Why do people believe TWAW?

[hurdigurdi]

I’ve been making a list (because I like lists) but also have been trying my hardest to see the other side of the argument, as I think that’s the best way to see if an argument stands up. I have to admit it’s extremely hard to do because after you have peaked, it is very difficult to imagine being unpeaked.

Anyhow, here is my list of reasons people MAY believe TWAW (or indeed TMAM) and feel free to correct or add to it:

Why do people think TWAW?
“Be kind” and “live and let live” mentality
Group think & lack of critical thinking
Brainwashing
Fear of being cancelled/shamed/confronted/assaulted/losing job or career
Lack of knowledge of basic biology, sexual reproduction and DSDs
Ignorance of the physical differences between men and women (height, strength, lung capacity, heart size, arm span, foot and hand size, pelvis shape and function, sex organs, gait, Adam’s apple etc)
Have never met a detrans person or heard their story
Have never seen the harm gender ‘affirming’ surgery has done (botched neovagina, phalloplasty, mastectomy)
Does not know the risks and effects of taking opposite sex hormones on the body long term
Have never been assaulted by a male or a TIM
Have never competed against a male or a TIM in sports
Have never been in prison with a TIM
Internalised homophobia
Feelings of inadequacy as a man
Autism
Over consumption of porn
Inability to admit being wrong
Have facilitated the transing of a child (and therefore almost impossible to admit any harm has been caused)
Trauma or loss (especially of a mother or intimate partner)

I don’t know whether we’ve had this one already but this is the one I always hear (particularly from transwomen):

”TWAW because it says ‘female’ on their passport, driving licence and birth certificate”.

I still can’t believe the law allows people to change a biological fact on their official documents (and even to have birth certificates reissued with this false information).

Back in the early 90s my mum was taking an introductory psychology course at the university, and that is precisely what the textbook said about transexuals.

It's still fairly common to talk to people who believe in this kind of theory, particularly those who aren't really exposed much to queer theory settings.

The fact that medical authorities support this stuff also plays into that, because they believe that means it's a medically defined disorder with good evidence.

I can recommend this book. It interweaves the central story with broader 20th century trans history, and really helped me understand the author's POV. That a trans person is not someone whose gender identity is incongruent with their sex, but someone whose sex is incongruent with their body (the gender identity is merely the evidence).

This is why they can't countenance the SSEs ever being used.

I read it not knowing the author was trans so I was genuinely in suspense throughout as to the truth (spoiler alert: clearly, Forbes was a lesbian who took T once it became available in the 30s, and perjured herself in court in order not to invalidate her marriage). It's a bit wordy, but I'd still recommend it if you're a fast reader.

I still can’t believe the law allows people to change a biological fact on their official documents (and even to have birth certificates reissued with this false information).

I wholeheartedly agree. What is the point of keeping public records if some of them are easily falsified?

It would be a crime to travel on a false passport, but a false birth certificate is OK if the man identifying as a woman says it should be?

I also find this mind blowing. I cannot fathom that we live in a world where people can have a 'legal sex' that's different to their biological one. It's like the worst of Orwellian, anti-science impulse.

Why not just add a gender marker on the birth cert for anyone who feels strongly enough to want one?

Mommy issues

I agree. ‘Legal fiction’ is just a falsehood and I am surprised that something so fundamental can be falsified in this way. Whoever it was that convinced the very first government to allow this must have used some powerfully emotive argument. And once one government did it, others felt the precedence was set so they reject this policy change.

Its madness, its also begs the question 'what did the government think was going to happen?

They gave men female birth certificates, didnt really publicise it, wrote confusing laws and just waited to see what the reaction would be.

Then politicians talked about legal sex as if everyone knew what was going on and sex and gender being different, but also interchangeable.

They gave men female birth certificates because men wanted them. Same sex marriage would have solved the problem that giving men female birth certificates was allegedly trying to solve, but they decided that wasn't an option at the time for some unspecified reason.

It reminds me of NC at the Peggie tribunal when she talked about immersive role play. The men who do this are insistent that there cannot be any limits to their role play, up to and including their legal identity.

Trouble is the gender recognition Bill came in 10 years before same sex marriage.

