TRA Trolls - can we just say NO?

[BlueEyedBogWitch]

A full thread of NO’s might be more powerful than trying to reason with someone who is not interested in reason.

Just one ‘NO’ each, until they get bored and go away. Every time.

After all, it sums up our arguments very succinctly.

Speaking as a relative newbie it wasnt easy to spot the troll posts. My uninformed view sometimes overlapped with some comments. So “no” would have been off putting. The interrupteron pics work better to highlight the silliness imo

I used to use social media a lot more than I do now and the tension between ignoring and not ignoring seems to come up across a lot of subjects. I don't think it is resolvable because although I swerve to the ignoring side I don't think anyone can really say who should and shouldn't be replying, and I do understand why posters reply.
It's useful to have it flagged up by The Unicorn, and I do think that during the tribunal threads it helps not to get sidetracked but otherwise I think it is ultimately up to the reader to scroll on by ior not.
Someitmes I do, and sometimes I don't.

Oh same. I've been called all of those (well except "plopper" lol).
I've also been called a misogynist (ad nauseam), homophobic, a male who "gets off" on making women uncomfortable, a trans woman (of course), an MRA, a penis-panderer, less than human, beyond all evil. These are just off the top of my head.

Solidary to you from another middle-aged woman, with 3 kids and a PhD.

xxx

Having a thread fill up with ‘no’ doesn’t provide people new to the issue the live demonstration on how points people are making play out. Obviously there are some very clear goading threads. Other times though, individual responses that are all different and coming from a wealth of different experiences and considerations provide those who are reading the thread different perspectives to help form their own opinions.

If we all replied the same way, FWR wouldn’t work as a discussion board and we dont get to see how different arguments worked through. I see value in watching how some minds work through the arguments. Even if I have seen it done so many times, if there is something new presented, I value taking that on board and working through it for myself.

Each to their own. If we all just said no, I reckon it wouldn’t work to stop them posting goady threads. Ignoring the thread doesn’t work because it hasn’t in the past. We are not a hive mind. If you need to ignore the thread, you should.

This is basically what I argued on another thread. With respect to GI vs. GC many people do have to see the same arguments presented in multiple ways before they 'click'. To me at least it wasn't immediately apparent that the two on this thread, for example, were trolls. So, I think that the threshold not to engage has to be higher than that a topic was already covered, but low enough that trolls aren't able to derail a discussion with 40 pages of stupidity. It seems not to be an easy balance to achieve.

I think that many of us cannot help responding to outright lies, emotive propaganda, misrepresentations and frequently debunked studies.

I suppose we know there are lurkers and cannot let things like that to go unchallenged, or disputed.

I agree with @Helleofabore . I have learnt loads from posters like her interacting with people who may or may not be trolls. I now take those argument out into the real world with lots of success. I couldn't articulate my thoughts well enough before.
I find I have become adept at reading a thread and just ignoring the obvious derails. It's a bit like ignoring the ads that come up while you are reading an online article. Also, I use the 'hide' option at the top of each thread to get rid of any that are obviously goady.

Although I agree with not filling a thread up with the word no, I can see why the op suggested it.

Because ultimately, the answer is bloody no. All backed up by the Supreme Court.

However, people feel very strongly about the issue, and it's unrealistic to expect them to ignore some of the spectacularly goady comments. Not to mention, as PP have said, the benefit of honing your own arguments in your head.

But as for 'discussion, dialogue and debate', Tandora, it's bloody ironic that the entire TRA schtick was no debate...until they lost.

I think it is powerful to have some or many posters say No.

And do it in their own personalised style.

I do wish there was an ignore poster button and in all honesty I would use it for the well meaning posters who get dragged in as well as for the visitors.

I love the knowledge & discussions on these boards, but I hide threads that descend to two people arguing back and forth.

Ideas spread in phases. If you use a model like the innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards one, the interrupters are the laggards. They are clinging on for their own, often personal, reasons and are unlikely to change their views because any of us here give them the time of day. I would prefer to put my time and energy into something more effective.

It's a bit like ignoring the ads that come up while you are reading an online article.

This made me smile, great description!

One of the things on my "must get round to" list is to compile a list of threads for each troll where they have previously engaged with whatever supposed-to-be-gotcha or hand-wringing-be-kindism they are trying to push. Then I can just link to that thread every time they try to restart the topic. If I feel super helpful I might also include a factual summary of thread with the link.

