming with people with disabilities play out now with the new progress flag.

All of these are false comparisons but the strategy has worked. It has been an incredibly effective strategy. We see it in how time after time posters come on these threads to accuse women who want to safeguard women’s rights of being homophobic and racist. Literally Nazis.

So it is no wonder that TRAs have also influenced universities and staff members. There is senior support in large part thanks to SW’s diversity champion campaign and filters throughout thanks to TRAs being the ones to offer training or create slick videos that misinterpret the EA, which becomes required training and the multitude of EDI events. Colleagues of course know that a man cannot ‘become’ a woman but they are willing to concede to treat them as such to be kind and welcoming. It’s easy enough to do in a lecture theatre.

Plus, they think men with bad intentions toward women who would also willingly choose to claim to be women when they are not trans are incredibly rare.

Another problem is that the reports of when this happens tend to be in the DM or GB News. Maybe occasionally the Telegraph or Times, but liberal academics read The Graun, which up to not so long ago was a respected paper. It is another example of a progressive institution that was captured early on and as we know any women who objected got driven out.

All of this started from entitled angry men (with a fetish) and men more widely / the patriarchy who from the beginning have trained women to think of themselves as service humans.

The other forced teaming they do is with Black Women. I often have seen expressed on social media, that if transwomen don't look like/aren't proper women, then neither are Black Women. The underlying theory to this is a deeply racist and eugeniscist one drawn from the justifications used in the antebellum South, namely that Black Women are less feminine and more manly than beautiful delicate white women (this was then used as justification for overseers to force pregnant and postpartum enslaved women to keep working. Also used as a justification for rape).

it is a deeply deeply racist thought pattern and yet I see it trotted out by TRAs again and again - including on MN.

One only has to spend a few minutes on sites such as Lipstick Alley - the US forum by Black Women, for Black Women - to see how little credence actual Black Women give to this TRA talking point - and how utterly offended and disgusted they are by it.

"They genuinely seem to think that claiming to be a woman is so utterly awful and humiliating that only a man suffering deep deep genuine distress about his sex assigned at birth would ever do it. It's yet another of the underlying misogynies of the ideology - that for a man to identify as a woman is so debasing.... "

This is the conclusion I've come to aswell. Depressing. And my younger self owes Germaine Greer an apology.

I think that the teaming with LGB is a key part of the story but another significant part, which wasn't expected/planned for, was social contagion in children. That partly came from the LGB teaming but had other inputs as well.

This provided an amazingly effective human shield. Just look at Maugham's antics to see it in action.

It's noticeable that when politicians mention their constituents, it's a story of 'a trans child', not a middle-aged chap with a dodgy history.

It's also noticeable that politicians (and transactivists - even on here) swerve answering direct questions about children by talking about trans adults / folk / people. They do it all the time - anything to avoid explaining why they're supporting unevidenced medical experimentation on children.

Yes, I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the invention of 'trans children' in all of this.

If 'trans people' were still largely middle-aged males like autogynephile Debbie Hayton, extreme porn advocate Jane Fae, domestic abuser Kellie Maloney and rapist Karen White, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Now we have the 'trans child in my constituency' wheeled out by Nadia Whittome and Lisa Nandy. Most people with school-age children know of 'trans children' in their children's school or their own children are trans-identifying. People are sympathetic to the struggles of these children in a way that they are not sympathetic to men who suddenly discover a trans identity in middle age.

It's now all about the children, but somehow politicians and the wider public need to be made aware that 'trans children' were only invented as cover for middle-aged males with a fetish.

Yes. And trans identified men will often retcon their own life story to make it seem like they felt in the wrong body from childhood - all in the name of justifying an adult fetish.