The issue I have with those that say "School indoctrination", is that it is blaming schools for continuing to follow the guidance of what was once a reputable organisation that was backed by the government.

As for

• "Popular teacher gets cross if you don’t agree"

The only pupils that are likely to see the teachers that back this rubbish as popular are those that have already drunk the kool aid.

Yes I know that, I'm not sure what your point is?

Same sex marriage would have solved the problem that the GRC claimed to be solving - that two men couldn't have a legally recognised marriage (including when one of them was pretending to be female).

We didn't need the GRA. Same sex marriage would have done the same job and helped many more people.

Instead of bringing in same sex marriage, the government gave us the GRA instead. Now two men can have a legally recognised marriage if one of them is pretending to be female. This came about after the Ashley/Corbett case. If you read about Corbett it is apparent that the 'pretending to be female' part was key to his infatuation with Ashley, who he met in a sex club in Paris that catered to men who were intested in pretending to be women for erotic purposes.

What the GRA did was to allow these men to live out their erotic role play at the register office and beyond.

That's very unfair to online trolls.

I could say plenty of nasty things about Sargon of Akkad, but at least he can express himself lucidly.

Is he still alive? 😵‍💫

The falsification of birth certificates is a huge scandal and should never have been allowed. I know the birth cert is sometimes used for ID purposes, but it's fundamentally a public record that outlives the person it describes.

I feel quite strongly about this because I do a lot of genealogy, and dealing with Irish records is enough to make anyone impatient with gaps in record keeping.

That's a problem that's only going to get worse. On the genealogy subreddits you already find American wokelords who insist that people are recorded by gender identity rather than sex. Those falsified birth certs are going to be a nightmare for descendants trying to figure out where they came from.

Trouble is the gender recognition Bill came in 10 years before same sex marriage.

But only a few months before civil partnerships.

And sadly, this is the thing about the destabilisation of science.

The same people who would say you cannot change your reality of the date you were born, think that using pseudoscientific theories that cannot withstand even a poke of logic and scrutiny is ok to say sex is not a matter of material reality.

It is falsification that has been allowed due to philosophical beliefs. Likely due to the past attempts of saying ‘there must be some genetic or psychological basis’. Well, there has been none found with extensive looking. And while it was once considered a psychologically/ neurologically based condition, we are told it is no longer to be considered such.

Yet we have this situation where one group of people with identities that are not based in reality has all these accommodations made by society, and any other identity that is not based in reality is rejected. In decades to come, this era is going to be seen as significant. But I suspect not the way that the activists want it to be seen. I suspect that history will look back on this era as a warning for the future on how groups can emotionally manipulate society on an integral level. And just how susceptible society still is to this kind of manipulation.

A be-kind on another site got very cross with me when I said the people who get all starry-eyed about this reminded me of the 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me' clip from Cabaret, but they did, and still do. The only thing is, now, a few years on, the poor old battle-veterans who see the danger are realising that we are not the only ones.

duckduckgo.com/?q=+%27Tomorrow+Belongs+To+Me%27++clip+from+Cabaret%2C&t=newext&atb=v378-1&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_tUctFu46_c

We see the same thing though with children born to same sex couples using surrogates and donor gametes, people want the birth certificate to be recorded as the married couple, which we all know is a complete falsification. And the reasoning is the same, it's to validate the parents.

There seems to be a larger social trend toward making reality "fair" by using legal fictions.

I personally have long held the view that women shouldn't be so actively encouraged towards things like make up and skincare ...

The Feminine Mystique should be compulsory reading for teenage girls.

The modern version of what Betty told is about is living large on Instagram, with all the endless reels on how to do a very simple task (washing your hair) 'properly' by complicating it with extra unnecessary products so it takes an hour.

It's all a bit fucking weird, isn't it.

And I don't think anyone (apart from the truly credulous) actually believe TWAW. Because it's nonsense.

And I no longer have any time at all for people who 'haven't really thought about it' or declare that 'no-one is getting hurt or affected by it'. There's so much evidence, so much discussion, so much publicity about the harms to women and girls that at this point, they're making an active decision to stick their fingers in their ears and hum a be kind song.