Why is it that the trans issue is the only one where people are cancelled if they disagree with it?

[TFImBackIn]

I was thinking today how there are people who vote differently to me, who are carnivores or vegan, who believe in capital punishment, who believe in unregulated drugs, who do or don't believe in climate change, who follow different religions, who think nobody has ever landed on the moon and so on, but it's possible to have a discussion about it - even if that ends pretty briefly in "We'll have to agree to disagree on that" - and it doesn't end in someone being cancelled.

The trans debate is the only one - as far as I can see - that's not allowed to be debated. I've not heard of people disowning their families over any of the above topics. If someone disagrees with someone else on those topics - and a million others - nobody says they're being violent and they're afraid of them and need to get away from them and be safe.

What Rachel Dolezal told everyone she was black and people discovered she wasn't - and worse when she wanted to represent black women and their struggle - then black women everywhere were allowed to say she was wrong and that their struggle and lived experience wasn't hers. There was no argument at all - maybe Rachel muttered a bit about it but everyone felt free to ridicule her for taking that on.

How come, then, when a fifty-year old Philip Bunce - "Call me Pippa or Pips" - was ranked number 32 in Top 100 Women in Business, women weren't allowed to say that was unfair and that our struggle and lived experience wasn't his?

What is it about this particular issue that makes people want to silence us, when other topics can be freely discussed?

I see your point, but I do think there are a lot of opinions people have to keep to themselves for fear of the reaction it will lead to, the difference is you are on the side of the attacked rather than attacker for this one.

For example (I don't think any of these, they are just examples of things people do think): "kids can consent to sex," "Donald Trump is amazing," "some races are better/worse at this thing than others," "ADHD is over diagnosed," "fat people are not attractive," "divorce is bad for kids," etc. and loads of opinions that could be anywhere on the terrible to fine gradient if you were allowed to add context or nuance but will absolutely get you cancelled in soundbite/clickbait form.

I think this is an issue where we are right but the other side has better packaging for their opinions, as they can call themselves kind, inclusive, progressive etc. without having any depth to the argument. They fit the current way of communicating online better than an argument with nuance and data talking about rape and womens rights.

What I don’t understand is, people are cancelled for the above views by the left but then they proceed to call these people fascists?

They can’t answer a simple question either when you ask them. Like, what is a fascist.

I don't think it's the only divisive issue. People rejected family and friends over Brexit, Scottish Independence, voting for Trump.

My old Tory MP was one of the "Brexit Traitors" for voting against some Brexit deal. He stopped being invited to events and was shunned by leave voting constituents.

However, the job losses were particularly bad for sex realist women and men like Graham Linehan.

How on earth can you say this is the only issue that gets you cancelled? If you think that, then you haven’t been paying attention for the past decade. Radical online progressives spotted a tactic to impose their views as consensus, and cancelled people for all sorts of things.

Perhaps you mean it’s the only opinion you hold which could get you cancelled?

I think the problem with the trans issue is that it has no firm foundation in fact, so there has to be something other than a cool, reasoned, presentation of verifiable evidence to defend their position.

Hence the 'no debate' - well, of course no debate if you don't have anything solid to say on your side of the debate.

Other strategies are to constantly change the terms under discussion, without ever clearly defining them - the recent appearance of 'trans+' is an example.

And of course to go on the offensive, to aggressively oppose anyone who disagrees with you, to avoid engaging rationally with them, point by point.

There are so many examples of that on this board: a trans supporter comes on and makes statements which are demonstrably untrue - not matters of opinion, but of fact. Somebody quotes some statistics or a verifiable source pointing out the opposite - no name-calling, no hatred, just - look, that's wrong, here are the facts, and here are the sources so you can check it out for yourself.

How many times have we seen the discussion turn into attacks about being hate-fuelled, bigoted, transphobic, ignorant, old, an echo-chamber, 'I've seen enough, I'll leave you to your bigotry' and they're off.

There's a factual void at the centre of transgenderism that makes it fragile, so when pushed to explain itself rationally, the result is often aggression, and where possible silencing - or drowning out with noise, in some cases.

I don't know if this is the only issue where people are cancelled, but it's a very neat example the use of DARVO - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - in the public domain.

I often think that sociologists of the future will have a fascinating time working out how, in the 21st century, a tiny group of people, with very little evidence or logic on their side, managed to wield such disproportionate influence in so many areas of some societies.

It isn't the only one now, but it absolutely IS operating like a a cult or religion where people, mainly women, are being lied about, demonised and punished for heresy. Many have been threatened with violence and death, and I'm sorry, but this really isn't minor, it is only a matter of time before women start getting killed for it (some already have. See Dana Rivers).

Oh, and I agree with you: false claims that "GC" feminists are either homophobic, racist or "bigoted", "far right" etc etc etc are entirely designed to demonise us in order to get to abuse us further and attempt to discredit us. It is very akin to the DARVO tactics used by other abusive men, which is why "GC" feminists tend to look at "trans women and other men" all as a group, one sex class, and not make exceptions if the abusive men happen to id as "trans women". There is no evidence whatsoever that backs up the idea that we should treat such men as "special" or make special rules for them.

