Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
Kucinghitam · 15/11/2024 09:26

"I have amazing special evidence but it goes to a different school."

BettyFilous · 15/11/2024 09:28

NecessaryScene · 15/11/2024 06:56

The trouble is examples are hard to find as they are usually removed fairly quickly - as I’m sure you can appreciate.

And this is your huge problem shaping discourse? Something that is hard to find because they're removed quickly?

How often do you see them? Are they in the room with you now?

I've seen more logical arguments about why we haven't caught any fairies...

If only the TRAs were as diligent at web archiving and screenshotting as all us inconvenient women. 🤔

Ingenieur · 15/11/2024 09:30

Returning somewhat to the thread, and that the Democrats need to learn some lessons about why they have lost voters, the latest bot-amplified message I've been seeing is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has removed the pronouns from her Twitter bio.

I wonder if this is a mistake or the first move back to sanity. (Or, of course, Musk/Twitter removing them to troll her?)

OP posts:
themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 15/11/2024 09:39

GoldSnake · 15/11/2024 05:40

I think politics needs to leave it alone. There's a lot of medical and psychological research needed.
I can accept that some are stuck in the wrong body.

But why is it in creasing so much?

And as a school teacher I see a lot of kids detransition

Telling children they can be born in the wrong body is not consistent with safeguarding. The bit in KCSIE on emotional abuse details clearly why getting all the children to pretend someone can change sex is emotional abuse if enforced or encouraged by teachers.

How this has been allowed to happen when KCSIE is really quite clear on this already astounds me every day.

Helleofabore · 15/11/2024 09:41

NecessaryScene · 15/11/2024 06:56

The trouble is examples are hard to find as they are usually removed fairly quickly - as I’m sure you can appreciate.

And this is your huge problem shaping discourse? Something that is hard to find because they're removed quickly?

How often do you see them? Are they in the room with you now?

I've seen more logical arguments about why we haven't caught any fairies...

How is something that is so convincing to society at large that it should be blamed for an election result instead of a political party’s own strategies failing be so hard to document with examples? Surely to be so powerful, those communications would be persistent and not immediately removed. Because them being removed quickly means they don’t achieve the very reach they are being said to achieve. They are also not then being shared around.

There really is something inconsistent here.

And remember we have been constantly told that the issue is so insignificant too. Therefore we have such a powerful messaging campaign by inauthentic sources - bots and trolls - that has managed to educate a population enough to artificially raise the importance of the issue that the Democratic Party has no need to reconsider their stance. Because it is of insignificant importance.

If they are removed quickly how do they have such power to convince the wider society how to vote or as in this instance not turn out to vote?

Or a more likely answer is that this issue has not been artificially amplified above its level of real life importance at all.

That while there are bots and troll farms out there causing the same amount of dissent as usual, that the reality is that such a large % of the population are now directly impacted by gender identity issues. Or they have seen real life ramifications of gender identity being prioritised the way it has. And that has had an impact on voting.

And that then means that the Democratic Party needs to do exactly what the thread title says, finally have some honest conversations about gender identity.

Helleofabore · 15/11/2024 09:42

BettyFilous · 15/11/2024 09:28

If only the TRAs were as diligent at web archiving and screenshotting as all us inconvenient women. 🤔

I know! Right?

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 09:55

Switch on Al-Jazeera for an alternative world view. No need for bots with that.

I have a British Algerian friend who makes a point of reading/watching it over and above the BBC.

Why? Well see my point about trust and state level use of spin undermining principles of democracy.

I find it frustrating to purely blame bots.

HipTightOnions · 15/11/2024 09:57

Telling children they can be born in the wrong body is not consistent with safeguarding. The bit in KCSIE on emotional abuse details clearly why getting all the children to pretend someone can change sex is emotional abuse if enforced or encouraged by teachers.

You'd think. But when I raised this exact point with our DSL I was told this was absolutely not a safeguarding issue. (In fact he laughed at me.)

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 10:02

HipTightOnions · 15/11/2024 09:57

Telling children they can be born in the wrong body is not consistent with safeguarding. The bit in KCSIE on emotional abuse details clearly why getting all the children to pretend someone can change sex is emotional abuse if enforced or encouraged by teachers.

You'd think. But when I raised this exact point with our DSL I was told this was absolutely not a safeguarding issue. (In fact he laughed at me.)

You have to wonder just how much safeguarding training is going in, don't you?

