Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity

1000 replies

Ingenieur · 10/11/2024 22:49

An interesting article in The Atlantic today, and a sign the tide might be turning in the USA.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/

Most voters think that biological sex is real, and that it matters in law and policy. Instructing them to believe otherwise, and not to ask any questions, is a doomed strategy. By shedding their most extreme positions, the Democrats will be better placed to defend transgender Americans who want to live their lives in peace.

Baby steps

The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity

The party went into an election with policies it couldn’t defend—or even explain.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604

OP posts:
Thread gallery
35
RedToothBrush · 14/11/2024 08:29

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/11/2024 00:54

Anti-gender propaganda on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit

Where is the "anti gender propaganda" (bias much!) on Reddit then? Reddit is strongly pro TRA.

Anything vaguely gender critical or women only (not anti trans) is swamped by TRAs and ultimately closed down on Reddit and Facebook.

Twitter used to be the same.

The only other place it was even possible to be gender critical has been MN and it has most definitely grass roots led here without the need for both farms. This has led to various spontaneous groups and individuals forming and taking to court.

Which in turn has changed the very nature of conversations in the UK.

Given the way that gender critical discourse and fight back has occurred in the UK with such events - as I say, often being led by wronged individuals - it's actually incredibly insulting to say that it's been about bots on MN.

The Daily Mail started to pick up on these stories and they got a lot of click through and comments. I don't believe they were bot led. Newsnight picked up on the ethical and total negligence of the Tavi and through hard work and diligence brought that to public attention because there was genuine concern from a lot of parents who had been affected by their children and this led to the Cass Review which insurance companies can not afford to ignore. Then there's been threats to MPs and public figures like JKR which have required legal proceedings. Not forgetting the Streisand Effect contributions from the Scottish government imprisoning sex offenders in women's jails, Mermaids very existence and a certain rape crisis centre.

Twitter has played a role, but in the UK it's been minor. Women largely had to adapt to talking about it outside twitter and many women won't use twitter to discuss the issue due to the levels of abuse and harassment they get, even to this very day.

I have to say I find the comments about 'anti-trans' rhetoric deeply offensive and totally ignorant.

We are where we are now in the uk because of pro women efforts. These pro women effects have rippled across the globe as ruling after ruling and victory after victory here showed up the sheer level of discrimination against women and how the 'most vulnerable in society' were definitely not the Dylans of this world.

The sexism being highlighted and the ruling that belief in sex is one worthy of respect in a democratic society - and one that's far from a niche belief IS the point here.

The fact that trans dominance was enforced despite not having a socially agreed consensus to do so IS the point.

Democracy ultimately working as intended should result in this chain of events. The law is by consensus and if you go again consensus you always risk a backlash.

That's exactly what's happened.

And yet this all gets characterised as being fueled by bloody bots.

Fuck off deeming women and the efforts of women to get this reported and out there to the public because of how it was discriminate against women and homosexuals.

RedToothBrush · 14/11/2024 08:31

Actual news worthy issues and events got reported and shared...

...but it was bots.

Shortshriftandlethal · 14/11/2024 08:31

I sense conspiracy theories around Russian influence are gaining traction prettty quickly. I know that social media is manipulated and used by various actors for propaganda purposes - but it seems to be becoming the prime excuse for people not to take counter arguments seriously or to address their own failings.

Gendersim is a product not only of its time in history, but also as a consequnece, of communication technology - through which it is fostered. Disembodied 'friends' and people alienated from themselves, communicating via adopted personas and avatars - are imminently susceptible to ideas round transhumanism and transgenderism.

IdylicDay · 14/11/2024 08:40

RedToothBrush · 14/11/2024 08:29

Anything vaguely gender critical or women only (not anti trans) is swamped by TRAs and ultimately closed down on Reddit and Facebook.

Twitter used to be the same.

The only other place it was even possible to be gender critical has been MN and it has most definitely grass roots led here without the need for both farms. This has led to various spontaneous groups and individuals forming and taking to court.

Which in turn has changed the very nature of conversations in the UK.

Given the way that gender critical discourse and fight back has occurred in the UK with such events - as I say, often being led by wronged individuals - it's actually incredibly insulting to say that it's been about bots on MN.

The Daily Mail started to pick up on these stories and they got a lot of click through and comments. I don't believe they were bot led. Newsnight picked up on the ethical and total negligence of the Tavi and through hard work and diligence brought that to public attention because there was genuine concern from a lot of parents who had been affected by their children and this led to the Cass Review which insurance companies can not afford to ignore. Then there's been threats to MPs and public figures like JKR which have required legal proceedings. Not forgetting the Streisand Effect contributions from the Scottish government imprisoning sex offenders in women's jails, Mermaids very existence and a certain rape crisis centre.

