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.).

@cassandre

• "nuance to biology": The point of two sexes is reproduction. If you argue that sex is a spectrum because of DSDs, then all other categories would have to be spectrums too (eg. we would be having a spectrum of 0-15 fingers). That would be the end of taxonomy - the foundation of biology.
• Who can be called a feminist has been debated forever, eg. can men be feminists? This is not new.
• I would define "peaked" as a moment of realisation or understanding. I don't know how that would make gc feminism a cult.
• There is clearly a range of beliefs amongst gender critical feminists. Some are willing to use pronouns, for instance, while others don't. The common denominator is the belief that there are two sexes, that sex is immutable and that this sometimes matters. That is very basic and not very cultish.
• Women focus on cases of trans violence, because we have been told that "transwomen are women" and pose no risk, when clearly some of them do.

None of this seems very cultish to me. If we compare this to transactivism however:

• non-believers have been hounded out of their jobs and threatened with violence and death
• statistics have been misinterpreted and falsely reported
• words have been changed to mean the opposite and confuse people
• children have been used for medical experiments
• perpetrators have been given easy access to women
• etc

I know which one I am worried about.

I was fascinated to discover the Skoptsy cult in which adherents cut off their genitals for reasons of purity. Given how gruesome it was it lasted a surprisingly long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy

I think the lack of a leader is a red herring.

Modern cults have leaders, but Genderism is I think more like the Greek and Roman Mystery cults, built around eosteric hidden knowledge, a deeper reality beyond the real, transformation, and body-centered rites of mortification or indulgence to move the believer beyond the body, to transcend (pun very much intended) the body as a limiting factor on the self.

Genderism tells us we cannot trust the clear observation that the vast majority of humans are very clearly of one sex or the other because men and women are not really the names of the sexes, but "really" the names of two sorts of inner gender.

This inner gender is simultaneously so absolutely fundamental an aspect of our humanity that it is really gender rather than the readily observable difference of sex that gives rise to the knowledge that humans can be "men" or "women" in the first place, is far more important and significant to our social and romantic identies and realtionships than mere body sex, yet is also so mysterious and unknowable that it can never be explained or even described, nor even just the differences between genders, so hidden and personal that no one can ever know what another person's is unless they are told.

(Albeit with the very weird nuance that even though Genderists apparently can't describe what a man is, or a women, or list any stable difference between them, nevertheless they are absolutely unshakeably convinced that whatever it is, it sure as hell needs different toilets! 😂)

But all this cannot be proved, it simply has to be taken on faith. One is told it by someone one trusts. The authorities and establishment seem to believe it, ones peers seem to see it clearly, and so one takes it as truth and then looks at ones own life and reframes ones own experiences against that narrative.

But once "truth" is located not in the everyday we can all see, a shared reality we can discuss and share, but somewhere else not directly perceivable, we cannot challenge it. We cannot trust our own interpretations of our own experiences, we need to be guided to the "real" truth, something we have to be told and take on trust. Our own first person observations are delegitimised.

And so even without a directing and benefitting "leader", power still devolves to those with the confidence (often through genuine belief) to speak with authority about this unknowable thing and therefore able to provide the safety of certainty to those who no longer put trust their own perceptions and judgements.

Thinking about it, it's a dynamic that is really common in online fandoms and hobby spaces. "Truths" like, oh the "best" version of a certain tool, or a superior technique that marks one out as a pro, become established as common knowledge and get repeated and shared by people who haven't actually learned it from their own experience but simply read it posted with authority so many times they feel confident in passing it on themselves.

So perhaps what we are really seeing with Genderism is the first religion/cult to emerge from the mechanics of online interactions?

Have you read any of this author OP?
www.broadsheet.ie/2022/04/26/colette-colfer-a-new-religion/

Internet police? Is that a thing? I've never heard of them.
Unless you mean the ordinary police who arrest people for tweets but let rapists get on with it.

Yes and there was the "three strikes and you're out" rule that lost us quite a few stalwart feminists from this board. LangCleg springs to mind but there were others.

MN was always dropping the banhammer in those days - usually on the say so of TRAs who were reporting from outside MN - so to speak - as they didn't even have to be signed up to report. A ridiculous state of affairs.
They didn't shut us up though, even though they really REALLY tried.