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 15/11/2024 10:03

HipTightOnions · 15/11/2024 09:57

Telling children they can be born in the wrong body is not consistent with safeguarding. The bit in KCSIE on emotional abuse details clearly why getting all the children to pretend someone can change sex is emotional abuse if enforced or encouraged by teachers.

You'd think. But when I raised this exact point with our DSL I was told this was absolutely not a safeguarding issue. (In fact he laughed at me.)

That should be grounds for a disciplinary. Laughing at a safeguarding concern as a DSL.
But it's not. Depressing.

There are lots of great teachers.
But I am coming to the conclusion that a hell of a lot of people in education, for whom reading KCSIE each year is a contractual requirement, don't bother.

The biggest issue is there are no consequences for safeguarding failures. Not until you get to the point of criminal acts. It makes a very tough atmosphere for the good teachers.

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:04

@Helleofabore

How is something that is so convincing to society at large that it should be blamed for an election result instead of a political party’s own strategies failing be so hard to document with examples? Surely to be so powerful, those communications would be persistent and not immediately removed. Because them being removed quickly means they don’t achieve the very reach they are being said to achieve. They are also not then being shared around.
Thank you for putting so much thought into this. Remember, we are talking about troll farms here - bots that proliferate information like popcorn. A message isn’t sent out once, but thousands of times. To return to the image I attached earlier, the stages just one inauthentic post goes through after being posted means it can be seen by millions, dependent of platform. Even if it deleted at the platform end a few hours after posting, it could still exist on users’ computers. It still does achieve considerable reach.

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:05

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 09:55

Switch on Al-Jazeera for an alternative world view. No need for bots with that.

I have a British Algerian friend who makes a point of reading/watching it over and above the BBC.

Why? Well see my point about trust and state level use of spin undermining principles of democracy.

I find it frustrating to purely blame bots.

I never purely blamed bots.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 15/11/2024 10:06

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:04

@Helleofabore

How is something that is so convincing to society at large that it should be blamed for an election result instead of a political party’s own strategies failing be so hard to document with examples? Surely to be so powerful, those communications would be persistent and not immediately removed. Because them being removed quickly means they don’t achieve the very reach they are being said to achieve. They are also not then being shared around.
Thank you for putting so much thought into this. Remember, we are talking about troll farms here - bots that proliferate information like popcorn. A message isn’t sent out once, but thousands of times. To return to the image I attached earlier, the stages just one inauthentic post goes through after being posted means it can be seen by millions, dependent of platform. Even if it deleted at the platform end a few hours after posting, it could still exist on users’ computers. It still does achieve considerable reach.

What is it that you think bots are saying to voters about gender issues which is untrue?

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 15/11/2024 10:11

Sorry safeguarding is a bit off topic but also not really. As Red says, safeguarding clashes with gender ideology in the real world very clearly on several fronts. This harms kids. Voters care about their kids and aren't stupid. It's obvious. The Dem strategy on this I think shows that those high up in Dem politics don't have a lot to do with children.

An example I can think of where bots amplified an untruth was the gazillions of click bait articles, memes etc that said JKR was 'transphobic' whilst not repeating any of the considered and carefully worded statement she actually wrote. The number of people who repeated this as fact to me who hadn't read what she'd written was astonishing.
I had to revise my opinion of a lot of people's intelligence downward quite significantly.

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 10:14

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:05

I never purely blamed bots.

So why are you saying we are being 'dismissive'.

Sorry but we are saying you really can't use bots as an excuse to hide behind which you are.

Bots only can amplify what is already there. And crucially you don't fight disinformation by telling everyone they are wrong when they identify a trans woman as male.

You only serve to act to amplify the effects of any bots there are when you tell falsehoods of that scale.

The way to deal with bots is the telling the truth a d to deal with problems head on. Two skills which seem to be evading far to many western politicians who claim to be acting in the best interests of those they are supposed to be representing....

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 10:15

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 15/11/2024 10:11

Sorry safeguarding is a bit off topic but also not really. As Red says, safeguarding clashes with gender ideology in the real world very clearly on several fronts. This harms kids. Voters care about their kids and aren't stupid. It's obvious. The Dem strategy on this I think shows that those high up in Dem politics don't have a lot to do with children.

An example I can think of where bots amplified an untruth was the gazillions of click bait articles, memes etc that said JKR was 'transphobic' whilst not repeating any of the considered and carefully worded statement she actually wrote. The number of people who repeated this as fact to me who hadn't read what she'd written was astonishing.
I had to revise my opinion of a lot of people's intelligence downward quite significantly.