Twitter has played a role, but in the UK it's been minor. Women largely had to adapt to talking about it outside twitter and many women won't use twitter to discuss the issue due to the levels of abuse and harassment they get, even to this very day.

I have to say I find the comments about 'anti-trans' rhetoric deeply offensive and totally ignorant.

We are where we are now in the uk because of pro women efforts. These pro women effects have rippled across the globe as ruling after ruling and victory after victory here showed up the sheer level of discrimination against women and how the 'most vulnerable in society' were definitely not the Dylans of this world.

The sexism being highlighted and the ruling that belief in sex is one worthy of respect in a democratic society - and one that's far from a niche belief IS the point here.

The fact that trans dominance was enforced despite not having a socially agreed consensus to do so IS the point.

Democracy ultimately working as intended should result in this chain of events. The law is by consensus and if you go again consensus you always risk a backlash.

That's exactly what's happened.

And yet this all gets characterised as being fueled by bloody bots.

Fuck off deeming women and the efforts of women to get this reported and out there to the public because of how it was discriminate against women and homosexuals.

A certain short-attention spanned 'eye' is having a serious breakdown over the length of your post, lol. ;)

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 08:42

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 07:48

Well gosh! Maybe you have read as widely on FWR as you think you have.

Either way, your posts about bots having such significant influence over the voting decisions of the electorate within the USA seems to directly reflect your need to minimise the importance of the impacts of gender identity politics on the electorate. And minimises just how many people are directly impacted by gender identity by now. As you say ‘on a population basis, they are statistically tiny’, without acknowledging the disproportionate direct impact that ‘tiny’ population has had.

It also seems from this

stacking the blame entirely on them is disingenuous.

that you need there to be significant bot activity because you don’t seem to like the fact that the strategies of Democratic Party around this issue have already proven harmful to female people and children during their term in power. And that their strategies going forward simply didn’t provide confidence to those in their party who had concerns.

Instead, we have these posts about bots to deflect the responsibility of the poor election strategies used by the party.

Haven’t read! That should be haven’t read!

Because so many posters whose names I recognise on this thread have in the past given the advice of going directly to the original source rather than reading other’s interpretations (due to interpretations being potentially bad faith ones) and to read widely and read opinons you don’t agree with too. I believe I have even seen my teen’s school advise this in lessons.

Oh, and we know to be suspicious of the type of non-engagement model of trolls and bots on social media platforms. Of course, we cannot troll hunt on threads so we have to report them to MNHQ, but many of us are aware of the pattern of posting behaviour.

RainWithSunnySpells · 14/11/2024 08:46

Short said 'I think social media is as much responsible for the rise in 'trans' as it is for those opposing it - probably far more so, in fact.'

Absolutely. Detransitioners have spoken about the influence of Tumblr and Reddit in their first hand accounts of what led them to transition/identify as the opposite sex in the first place many times.

Regarding the thread's title, I think that there is one example (out of the many, many available) that I would say means that the answer is 'Yes, the Dems do need an honest conversation about gender identity,' it is this one.

borntobequiet · 14/11/2024 08:49

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 03:51

Yes, of course I do. They’re not entirely blameless, but equally, stacking the blame entirely on them is disingenuous.

If the Democrats weren’t so invested in transgender, the trolls and bots would have nothing to work with. But they were, they didn’t hide it, their actions promoted it, everyone knew the truth if it.

It was entirely their fault for putting themselves in such a position.

Everyone on here knows how these things work, and, most importantly, that if they are able to amplify what everyone knows to be the truth, their work is that much more effective.

NecessaryScene · 14/11/2024 08:55

If the Democrats weren’t so invested in transgender, the trolls and bots would have nothing to work with.

Well, there would always be something. But on the other hand, it's like the Daily Mail. They used to have to write strongly spinny bullshit to wind people up. And it wasn't that effective.

But now they just need to actually tell the truth that other papers are hiding. Without any particular spin - indeed they tend to be rather straight-faced about the trans stuff, with no need to lay it on in the commentary. Just straight "this is happening" reports.

Which makes them far stronger - people can now perceive that they are more trustworthy than something like the Guardian.

If your actions are making "trolls" or your opposition more honest and trustworthy than you or your supporters, that's 100% on you.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/11/2024 08:59

NecessaryScene · 14/11/2024 08:55

If the Democrats weren’t so invested in transgender, the trolls and bots would have nothing to work with.