And such claims against the women targeted are not backed up by facts. Whereas many of the issues with "trans" , particularly men who id as 'trans women" absolutely are backed up by facts and evidence, I'm afraid. It isn't "bigotry" to point out reality. Particularly not a reality that actively seeks to harm women and girls, destroy our rights to boundaries and every legal right we had to fight for. People who cannot see this are very, very short sighted and ignorant. I've not seen anything this insane and on this scale in my lifetime - except what people who'd lived under the Stasi & similar in E Europe told me about their experiences when I lived there after the Berlin wall fell.

• It is a fact, for example, that a great many so-called "trans people" are in fact, male transvestites and AGPs.
• It is a fact that in the UK most "gender critical" feminists came from the left and NOT from the right. UK feminists have a very different history from so-called "GC" people in the US. And our country has a different history of equal rights too. Ours have been far better than in the US, both for women and gay people.
• It is a fact (admitted by Stonewall's Ruth Hunt herself) that Stonewall under her did not consider itself a democratic organisation It is also a fact that it deliberatey chose to 'get ahead of the law' by "training" people, workplaces etc all over the country, that the law governing women's rights and spaces had changed when it hadn't. That is a VERY serious issue. It would be a serious issue whoever was doing it. Or whatever it was about.
• Death and rape threats against women who question the entire ideological framework of "trans" have been numerous and consistent for at lest the last decade, as well as women being bullied and hounded out of their jobs. It is not incorrect to say this is largely a male sexual rights movement and it not incorrect to surmise that it is largely driven by woman-hating and misogyny of a type that is not so different from incels and other abusive men.
• It is absolutely true that over half of men who id as women in UK prisons are there for sex offences, mostly against women. This includes rape. It is not 'bigotry' to know this or to point it out, and to remind people that we have single sex spaces (like prisons) BECAUSE of the behaviour of a statistically significant proportion of males.

So no, this is not a minor issue at all. It has been far reaching, toxic and pernicious, it impacts the rights and safety of half the population and "gender ideology" (a patriarchal, misogynistic, fact free belief framework) has basically destroyed the integrity of all organisations and political parties it touches.

HOWEVER. We are indeed also in an era where young supposedly "progressive" people in particular are encouraged to believe that authoritarian, violent activism is progressive and righteous and that causes like "Gaza" and "trans rights" are the only correct way to think.

Jew-hate of course has a long and vile history and the levels of hate and antisemitic violence, and open support for it have once again reached frightening and murderous levels, of a kind we've not seen in Europe since the 1930s. By exactly the same people, mostly, who have so blindly targeted women and who are escalating in their hatred and violence. The terrifying thing is they actually seem to imagine they are being "righteous". I've never seen hatred like this in the UK in my lifetime. Oct 7th and the aftermath, the rape denial, the escalation of hatred and lies has horrified me.

These absolutely are two separate issues. But both about blind, all-consuming hatred. Often by the same people. It's not a competition.

@TFImBackIn

Because it's all about men punching down on women and men always get their own way. They have for millennia and they're not going to stop any time soon. Their default defence is also tantrums and violence. So, if they want to be called women, they fucking well will be.

As for other women, I'd say a large majority of trans defenders are young women and like all younger generations they rail against anything and everything that's gone before. They'll always want to wear the lastest "right on" badge. They're also conflating homophobia with the trans debate. Finally they haven't lived long enough to realise that their own freedoms and safety are being compromised.

Bingo!!! I got racism and homophobia! Who had hatefulness??

Nothing I have seen written on this forum comes within a hundred miles of the treatment of sex realist women by the trans lobbyists.

DeepWinterSleep
I don't think it is like the flat earth example at all however. If someone believes the earth is flat, ok, I don't agree but ultimately they are not harming me or anyone else so crack on.

You're missing the point - if someone believes the earth is flat, 'OK, crack on' as you suggest.
But a truer analogy would be if a small but noisy group of flat-earthers started a huge campaign to oblige the Royal Geographical Society to say that they had got it all wrong, to say that photos from outer space showing the Earth were 'flat-phobic dog-whistles', demanding that school curricula be changed so children were taught that the earth is flat, taking offence at expressions like 'round-the-world trip' 'all parts of the globe' etc etc., threatened round-earth believers with rape and murder..
That's more like what has been going on.
Transpeople didn't just 'crack on', they loudly, aggressively and at times violently insisted that we all crack on with them, which has been harmful on many levels.

Two radical feminist lesbians and their son were murdered by a TRA in the US.

OP, if you think all other examples are either not happening or “not the same” then of course GC will be the only issue.

