To what extent are we allowed to discuss parallels between cults and gender ideology?

[WitchyWitcherson]

Although harrowing and upsetting, I find cult documentaries fascinating. There are a couple that stand out to me as having really strong parallels to gender ideological beliefs.

Notably (on Netflix if anyone else wants to watch them!):

• Docs on Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) such as Keep Sweet. The phrase and purpose of "Keep Sweet" as used by the Jeffs patriarchs has a lot of similarities with the "Be Kind" narrative that has been peddled to keep people from questioning things.
• The Programme: Cons, Cults and Kidnappings - Episode 2 in particular on vulnerability of desperate parents to looking for easy solutions, then subsequent denial/minimisation of the damages done to their children.
• Twin Flames: They coerce people into medical transition because of a belief in a male or female spirit.

Anyway, these parallels to me are stark, but over the years I've noticed post deletions where people describe gender ideology as cult-like (incidentally in the "The Programme" doc, there was an online forum for parents with kids in the 'school' that deleted all posts criticising the programme...! Talk about more parallels...). So I ask... to what extent are we allowed to discuss these parallels without posts being deleted?

To caveat: I understand not all trans-identified people have homogenous beliefs on sex and gender, and I'm not saying all trans-identified people are part of some cult conspiracy, just that there are aspects to gender ideology and some of the people who are proponents of said ideology adhering to similar behaviours to people who are within cults (shutting down discussion, holding onto beliefs in the face of clear facts and harms, claiming special/"other" status, offering a solution to people's suffering etc. etc.).

It fascinates me how people can be persuaded to cut off their families and show unquestioning belief in their leader's pronouncements. Defeats are presented as victories and the great victory is always just round the corner once they've defeated the Satanic figure.

Is there a cult of Tunnocks tea cakes? I'm asking because during the Sandie Peggie case they were discussed quite a lot and I took some on a picnic, saw someone I hadn't seen for ages, and she immediately spotted them and said 'Oh, you're one of us...' I thought it was so much nicer than carrying a rolled up copy of the Times like spies were once meant to.

Defeats are presented as victories and the great victory is always just round the corner

Certainly sums up the GLO

The issue is that for some people in difficult positions, belonging to such a group may cost them a lot (eg body parts, money, family ties etc) but they get a lot out of the movement and maybe they do feel better. There are Scientologists who say that giving all their wealth was the best thing they did… It’s just tgat those are individuals and it won’t scale up to big national levels because outside the Local Bubble there are too many non believers who keep ruining the mirage

The insistence on controlling language is a cult practice, 'assigned at birth', 'cis', 'preferred pronouns' it's all sounds like doctrine, which is a cultish practice (religions to, but I think religions are cult's as well).

The focus on schools and indoctrinating children.
The emotional blackmail to get their way.
The threats to anyone who objects.
It all sounds like people who have been programmed to think in a certain way, which is definitely cultish.

I Googled "What is a cult?" & found this article with an interesting check list on how to spot a cult. Genderism lacks a single leader but all the other points are spot on confirming it's a cult.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling that they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cult-5078234

Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget

Excellent point

1. Followers feeling that they are never able to be “good enough”

e.g. the many sad postings on https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/ from members of the cult bemoaning how they will never pass because they are too big, too tall, etc

😄that's funny!

And supporters being thrown to the wolves because they are insufficiently supportive. There is no way of keeping yourself safe, even with full prostration to the cause. Someone can always find a reason to hang you out to dry.

False Prophet on Netflix and Twisted Yoga on Apple tv are 2 good examples of how 2 very different ideas ended up with vulnerable women and children making online porn. The power of some individuals and the groups which spring up around them is scary and there is a direct link to weakened safeguarding rules. Which has lots of parallels.

My PhD research studied the exit narratives of former cult members (what are also called "total institutions" in that people who join them have invested their entire life in them and believe that they will remain in them for life, that “this is IT”).

Some of the parallels that I can see between my research and the current trans movement are:

• Most hold world transformational views; In addition to a sense that the members of these total institutions were saving the world, they also felt they “were preparing something new and [. . .] dazzling” (Ayers 2001, 71), revisioning how society would work in the future.
• In the 1960s development, most members were “white, middle class, and of college age” 10 (Jacobs 1987; Roszak 1969); members of 1960s/1970s alternative movements were drawn principally from “the educated, privileged children of the American dream, who found their society flawed and failing” (Daner 1976, 7)
• Members of total institutions were usually dependent on the institution for their friendships.
• Adaptation to the total institutional norms generally involved a process of change. Often members were asked to renounce their personal possessions and/or alter their appearances, in order to become divested of the “identity kit” (Goffman 1961, 20) they had within the norms of the “outside” society.
• Members often adopted new names
• Members used an in-group language; the use of in-group jargon reinforces group identity, allowing members to feel “privy to momentous revelations” (Levine 1984, 89) or otherwise “in the know”.
• Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Busching 1988; Johnson 2005)
• All members of total institutions – men and women alike – adhered to common ideological norms concerning behaviour. Women, however, were disproportionately marginalised in these organisations, with control over many aspects of their lives “abdicated” to male authority (Jacobs 1984, 166). This made for a very unequal exchange in terms of who had power and what status was accorded various members in these total institutions.

