Matt Walsh thinks gender ideology has now been defeated in the USA - is he right?

[bluefingertips]

Basically he thinks that making congress bathrooms single sex is a sign that the debate has been won. That Senators are now prepared to speak out on this issue in a way they wouldn't have three years ago.

He thinks the argument have been won and its just a matter of hoovering out the last remains of GI from other institutions in the USA.

Do you think he is right and if so, will this have a ripple affect elsewhere in the world?

Sorry, to clarify, I mean on this one particular issue.

I also don't think it's very convincing for the left to play the 'but we're more kind and accepting' card as an excuse as to why they supported this.

Because obviously the kindness and acceptance were directed in a very targeted way and did not include the women who are the victims in this.

Why did their kindness fail to encompass women prisoners and abuse victims for example?

I think what we're seeing here is what happens when a group of people assume moral superiority without any robust moral framework to base their judgements on. And then protect their position via intense tribalism and protection of their echo chambers.

Fair enough.

The majority of my conversations (and I've had a fair few in different places, including beyond friends and family, e.g. in education and health stuff) seem to centre on their desire to respect people's belief that it's possible to be born in the wrong body because they either already believe (or are agnostic to the idea) that everyone has a gender identity.

A fair amount of the conversation that I had yesterday was exploring this. How it's possible to respect the fact that someone believes this without needing to hold the belief yourself (or indeed without needing to have any "respect" for the substance of the belief itself). I liken it to my atheism in these conversations, where I respect the fact that people believe in god but by definition (as an atheist), I clearly think it's a load of bollocks. Obviously I don't need to say that normally though because Christians aren't forcing me to accept the tenets of their belief as facts. Nor do I tend to phrase it like that when I talk about it: it's easy for both me and whoever I'm talking to to know that this is exactly what I mean. Occasionally I do say it like that but only in informal conversations.

It's also what was at the nub of my conversations with my children's school over the last 18 months. Sadly I've hit the wall on the school stuff, but some good has already come from it. I'm in the inevitable choppy waters now (I was always going to get there at some point, given how painfully slowly things are moving in relation to the support my daughter needs to protect her) but still feeling optimistic on the whole. Partly because it now feels like I've got many "allies" who have taken the time to listen and think critically about the issue from different angles - with my daughter's autism-related puberty distress as a central lens through which to view it.

Disclaimer: obviously there are lots of different ways to engage in this. I'm not saying I've got the right answer or that anyone else's approval is wrong. I'm just sharing my own experience.

or that anyone else's approval is wrong. I'm just sharing my own experience.

Typo correction that I missed: or that anyone else's approach is wrong.

Ultimately this comes down to respecting everyone's experience of material reality.

Personally, I have no problem with 'gender'. If a man feels that they are in some metaphysical way a woman, then, then I may personally think that's nonsense, but I have no issue with them believing that of themselves.

So long as they also acknowledge that how others experience them is unaffected by this. To everyone else, they are a man (because that is biological reality). A female rape victim or abuse victim will react to them as they will react to any other man.

So respect for how they 'feel' is fine, so long as respect for reality goes along with that.

Fully agree.

And it's even better if the person who wants to Be Kind is already aware of what autogynophilia is. Unfortunately most aren't, so I mostly avoid this subject and focus on other impacts of the enforced belief e.g. women's sports. Several of the conversations with friends and family are still ongoing... and eventually autogynophilia pops up in the discussion.

I think what we're seeing here is what happens when a group of people assume moral superiority without any robust moral framework to base their judgements on. And then protect their position via intense tribalism and protection of their echo chambers

I agree.

The Left, and I think even more so in USA, also have a strong sense of their own intellectual superiority. I think it has become increasingly hard for them to convince others that they are smart and evidence based purveyors of truth when they support GI. I can think of no greater ' 'alternative fact' or 'misinformation' than saying men are literally women, and must be treated as such in all and every situation.

Absolutely agree that this changes the conversation but seems to be something the individual needs to find out for themselves.

👏👏👍

Sorry @TheKeatingFive I missed that post. Yep I fully agree too.

