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.).

No doubt some TRAs think we are in a cult. Of course that would mean believing in reality and the truth is cult behaviour. If that's the case I'll accept I'm in a cult.

Blah blah, hitler, sky is blue etc etc.

believe me you really do not want to go down the route of who has the worst bedfellows. You will lose. Big style. We have lots of receipts.

Ooh, that's actually a good point, relating back to the inherent narcissism of GI.

Praise be to Tunnocks, <dances around in witchy circles>

@Boiledbeetle she is our leader praise be to boiled.

oh and @datun, and erm well lots of people really.

I always find it amusing when a question is asked and posters turn up to prove that asking that question was entirely justified.

We are allowed to discuss things (mostly because nobody can forbid it any more), but we have to wade through post after post of bollocks in the process.

(I use that word advisedly.)

Things have however moved on a little; it's no longer "I woman better than you do", it's "I feminist better than you do". Same ideas, though.

Debate is very much welcome. Plopping, no so much. If you have a thought-out point of view, let's hear it.

I have to say though that complaining about "bed fellows" and how people who don't agree with you have "dogma" - as if those are charges that couldn't be levelled at anyone in the TRA camp - isn't a strong start.

How about drop the judgey stuff and say what you think?

Yes they were.

However it was the way in which others approached it that was part of the problem.

I was posting about it and managed a) not to get deleted all the time (I got deleted very occasionally but not as a blanket rule) b) not getting banned when others were being. Even accounting for different mods it was just about possible.

I don't think I had a magic cloak and was a special case. It was a very contentious issue but it wasn't impossible to talk about. It was just very difficult and you had to tread a very fine line with it.

Look back and search if you want to. I know I was pushing the point when others wouldn't touch it out of fear.

I'm glad we have got past that point because it was awful. It wasn't fair but it wasn't totally off limits either with care.

You appear to have that backwards, given that your post that I am quoting is a refusal by you to debate.

The tithe for datun is cheese.

@cassandre see don't you see we disagree all the time.

Step one:
You're all horrid
Step two:
You won't centre the men
Step three:
I cba to explain why you should centre the men
Step four:
Flounce

Step five: someone opens a window.

Absolutely!! There have been many many instances (and still counting sadly) where people who want to openly discuss or debate this issue and the wider topic are shut down, punished, sacked, banned etc.

A high profile example, (apart from JKR) was the horrendous treatment of the late, wonderful Jenni Murray by Woman’s Hour of all institutions.

The bit I find ‘cult like’ about the proponents of gender ideology is that some of the true believers just can’t be swayed. It’s like they become impervious to fact or reason. The target of their sympathy and energies has been set and that’s the end of it. Some of these people clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Like Alan Cummings complaining recently that feminism isn’t sufficiently centring men with a trans identify. And the young lady interviewer just listened. I found that very sad.

It's ironic how all the responses so far are just reinforcing my point that on MN, trans-exclusionary feminists have a binary mindset: one based on dogma.
It's a view that's based in fact and law actually because sex is binary.

a rigid belief set and dogma, refusing to add nuance to concepts such as 'biology'
Biology isn't a concept it's science and it's not nuanced because it can't be changed just to suit an ideology. You need evidence to change science theory, not feelz.

I'm a transinclusive feminist and many years of seeing these MN threads have resulted in making me even more trans-friendly. I'm not going back to the cultish thinking of my childhood.

Feminism isn't inclusive, it's exclusive to the female of the spices, it's a single sex cause, it's the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.

I think it's possible you swapped one cult for another.

I wonder: is it possible that having been involved in one cult predisposes a person to be inclined to join or get involved in another? Is it in fact a frame of mind that is set early and persists, though with different cults during the victim's lifetime?

