Oooh here come those bad faith terf tactics again…anyone up for a game of bingo to see how many we can spot in this thread alone. First to a full house wins a prize!
Misrepresentation — They restate your argument as something you didn’t say, then argue against that instead. When you correct them, they insist that’s what you implied. You end up defending a position you never held.
Moving the goalposts — Every time you meet their standard of evidence, the standard changes. No source is acceptable. No argument is sufficient. The debate has no possible end point because that’s by design
Tone policing — The moment you push back with any firmness, the focus shifts to how you said it. “Why are you so aggressive?” Your actual argument disappears and you’re now defending your manner instead.
Claiming victimhood from the exchange — A calm, evidenced response becomes “exactly the kind of abuse trans activists dish out.” Engaging with them is reframed as attacking them.
Argument by silence — If you don’t reply, it’s taken as concession. If you do reply, you’re obsessed. If you step away, you’re running. There is no correct move within the rules they’ve set.
Pile-on — Multiple posters make the same point to manufacture the impression of overwhelming consensus. Dissent is made to feel isolated even when it isn’t.
Concern trolling — “I’m just asking questions.” “I used to agree with you but…” “As someone who supports trans rights, I think you’ve gone too far.” Designed to sound reasonable while undermining your position.
Credential demanding — Whatever you say, you’re not qualified to say it. But when you cite experts, the experts are captured or biased.
The bad faith apology loop — If you ever apologise for anything or soften your position, it’s used as proof you were wrong all along and leveraged to demand further concessions.