Why do you think Trump talked about Harris the Cat Lady.

It was awful and sexist but it cut through too.

lcakethereforeIam · 15/11/2024 10:19

I'm still wondering how bots and trollfarms are manufacturing the numerous real world examples that we've seen of gender ideology in action. Although, if someone told me Starmer spluttering about women with penises was actually the Starmbot24, well that I could believe.

I've been updated and these are the five stages of grief, according to Wikipedia. Other sources claim up to seven, I like, for the purposes of this thread, to believe one is interpretive dance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivestagesofgrief

The Democrats do seem to be stuck on denial, as it relates to why they lost.

Five stages of grief - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

NecessaryScene · 15/11/2024 10:27

Your posts really are offensive because you are assuming you are all knowing and we are being misled.

Which is ironic, because so many "bots" claims have been debunked. There is a whole industry that's sprung up in locating "bots", and producing bogus reports. They're very very reluctant to actually divulge their data, because whenever they do, a huge number of their "bots" turn out to be real.

I've seen at least one comedy report where a reporter did manage to - after much effort - get a list of claimed Twitter "Russian bots" that had justified some alarmist headline, and he managed to find all the real Americans behind the first 10 on the list.

Obviously there is a lot of money to be made in claims that you are able to locate invisible threats and deal with them. There are lots of people gullible enough to pay money for that.

Helleofabore · 15/11/2024 10:32

Lost the quote so will repost

IdylicDay · 15/11/2024 10:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Helleofabore · 15/11/2024 10:35

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:04

@Helleofabore

How is something that is so convincing to society at large that it should be blamed for an election result instead of a political party’s own strategies failing be so hard to document with examples? Surely to be so powerful, those communications would be persistent and not immediately removed. Because them being removed quickly means they don’t achieve the very reach they are being said to achieve. They are also not then being shared around.
Thank you for putting so much thought into this. Remember, we are talking about troll farms here - bots that proliferate information like popcorn. A message isn’t sent out once, but thousands of times. To return to the image I attached earlier, the stages just one inauthentic post goes through after being posted means it can be seen by millions, dependent of platform. Even if it deleted at the platform end a few hours after posting, it could still exist on users’ computers. It still does achieve considerable reach.

And if they have been out for hours, you should be able to find examples if they have been so powerful. Because there are very few articles or images that actually disappear from the internet without a trace.

And exposure alone doesn’t achieve conversion, in this case - awareness. That does require exposure and interaction. And it is those interactions that are powerful. And leave traces that don’t disappear.

To use your image, if these examples are always deleted how do you see these activities move from seeding to fertilise. In fact, due to the nature of social media, posters would notice that the things they are posting are either being deleted or are containing deleted links very quickly. This would cause someone to start questioning what is happening.

EasternStandard · 15/11/2024 10:37

EyeofOrion · 15/11/2024 10:04

@Helleofabore

How is something that is so convincing to society at large that it should be blamed for an election result instead of a political party’s own strategies failing be so hard to document with examples? Surely to be so powerful, those communications would be persistent and not immediately removed. Because them being removed quickly means they don’t achieve the very reach they are being said to achieve. They are also not then being shared around.
Thank you for putting so much thought into this. Remember, we are talking about troll farms here - bots that proliferate information like popcorn. A message isn’t sent out once, but thousands of times. To return to the image I attached earlier, the stages just one inauthentic post goes through after being posted means it can be seen by millions, dependent of platform. Even if it deleted at the platform end a few hours after posting, it could still exist on users’ computers. It still does achieve considerable reach.

What are you saying exactly about women talking about gender ideology?

That we are misled or should stop or what?

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 10:45

The same argument is made about the pressure. That newspaper articles are designed to manipulate and control the public by an a higher power.

The trouble is newspapers are run by people who also get power from money and unless they get an income their empire collapses. They can't maintain sales unless what they publish ultimately reflects public interest and opinion. Otherwise people tune out and turn off. It has to hit a concern or interest of them.

It is therefore a symbiotic relationship.

Understanding this is crucial.

The same applies to social media but to a heightened effect.

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 15/11/2024 10:49

RedToothBrush · 15/11/2024 10:15

Why do you think Trump talked about Harris the Cat Lady.

It was awful and sexist but it cut through too.

I hadn't realised that one of the positive things Trump did last time was apparently tax breaks on childcare and tax breaks for people looking after their own kids. I haven't done due diligence on this - think it was mentioned on Americast or might have been another podcast. If true, the 'pro family' position is not just on gender ideology.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.