Well, there would always be something. But on the other hand, it's like the Daily Mail. They used to have to write strongly spinny bullshit to wind people up. And it wasn't that effective.

But now they just need to actually tell the truth that other papers are hiding. Without any particular spin - indeed they tend to be rather straight-faced about the trans stuff, with no need to lay it on in the commentary. Just straight "this is happening" reports.

Which makes them far stronger - people can now perceive that they are more trustworthy than something like the Guardian.

If your actions are making "trolls" or your opposition more honest and trustworthy than you or your supporters, that's 100% on you.

This is one of the biggest mind fucks for me. I used to avoid the Daily Mail like the plague. Now sometimes it's the only option if you want to actually read a news story about something that has happened, which the likes of the Guardian would rather we didn't hear about.

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:00

CautiousLurker1 · 14/11/2024 07:56

So replies like this are a huge part of the problem. You are effectively saying ‘shut up’ and dismissing a woman when she speaks, yet again, because you do not agree with what she is saying or the tone she is using?

Many of us have engaged with and value the content of this post - but you have effectively read it, decided it is not worthy and thus decreed that no-one else really needs to read it because it was ’super long’ and a ‘wasting everyone’s time’? It’s fine to say that you didn’t get anything out of it but the rankly offensive dismissiveness of the words and experience of another poster is no different to the comments already above in the vain of ‘bet you don’t even know trans people’ or ‘your personal experience is irrelevant’.

Do you not see how misogynistic that is (towards both writer and readers here)?

Can you also see I was reflecting on how her posts to me made me feel - so it was personal to me, and not universal to all FWR? I’m certainly not telling her to shut up, as I’m sure she won’t and I wouldn’t want her to.

TBH, the amount of dismissiveness I’ve had on this thread alone makes me a shake head at this.

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:03

IdylicDay · 14/11/2024 08:09

@EyeofOrion , Helleofabore is well-known on FWR as being a passionate person who writes long erudite posts, so many of us have saved her posts for use elsewhere because she is one of the most intelligent posters who really takes time and effort to outline her points, often with numerous sources. You could have just saved your own time and said you're too lazy to read anything past a short paragraph and are not that earnest or engaged in this topic and are only using it to troll and upset posters.

Edited

I’ve been here a long time, so I know who Hellofabore is. Thanks though.
Are you accusing me of being a troll?

RainWithSunnySpells · 14/11/2024 09:04

(ETA. This is a reply to Necessary's post).

Spot on.

If you have backed yourself into a position where a certain group of your supporters scream and wail because you have not lied, all your opponents need to do is tell the truth.

Hence 'I am not a biologist'. Which supports the lie.

Solzhenitsyn has some advice:

'Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.'

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies

borntobequiet · 14/11/2024 09:05

TBH, the amount of dismissiveness I’ve had on this thread alone makes me a shake head at this.

Then perhaps consider how you yourself dismiss people’s capacity for rational thought and decision making based on real, published policy, actual events and lived experience, overwhelmingly blaming troll and bot activity for producing the election result.

IdylicDay · 14/11/2024 09:09

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:00

Can you also see I was reflecting on how her posts to me made me feel - so it was personal to me, and not universal to all FWR? I’m certainly not telling her to shut up, as I’m sure she won’t and I wouldn’t want her to.

TBH, the amount of dismissiveness I’ve had on this thread alone makes me a shake head at this.

If her posts are making you feel a certain way, that's on you. Maybe it's a guilty conscience.

The irony of you talking about dismissiveness. All you have done, is dismiss the views of most on this thread, and most women and feminists. Your entire existence on here is to DISMISS and INVALIDATE the views of women. You're now also a masterstroke in DARVO.

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 09:09

NecessaryScene · 14/11/2024 08:55

If the Democrats weren’t so invested in transgender, the trolls and bots would have nothing to work with.

Well, there would always be something. But on the other hand, it's like the Daily Mail. They used to have to write strongly spinny bullshit to wind people up. And it wasn't that effective.

But now they just need to actually tell the truth that other papers are hiding. Without any particular spin - indeed they tend to be rather straight-faced about the trans stuff, with no need to lay it on in the commentary. Just straight "this is happening" reports.

Which makes them far stronger - people can now perceive that they are more trustworthy than something like the Guardian.

If your actions are making "trolls" or your opposition more honest and trustworthy than you or your supporters, that's 100% on you.

If your actions are making "trolls" or your opposition more honest and trustworthy than you or your supporters, that's 100% on you.

Yes indeed.

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:10

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 08:42

Haven’t read! That should be haven’t read!