And with what you say here @bluefingertips

As a lefty who was quite happy to accept the idea that TWAW, I've been on quite the journey of discovery. I remember the deep sense of shame I felt when I read a Daily Mail article about the overreach of gender identity belief (they've done some great investigative journalism - as many people who are "brave" enough to read it will already know) and thought it was good... which then expanded in to wide-eyed wonder as I discovered a whole new world of mainstream media beyond my Guardian and BBC boundaries. There aren't many positives from this shitshow (and by shit show I mean enforced belief, stifling of free speech and a medical scandal that's swallowing up children and vulnerable young people)... but on a personal note, my critical thinking skills have had a good dusting off and I've forgiven myself for my previous ignorance. Thankfully, I don't think I ever subscribed to the moral superiority idea because it's always been the kind of thing that pisses me off intensely. I'm proud of my state school education and of being one of "those people" with a regional accent. Ha!

To add:

My previous (and largely still current, except for this subject) disdain of the Daily Mail is related to its sensationalist style and its seeming need to whip up anger. Plus I couldn't care less about celebrity real life stories and lots of other stuff they like to write about.

I think most of us have been on this journey.

I am embarrassed to admit now, but 3/4 years ago i remember jumping in on a thread to say that it was silly to deny MN was transphobic because it obviously was (😳).

Ive been trying to remember the exact circumstances of my peaking, but it can be hard to pin down the specifics. I was already well on my way, but the Mridul Wadhwa / Edinburgh Rape Crisis story turned me into a full on, all guns blazing TERF.

The callousness of his comments to raped women - it brought it home to me how virulently anti women this movement truly is.

TBF it is transphobic if the definition of transphobia includes any deviation from the enforced belief.

Where any refusal to accept that TWAW is seen as a denial of the existence of trans people etc.

But back in the real world, that's just the equivalent of the blasphemous statement that "god isn't real".

Nobody is denying the existence of anyone simply because they don't hold the same belief. People who believe that everyone has a gender identity and that theirs is different from their sex (aka trans people) obviously exist. For balance, people who believe in god (aka Christians) also exist 😁

It's entirely feasible that a believer would experience it as transphobia/blasphemy I guess. But that doesn't make it objectively so. If it turns in to harassment (e.g. repeatedly telling someone they're delusional for their belief in gender identity/god) then maybe so, but that doesn't happen here.

When I first started exploring my thoughts on all of this properly on Mumsnet, asking lots of questions on lots of threads I asked quite a few times if what I was saying was transphobic. Nobody ever said it was but fast forward to when I was saying the same stuff on X and apparently it very much was. FFS. Oh, and obviously I was a nazi, a bigot, a fascist... and on one occasion, apparently a paedophile 😂🤦‍♀️ That one was because I supported the idea (before this became reality) of a UK ban on puberty blockers, owing to their unknown impact on brain development i.e. the fact that they are a medical experiment on vulnerable children who are likely to have underlying issues that need unpicking. Apparently my "desire" and "need" to force children through puberty meant I was focused on them sexually. Erm.

And yes, Mridul Wadhwa's comments about women and rape were quite the eye opener.

it brought it home to me how virulently anti women this movement truly is

It really, really is. The entire movement is based on eroding women's boundaries to benefit men. We are told to accept this as it is 'only a small number of men.' So all women need to have their boundaries eroded to benefit a small number of men. Yep. Virulently anti-women accurately describes this movement.

@NotBadConsidering

No, but you defended the person who did. The post you replied to was someone who did not take kindly to drive by scolding, you criticised Igmum for not being able to tolerate “a bit of balance” but that “bit of balance” was a poster linking Nazis.

So maybe go back and RTFT and then decide if your criticism of Igmum’s post about “different opinions” and “a little bit of balance” still works.

I've read the entire thread, thanks.

I've also read enough outbursts just like Igmum's to know it is a general, often-used complaint, and in fact, she didn't mention "Nazis" in the post I replied to.

IME a lot of the people you describe don't only think of their own tribe as "the people who are committed to being kind and good."