Just back from afternoon tasks, getting DD to bed and eating toast! Thanks everyone for some interesting thoughts! My thoughts on a couple of points;

• Lack of central leader: I guess in a way gender ideology is like a framework that people can use to enact culty behaviours then - so where religion is generally accepted as being generally benevolent to most followers, it's an easy framework for bad actors to exploit for gain (power/money/sex). I do feel that GI is a little different, maybe because it's a fairly new one and the harms are so great for those who go down a medical route, as well as how redefining "woman" to include TIM means women's rights are thrown out of the window.

• Gender critical feminism being a cult: I always knew JKR was our charismatic leader, and she took all my money through HP merch! Wait, that was before I "peaked" (aka reached a higher stage of enlightenment 😜) so I must have been in a HP cult, damn. Jokes aside, debates happen between us and those who come here to argue the case for the importance of gender over sex very, very regularly. Some engage politely and many of not so politely because it does get pretty tiresome. I believe Reddit deletes dissenting voices, does it not?

• All online groups are cults: I'd hesitate to say this, I mean I don't think you can describe all online subcultures are cults e.g. I wouldn't describe furries as a cult. Ok there are crossovers with the trans stuff in terms of popularity with autistic people and those who identify as something they are not, even the sexual sides (which there are to the trans movement, I have two TIF friends in different friendship circles, both are heavily involved in the kink community in their respective cities)., but in furrydom there doesn't seem to be any dogmatic belief or entity(/ies) benefitting in money/power from the community. Unless costume designers invented furries 😮

If you haven't already read it, I can recommend JK Rowling's (aka R Galbreith) Cormoran Strike novel set in a cult. It is called The Running Grave and I found I was reading it, as an allegory for 'gender identity ideology', even though the topic doesn't get directly mentioned at all. It is one of the best in that series I would say.

Off to get that

Being brought up in a cult might effect a person's ability to think for themselves to a degree. Even if they reject the cult when they become adults, it would leave an intellectual legacy that might make it difficult to recognise another cult. Especially if that cult is offering to create a better world for everyone, one that everyone can belong in, it must be very attractive to someone who thinks they don't fit in because of the childhood they suffered. There does seem to be a large number of vulnerable people who are draw to the Tranosphere.

Well, we have discussed this before on here. At one point when deletions were very frequent I used the acronym See You Last Tuesday in order to better do so.

Cultish behaviour is common. Many facets of it are exaggerated aspects of group behaviour. Othering, lovebombing, even grooming etc can all be observed within most groups.

But cults are ultimately about control.

Cults properly have a leader, are usually about making money from adherents/victims, and are fairly defined to a discrete group. Genderism isnt a cult proper. It is a subculture.

IMHO.

Quite. It’s obvious who the men really are, even when they think they are “living as women”.

I would say typically you're right about cults having a leader but this an atypical situation because it's a global phenomenon.

It's born from a political ideology that has been influenced by the promotors of a cult doctrine. It's more like a hivemind cult, with millions of different cells, each with it's own local leader, but they're all part of a hivemind that cultivates a world view that is exactly the same.

It preaches No Debate, it advocates that those who don't comply must be punished, it demands total and complete capitulation form all, and requires those who believe to attack those who don't. It sounds more like a cult than a subculture at the moment.

A good few years ago I got temporarily banned from Mumsnet for saying trans ideology was like a cult. I think it was them and still think it now.

The Zizians were/are(?) a cult. And part of that revolved around genderism.

https://whyy.org/articles/border-agent-killing-zizian-criminal-charges-california-pennsylvania-vermont/

"a rigid belief set and dogma, refusing to add nuance to concepts such as 'biology'."

I know that there are two sexes: male (small gametes) and female (large gametes).

I know that mammals (including humans) cannot change sex.

If I wanted offspring from a species of mammal via natural cover - lets take the example of cats - I need a fertile tomcat (a mature male who is entire/not castrated) and a fertile queen (a mature female who is entire/not spayed). This is because conception requires a small gamete to fertilise a large gamete.

It just won't work if either cat is infertile (due to being too young, developmental issues or neutering) and it won't work if both cats are the same sex.

How is this a 'cult belief'?
Where is the dogma?
What 'nuance' is there that I have not identified?