Because so many posters whose names I recognise on this thread have in the past given the advice of going directly to the original source rather than reading other’s interpretations (due to interpretations being potentially bad faith ones) and to read widely and read opinons you don’t agree with too. I believe I have even seen my teen’s school advise this in lessons.

Oh, and we know to be suspicious of the type of non-engagement model of trolls and bots on social media platforms. Of course, we cannot troll hunt on threads so we have to report them to MNHQ, but many of us are aware of the pattern of posting behaviour.

Edited

Are you making some kind of accusation?

SquirrelSoShiny · 14/11/2024 09:11

NecessaryScene · 14/11/2024 08:55

If the Democrats weren’t so invested in transgender, the trolls and bots would have nothing to work with.

Well, there would always be something. But on the other hand, it's like the Daily Mail. They used to have to write strongly spinny bullshit to wind people up. And it wasn't that effective.

But now they just need to actually tell the truth that other papers are hiding. Without any particular spin - indeed they tend to be rather straight-faced about the trans stuff, with no need to lay it on in the commentary. Just straight "this is happening" reports.

Which makes them far stronger - people can now perceive that they are more trustworthy than something like the Guardian.

If your actions are making "trolls" or your opposition more honest and trustworthy than you or your supporters, that's 100% on you.

Yes this blew my mind too, I was exactly the same. People like to talk about Trump and his 'post Truth' masterplan but in my eyes it was the left who were just as guilty if not more so. All the way back to Gordon Brown's 'just some bigoted woman'.

I used to see the Guardian as a reliable read but they lost all credibility because of their stance on TWAW and their disgusting attitude to women. Meanwhile the Mail used to have endless pages of 'Celebrity cellulite on the beach!' posts but then became the paper actually writing about this whole issue of TRAs etc!

Post Truth indeed!

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:13

IdylicDay · 14/11/2024 08:12

I also think this cooker/nutter conspiracy theory about 'bots' is simply a version of the far right US conservative's 'deep state' argument. The only place I ever hear about 'bots' are by the ones accusing people of using them. I never once come across them or even the word anywhere, ever, anywhere on social media or forums, unless by conspiracist nutters accusing people of using them.

I think its just another way to DISMISS the validity and intensity of the feeling of women, and invalidate us as just being 'bots'. Clearly you still haven't learned from the US elections. And won't learn at all.

You don’t know a great deal about social media campaigns work, then. Particularly large scale ones.

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 09:14

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:10

Are you making some kind of accusation?

Is this where I use your own words back at you ‘Perhaps step away and have a think for a bit.’?

EasternStandard · 14/11/2024 09:14

SquirrelSoShiny · 14/11/2024 09:11

Yes this blew my mind too, I was exactly the same. People like to talk about Trump and his 'post Truth' masterplan but in my eyes it was the left who were just as guilty if not more so. All the way back to Gordon Brown's 'just some bigoted woman'.

I used to see the Guardian as a reliable read but they lost all credibility because of their stance on TWAW and their disgusting attitude to women. Meanwhile the Mail used to have endless pages of 'Celebrity cellulite on the beach!' posts but then became the paper actually writing about this whole issue of TRAs etc!

Post Truth indeed!

It's so engrained in institutions, they'll put up a fight

I saw a good quote on here on that, I don't suppose anyone can remember it

About organisations under threat and what they'll do to survive

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:16

Helleofabore · 14/11/2024 09:14

Is this where I use your own words back at you ‘Perhaps step away and have a think for a bit.’?

Oh, right 😂

EasternStandard · 14/11/2024 09:19

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:13

You don’t know a great deal about social media campaigns work, then. Particularly large scale ones.

What are you saying here, that mners are 'bots' or that we can't just engage with each other on an issue a lot of us care about?

I mean we obviously are just talking about it as many women care, but what are you trying to suggest?

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:25

EasternStandard · 14/11/2024 09:19

What are you saying here, that mners are 'bots' or that we can't just engage with each other on an issue a lot of us care about?

I mean we obviously are just talking about it as many women care, but what are you trying to suggest?

That was in reply to the poster who was denying that bots exist at all.

No, I do not think most MNers are bots. For clarity, when I refer to ‘bots’, I’m talking about inauthentic accounts on all forms of social media posting from troll farms.

Shortshriftandlethal · 14/11/2024 09:28

EyeofOrion · 14/11/2024 09:13

You don’t know a great deal about social media campaigns work, then. Particularly large scale ones.

Social media, (even without bots and other manipulation campaigns) by its nature leads everyone to be suspicious of others; to mis-read or misjudge the motives of people, especially those they disagree with.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/11/2024 09:32

Seriously, what is the point of this discourse? You won't actually engage properly.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.