Yes: I think a charismatic leader isn't a necessary factor. I don't want to get into an argument about whether Jehovah's Witnesses meet some definition of a cult - let's just say they're a group with a strong tension against the outside world - but your average JW probably couldn't name the members of the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society. They've been around for so long that they've long ago moved from the charismatic to the bureaucratic mode of leadership, in a Max Weber sense.

Also, an explicitly religious basis isn't necessary. Scientology came out of the self-help movement. There are lots of political cults that are explicitly atheist. The point isn't what they believe but what they do.

I think the parallel with online fandoms is really worth exploring. Harry Potter fandom is beyond my ken, but sometimes I look at the Daria subreddit and there's a sizeable minority there who (a) have an encyclopedic knowledge of the show, (b) seem to hate the show for identity related reasons, often expressed as "this show was a lifeline for me as a queer kid in the late 1990s, and I hate that it's so problematic", and (c) are really vicious towards anyone who just likes the show as opposed to their ideal headcanon version of it, sometimes saying things like "you say this character is 'queer coded' but she's actually straight in the show, you're just trying to reinterpret the characters you like as having your identity".

That's just the online fandom associated with a relatively obscure animated sitcom from 25 years ago. But you see the same dynamics in lots of online spaces.

So if genderism is a cult, it isn't a cult in the old sense of having a charismatic prophet (though it does have a devil in the form of JKR) but it's more like a distributed and memetic cult, if that makes sense.

I feel like I keep getting on to the same roundabout. GI does adopt cult traits and behaviours. I have seen and experienced it personally. Although, the narrative has tipped back to being able to talk common sense again (in more circles), the repercussions and damage done will take decades to undo. Never mind the actual harms done to people.

There is evidence that people who are ND are at an increased risk to being manipulated (please just research yourselves - I ain’t doing the work for you).

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

It is not a specifically GC belief that there are only two sexes and that humans cannot switch between them. It is a fact that the majority of the population of the Earth understand. There is no nuance to this. It just is. The small percentage of people who believe otherwise have been brainwashed.

• adherents saying that if other women (or men) don't agree with them, those people cannot possibly be feminists. You're only a feminist if you embrace a gender-critical ideology.

Firstly, being Gender Critical is not an ideology. It is, however, the bedrock of feminism. If you are not critical of the concept of gendered stereotypes - the idea that men are one thing and women are another thing and never the twain shall meet - a concept that is used to subjugate women and uphold the patriarchy, keeping the boot firmly on the necks of womankind, denying them rights and equality, then no, you cannot be a feminist.
Many people who are not feminists as such are also gender critical however.

• terms such as 'peaked' to indicate people being converted to the movement. This sounds very evangelical.

The term peaked is used in many different areas about many different subjects. It is not exclusive to feminists nor gender critical people. It simply refers to a moment of clarity when you see something for what it is. It has nothing to do with being "converted".
It's more like the saying "once you see it, you can't unsee it"

• people within the community 'othering' those who disagree with them. You're either in or out, there is no middle ground and no room for debate.

Othering in what way? You mean understanding that people who disagree that humans can't change sex are in a different group to people who agree with this? What debate is there to be had about this exactly?

• scaremongering. Calling people who disagree TRAs and lumping them together regardless of what their specific views may be. Jumping on stories of trans women criminals and saying that they represent the category of trans women as a whole.

Recognising people as trans activists based on their stated views and behaviour is hardly scaremongering. Who are we trying to frighten?
As for " jumping on stories of trans women criminals and saying that they represent the category of trans women as a whole"
No one has done this. What HAS been said is that transwomen are men and that means ALL of them, regardless of criminality, motive for transition or how far they have gone with it (surgery and hormones or just popping on a dress). Regardless of personality or presentation. They are all men and, as such present the exact same potential threat as any other man and should be treated with the same caution and subject to the same level of safeguarding. This is not scaremongering. Neither is it prejudice.

You self describe as a "transinclusive feminist" the suggestion here being that Gender Critical feminists are trans EXCLUSIVE. But this is not the case. Feminism includes ALL women INCLUDING those women who describe themselves as transmen. So-called transwomen are excluded not because they are trans, but because they are men.

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

I will have to tell my colleagues/students/collaborators that biology is a "concept". I shall report back how that goes.

No, but looks good! I'll add her to my reading list, thank you!