They also believe that the other tribe is committed to being bad, and selfish.

And additionally, they have an assumption that what is good must also be true.

This leaves them with little flexibility in their thinking.

The reality is that most people who are right wing also think it's important to be kind and help people and for society to work well for all. They just don't always agree about the best way to accomplish that, even among themselves. And a lot of the time they understand that many left wing people also want to do what is right, even if they think their politics are wrong.

So there is room for argument about what the best thing to do is, both in terms of goals, and getting to those goals.

If your instinct when you have a political disagreement is to assume the person is either bad, or deeply ignorant, there's no room for flexibility.

People find it too weird to comprehend. Especially women.

America needs to know who the women are, to be able to oppress them and control their uteruses.

But if you’ve read the thread, you would know that the progression of the thread, and Igmum’s post, was in response to someone coming along and posting Nazi links. Now you’re calling Igmum’s post an “outburst”? How telling. Igmum’s post was in response to a drive by scolding involving linking to Nazis and you chipped in, describing that as a general “outburst” against mythical posters who provide “a bit of balance”.

The possibilities are:
a) you think linking Nazis is “a bit of balance”
b) you don’t think that and you can admit you got it wrong in this specific instance or
c) you’ve spied, missing the irony, an opportunity to provide your own drive by scolding based on “general outbursts”.

I think it’s clearly c). You just wanted to stick the boot in, and it didn’t matter to you that the “balance” you missed was linking Nazis. The irony is off the scale.

It's not really a political left/right wing divide. Up till a few years ago, it was virtually impossible to see any difference in left and right trans policies, in the US or here. It's possible to get to twaw and twanw from both a left and right wing perspective.

I think its a 'believe authority' thing. If people believe that the government laws are generally sound, they have had work base training, or trust stonewall or the bbc in their trans people are the most marginalised narrative, they are going to believe TWAW without giving it a second thought, or even looking into it.

Its only when really barmy things occur that people have any reason to question. And even then, they rationalise it by saying, well of course this person shouldnt be in the women prison, but tw have to use the womens toilets to keep them safe. They trust government/employers/charities to write policies that make sense, and assume its an unintentionally loophole rather than a bonkers law in the first place.

Some people are so loyal to a party it effects their outlook, but most people arent, and they are just more trusting of authority, until they are affected by it.

If the government were to repeal the GRA, and trans inclusive talks were stopped in the workplace, i doubt most people would notice or take to the streets. Because they trust the government to have made the correct decision.

@NotBadConsidering

*But if you’ve read the thread, you would know that the progression of the thread, and Igmum’s post, was in response to someone coming along and posting Nazi links. Now you’re calling Igmum’s post an “outburst”? How telling. Igmum’s post was in response to a drive by scolding involving linking to Nazis and you chipped in, describing that as a general “outburst” against mythical posters who provide “a bit of balance”.

The possibilities are:
a) you think linking Nazis is “a bit of balance”
b) you don’t think that and you can admit you got it wrong in this specific instance or
c) you’ve spied, missing the irony, an opportunity to provide your own drive by scolding based on “general outbursts”.

I think it’s clearly c). You just wanted to stick the boot in, and it didn’t matter to you that the “balance” you missed was linking Nazis. The irony is off the scale.*

Are you okay?

Are you okay?

Yes. HTH.

It's not really a political left/right wing divide

Correct. Right wing people believe in individual freedom to express oneself, and left wing people support the rights of minorities, so it appeals to both.

People on both sides become dismayed when they realise that that freedom and those rights encroach on the freedoms and rights of others (particularly women) and that in fact they facilitate criminals and predators in their behaviour.
That’s when the wheels start to fall off, except for those who for some reason think that women don’t matter, or somehow deserve to suffer whatever inconvenience or indignity that results.

That’s when the wheels start to fall off, except for those who for some reason think that women don’t matter, or somehow deserve to suffer whatever inconvenience or indignity that results.

It's because so many people think women's primary role is to care for others ahead of ourselves. We're everyones mums, basically.