This kills three birds with one stone:

• Ensures any newcomers continue to see TRA gotchas being refuted.
• Avoids the derail
• Demonstrates the bad faith of the poster

Our trolls use TRA playbook arguments that newbies may have seen accepted unconditionally elsewhere. Newbies often come here thinking "But everyone knows some people can be born in the wrong body, why are these FWR feminists so mean?" FWR is the first time they'll see these "truths" that in other circles are just nodded along with have little real substance and do not stand up to logic and evidence so I think it is important that the false narratives continue to be shown up even if we've done it 100 times before.

Of course they'd say they are not trolls, they just "don't agree with the echo chamber". And indeed I am sure their beliefs are genuine. The thing that marks them as troll is not the sincerity of their beliefs, it is the groundhog day reset where every time they join/start a new thread they start from the same point regardless of how much they have have interacted with the opposing arguments in the past.

A genuine poster, once they know the opposing arguments, will reference them and dismiss them at the start because it makes their position even stronger. The fact that our resident trolls do not do this tells us everything we need to know about their good faith, or lack thereof. Hence the power of the links list.

I'll just need to wait for each one to start on their favourite hobbyhorse when I happen to have a bit of time to kill with advanced search. I'm sure I won't need to wait too long.

The thing that marks them as troll...is the groundhog day reset where every time they join/start a new thread they start from the same point regardless of how much they have have interacted with the opposing arguments in the past.

You've literally just described yourself and most of the other regular posters on this board.

I can see the point of view that it's important to lay out the arguments for people who might not have seen them before.

No Tandora I haven't.

I have interacted with you many many times. I have consistently asked you, even in the last week, to explain what this thing you call "trans" actually is and how it fits into various counter-arguments. All I get is either tumbleweed or groundhog day. At best I get "no, it's not that" but I never get what it is.

Indeed here's a recent post addressed specifically to you, on your own thread laying out various ways to think about "trans" based on what you yourself have said and asking you, specifically, to clarify what you mean and engage with these arguments.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420701-a-little-piece-of-insight?page=15&reply=147554941

This is literally the opposite of what you are claiming. It is literally me doing exactly what I said a good faith poster would do: "A genuine poster, once they know the opposing arguments, will reference them and dismiss them at the start because it makes their position even stronger"

So if you really are now ready to engage with my questions and arguments, frankly halle - fucking - lujah, just let me know and I'll start a new thread for it right now!

LOL.

What @Datun said.

I have consistently asked you, even in the last week, to explain what this thing you call "trans" actually is

Perfect example and demonstration of the point. I have done this repeatedly and at length. This is most of what I do when engaging on this topic - trying to explain and educate people about what being trans actually is. and yet here you are declaring its never been done!

Some are likely trolls, but some also seem to be earnest adherents to the trans ideological belief system. It's like having a queue of Jehovah's Witnesses endlessly banging on the door of one's atheist club demanding that their nonsense be listened to, at all hours, relentlessly, and without honestly engaging in any opposing arguments.

Hmmm. I thought guilt by association was a major transactivist tactic?

Those who post on a board of women and feminists advocating for the removal of women's rights shouldn't be surprised to get push back surely? And if your narratives include the wedging of men in to spaces where girls and women are undressing, arguing that sport for women doesn't really matter if sad men want women's places, cheerleading teaching children that changing sex is a great idea and dismissing the consequences of sterilisation, loss of sexual function and life long ill health for children and young people caught up in all this, then surely you must expect challenges about integrity, ethics and the lack of understanding of the need to safeguard vulnerable children?

At one time I just assumed that anyone espousing these views must be male. I'm now older and wiser and understand that there are women openly promoting these dangerous to the young beliefs.

It's very sad to see.

Exactly. Part of the strength of what is called the 'gc' movement is that everybody is so bloody thrawn people are able to.disagree and still mostly rub along.

That sounds rather an apt comparison eatfigs.

But the swerves, Tandora. Last time it was that you could answer, but wouldn't. A perfectly reasonable question.

Again: Why does a woman's trauma response to a man in her space not matter, but a transwoman's trauma to males in the men's spaces matter? Why do men's feelings matter more than women's?

Well. We all may not recognise a troll post. It came be frustrating, but if you approach it with reason and logic, it shouldn't matter too much overall.

Because they dont make sense. Trolls are about disruption, ad.homs, tribalism, smearing, and manipulation.

It's not a bad thing to learn to spot when people are using these tactics in an argument.

You just hold onto critical thinking and recognising and managing your own responses.

Ok. I do not believe you have. I think you have described symptoms but ducked out of any deeper analysis specifically because you cannot answer these questions.

But this is great! We now have something constructive to build on!

So we don't derail this important thread I've copied my post to this new one to carry on.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history

Really, genuinely looking forward to learning what you actually think trans is and why you believe that definition justifies the demands made in its name .