Bingo! Seriously, I have 2 autistic children who are now competent young adults. They struggled with this sort of thing because it doesn't make sense to them, so we drew up a bingo board of what we called red light comments. The more you got, the faster you removed yourself from the situation and did a careful fact check. Oh, and you didn't yell bingo either... We've always had some good discussions about why people might do things and they've taught me a lot.

Even the TRAs recognise that you need one of each of the 2 types of human to reproduce so I'm not sure why they continue to use the 'biology is nuanced' argument 🤷‍♀️

I'm late to the party with this one, but the GC women on this thread are not ignoring you or telling you to fuck off or doing their best to get MN to ban you. You're being asked questions and having inconsistencies in your stance pointed out to you. That looks quite a lot like debate to me.

In my experience trans activists/allies have taken to simply reversing all accusations made against them. This stops people having to think things through for themselves. They just adopt and appropriate the language, arguments and terminology of the 'opposition'.

I heard an interesting discussion - possibly Sarah Philimore- who said if it was political that would be easier to deal with. This has moral underpinnings which makes it much more tricky

And a ‘genocide’ that sees the target population grow exponentially over the years 🤔

https://saferinternet.org.uk/report-harmful-content

This is an example.

Very true. That particular poster gave us a perfect example. The mirrored counter-claim “no you’re a cult” and a planet sized reach for arguments to try and back that.

It makes me wonder if it will ever be possible to reach the ‘true believers’. They have shielded their brains and thoughts with mindless mantras and just dig deeper into denying reality.

Ah, we're a cult so.

Brilliant. This means everyone will now fall in fucking line and do as they're told. What a relief, its been like herding cats. For years.

(AND I'm still waiting on my Christo fascist dollars, my T shirt, and a lesbian wife, btw. If GC is a cult I have to say the admin could do with a boot up the arse.)

I'd say it operates more as a society wide form of thought control. A whole society prey/subject to a radical and authoritarian ideology.

We could apply and/or identify the characteristics below to any number of current phenomena or situations:

"There is a comprehensive collapse of individual autonomy, public sphere boundaries, and ethical standards. The ideology acts as a comprehensive worldview, dictating education, art, and personal morals, demanding unquestioned conformity to a false reality crafted by propaganda.

The "Silent Majority" Factor: Totalitarianism relies on a passive, fear-driven majority, as well as a small, fanatical elite that elevates censorship to a virtue.

The population often adopts a "mass formation" mindset, where individuals lose their critical thinking, experiencing deep paranoia and free-floating anxiety.

Totalitarian systems thrive on identifying enemies (internal or external), creating a continuous atmosphere of threat, panic or war to maintain control and justify repressive measures.

Surveillance and Informal Informants: A secret 'police force' works in tandem with an informant network composed of everyday citizens, turning neighbors and families against each other. ( in the case of FWR a continual monitoring and reporting of posts to the moderator with the aim of eliminating key players and threats to control)"

There are always and always have been and always will be people with disordered and unhealthy belief systems.

What there hasn't always been has been activists in governments, NHS bodies, media, etc to embed the disordered beliefs into law and regulation.

This nonsense ideology has tested all of our institutions and proved them quite alarmingly fallible and pervious. (Is pervious a word).

If govt would stop buggering about trying to avoid the law and basic reality they may do well to consider how and why all our systems, organisations, and frameworks were so vulnerable to takeover.

In a few short years they had the Prime Minister claiming women could have penises. They had a porny bloke flashing on the White House Lawn. They had the NHS sterilising children, and virtually every media and arts personality chanting the mantra, wearing T shirts reifying fetishistic men, and waving their daft, ugly flags. We had wife beaters praised on national TV, rapists in women's jails, and a man winning a gold medal for punching women in the face. Regular witch burning, an organisation that is openly terrorising politicians with impunity, and a convicted torturer and attempted murderer let off for threatening to punch women in the fucking face on stage, to cheers. CSA material posted on NHS Scotland website. Etc.

Societal norms tested, twisted, upturned and undermined. VAWG justified and excused, child abuse ignored, evidence based science and medicine thrown out the window.

That reveals a society with astonishingly vulnerable areas.

Exactly. I came here at the time of the Sandie Peggie space and found people who'd question, argue, revise opinions and learn. I also found the other sort, but I am ruler of the internet. One click of my mouse and you all vanish!

NRFT yet but this was GNC Centric, Benji. A detransitioner.

I tried and failed to find the youtube where she discussed this with Glinner, but it is probably on this one as well (don't have time to find time stamp):