If you look at the behaviour of trans activists, both in real life and in online, it's clear that they are all operating from the same playbook:

1. They use the same phrases and words over and over again - trans women are women, trans people have always existed, if you disagree you're a bigot, this is like Section 28, there is a literal genocide of trans people, trans people are who they say they are, you have gender-neutral bathrooms at home and so on and so forth. I'm sure people can add their own.
2. They rewrite history. So Joan of Arc was trans, so was Elizabeth I. The person who started the Stonewall riots was trans. Trans people were at the forefront of gay activism in the 1970s. These are all obvious lies, but trans activists operate on Goebbels' dictum that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.
3. They make sure that pro-trans laws are passed surreptitiously, often by piggybacking onto other laws such as those relating to gay rights, because they know that they won't win public support. This is laid out in the infamous Denton's guide.
4. They infiltrate organisations at the highest level to introduce insane pro-trans policies, including gender-neutral language (eg removing the use of "mother" in policies relating to maternity leave), forcing people to state their pronouns, allowing trans-identifying men to use female toilets and so on.
5. They go to extreme lengths to silence anyone who disagrees - getting them disciplined at work or sacked from their job, cancelled from appearing on panels, banned from social media platforms etc.
6. Their public protests are generally extremely aggressive, with threats of violence against women ("decapitate Terfs" and so on), and typically male (carrying bottles of piss).
7. They display extreme hostility towards anyone online who disagrees. This includes the use of deeply misogynistic language ("bitch", "hag" etc) and threats of violence.

My point is that these seven behaviours are universal. This is how all trans activists behave. It's not as if there are loads of moderate, reasonable trans activists arguing sensibly, while a few hotheads use extreme tactics. This approach is core to trans activism, and I have never seen another movement like it - this is not how the gay rights or anti-racist or women's liberation activists behaved.

Isn't it clear by now that trans activism has been created by malign actors with the deliberate goal of creating disruption and havoc, and of undermining Western values of free speech, scientific impartiality and women's rights?

Not sure why my reply has been hidden? It’s just a link to a lesbian magazine reporting on a court case in the US that I described. Feel free to google. Dana Rivers, Michfest activist.

It is not the only issue where people get shut down. Race and immigration do it too.

Debating the harms of lockdown was totally verboten. Anyone who tried to say anything on this was met with “SHUT UP YOU FUCKING GRANNY KILLER!!” Any scientists or doctors who argued against lockdown or spoke against the narrative were swiftly cancelled. You could watch BBC interviewers cutting them off.

I think you will find most transgender people are hiding. They are discriminated against at every turn. Toilets and women's safe places were just the start. Most wont walk down the street now. Apart from the few famous ones being transgender now is bloody awful. Safety is a major issue.

Nope disagreeing with Israel will get you cancelled faster

That's true, but nothing like to the same extent.

Yeah like this guy who harasses women and girls in the female changing room by standing around naked and blow drying his entire body (including penis) with the hairdryer along with aggressive behaviour. Won't use the gender neutral changing room. Now they have made a new rule that you have to be dressed to use the hair dryers he's stopped going.

I agree that safety is a major issue - the safety of women and girls who are powerless to do anything about men like this.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.com/news/article-15847253/amp/san-francisco-ymca-trans-woman-locker-room-Sammy.html

Dont talk rubbish. Saw one on the Main Street shopping on Saturday and another at the Garden Centre yesterday. Both just doing everyday things like everyone else. I know the first one so even said hello.

Emptybath
Charlie Kirk is the only person I am aware of who has been murdered for opposing gender ideology.

I think Tyler James Robinson's motives may have been a little more complicated than that, even so. His only recorded comment on the matter seems to be that he disliked Kirk for all the hate he spewed, and having a transgender flatmate may have been part but not all of what caused him to do it.

(I note too that he is a man, not a woman. Almost all the mass shootings and political shootings in the USA are committed by men, not women. Men seem to be more inclined to see killing people as the way to settle an argument or try for their five minutes of fame.)

They are both hiding petrified of being seen and on the High Street and in the Garden Centre.

Trans logic.

And do you have any evidence whatsoever of this?

I've literally seen none so far and I've been following this issue closely for a decade.

"Trans" advocacy is everywhere; trans-identifying people (usually men who id as women) are disporportionately platformed at a rate that far exceeds pretty much every other group in society. They are the most fashionable of fashionable; every glossy mag going has "trans" front and centre at all times. The BBC can barely get through a news story without asking how a drag queen or trans id'd male feels about it.

Trans is literally the dominant voice over huge swathes of our media right now, and has been for the last decade. Strangely, actually vulnerable people (you know, like the elderly or disabled or women who aren't middle class or staunch handmaidens) are barely heard from at all.

I'm assuming it's because most "trans" people are in fact that most powerful of demographics historically - the white, middle class, middle aged heterosexual male. That anyone at all is falling for it and the 'poor me' stuff STILL beggars belief.

The only "trans" people I feel sorry for, are, generally, the girls. As in, the 'trans men" who funnily enough, get treated as 2nd class citizens and gaslit by their actual male, usually much older, counterparts.