The things that are generally present in “cults” but not necessarily (at least on my reading of it) present in the trans movement are:

• Members usually lived communally
• Total institutions typically have a strong authoritarian structure, generally with a charismatic leader at the top, a middle-level group directly responsible to the leader, and a larger membership of low-status “ordinary” followers. Thus, information and power flowed from the top downwards; the immediate authorities controlled the day-to-day activities of members, engaging them in full-time organisational tasks (Goffman 1961; Daner 1976; Bromley 1991a; Jacobs 1987, 1984; Bromley and Shupe 1980; Eister 1972).
• each total institution would have a set of rules that members agreed to obey (Fuller and Martin 2003)
• Members of total institutions were usually dependent on the institution for their livelihood
• Authorities typically restricted members’ participation in conventional social institutions to only those activities that were deemed absolutely necessary (Bromley and Shupe 1980; Bucher 1983).
• most of these institutions were evangelistic, necessitating the memoirists living in several different places across their institutions; Some of these total institutions kept dyadic partners separated, by engaging them in organisational fundraising and recruitment activities to such an extent that little time was left for the relationship. This both weakened the non-institutional nature of the relationships, and ensured that institutional goals took precedence over anything else (Wright 1986).
• A common feature in total institutions is the need to control exclusive relationships, with various prohibitions against emotional intimacy, and how controls over exclusive bonds of dyadic relationships are implemented by those in authority. This is a group self-protective measure, lest energies get drained away from institutional obligations (Wright 1986; Simmel 1950; Slater 1963; Kanter 1968, 1973b).

They definitely have been banned for it.

The people who can't see it are the willfully blind

Um... Needs context. Who is, or who are?

Oh absolutely: all the ones who are too "emotional" about the subject. If people could be less emotional then everything would be clear to them.

Too much heat, not enough light. People just need to calm down. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's an emotive issue, for both sides. Everyone just needs to take a step back. We all need to get along. Etc.

"Most had a patriarchal hierarchy that accorded men higher status than women; men’s sense of power was given a boost if the organisation’s patriarchal ideology supported male privilege, giving them permission to be obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women (Bromley and Buschi)"

How is this present in the trans movement if we are expected to accept both trans men and women as their chosen identity?

Yes emotion can blind you to rationality.

It's not 'trans' IDing women who are pissing on statues in protest against women who say no, threatening dissenting women with 'splintered rolling pins', demanding access to women's spaces. It's 'trans' IDing men who are obsessed with control and oppressive in their treatment of women.

That's such a boring trope though, isn't it? If you're emotional you're not rational so your strong feelings can be ignored. Hysterical women and all that.

Find me the rationality in believing a man becomes a woman because he says so. Maybe the search for logic and reason should begin there.

Has anyone got a link to that odious piece from the 70's which talks about 'gennies' and how men pretending to be women are superior to them?

No it doesnt mean that emotion always blinds you to rationality. This why reading and understanding words is so important in discussions. I said it can. "Can" means that there is the potential for something to occur, but it doesn't mean it will always occur.

Learning to communicate about things that you feel emotional about without letting that emotion lead your interactions is a skill one learns with practice. You have to understand why it is important and keep company who insist on those standards for it to be a priority for you though.

So youre talking about the 70s? 50 odd years ago?
What is a Gennie?

Contemporary 'progressive' politics constitute a form of ideological group think. I'd say. There is a high degree of uniformity of perspective across a range of issues ( which form what is now referred to as the 'omnicause').The american university campus originated theories, namely 'Intersectionalism', 'Queer Theory' and 'Critical Race Theory' form the foundations of this contemporary type of group think.

Group Think perpetuates itself through use of mantras and slogans which are repeated endlessly in order to embed the message. Think of the Labour party just a few years ago with the repetition of the mantras 'TWAW' and 'No Debate' - and those demonstrations we have become accustomed to seeing in which one person chants a message/slogan/mantra and then the assembled crowd repeats it over and over. Repetition acts as a form of brainwashing and thought control.

Furthermore, members of the group:

• Believe in Inherent Morality: The group ignores the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions, believing their cause is righteous.
• Rationalization: Members collectively discount warnings or negative feedback or alternative perspectives that might challenge their assumptions, convincing themselves their decision is correct.
• Direct Pressure on Dissenters: Members are pressured not to express arguments against the group's view, often portrayed as disloyalty.
• Self-Censorship: Individuals suppress their own doubts or counterarguments.
• Illusion of Unanimity: The silence of members and refusal to critique is interpreted as agreement, creating a false sense of complete consensus.

In all tight knit groups, whether they be religious or political, a high degree of conformity tends to follow, as people prioritise belonging and the feelings of emotional and social security that conformity brings. Doubts, questions,alternative readings are suppressed.

Can I just establish... are you anti CRT? Intersectionalism was originally about understanding that White Feminism isn't helpful or relevant, but is harmful to many non-white women. Is this something you contradict or oppose?