Be Kind 2.0 and the "Persuasive TRA"

[BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth]

This is a spinoff from another thread so as not to derail the original.

I thought it would be helpful to have a separate thread to discuss, and document, a phenomenon I have been seeing more regularly recently: the Persuasive TRA.

It occurred to me, after a few posters noted that the recent U-turns by a couple of politicians, and the wheedling TRA responses to the EHRC guidance, were akin to an abuser changing tactics and also asking us to "help" them in the new single-sex regime, that the whole thing is starting to pan out exactly as an abusive relationship often does. When is the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship? Normally, when she is leaving.

Well, women are leaving the abusive relationship with non-reality that men forced upon us some 15 years ago, and I would argue that now might be our most dangerous/difficult moment.

This is what I posted on the other thread:

I'm starting to see a bit more of what I am calling (in my own head) "Persuasive TRA." Now that they have lost everything that they bullied women for, some activists seem to be changing tack. Women must now fix the situation that TRAs have found themselves in. It seems to pivot on a sort of Be Kind 2.0.

I think women who have been in the game long enough will see through it, but we should be watchful. Stonewall is pivoting, activists are pivoting, and they will be preying on women's socialized kindness: watch for the destination and be on your guard.

I have read several posters on different threads appealing to everyone (women) to help calm trans-identified people's (men's) fears about what this new reality will look like, what it will mean for them (the men) now that they can't just do whatever they want anymore. What about the men's toilets? Are they safe? Where will they go? (Who will fix this problem?)

Well, apparently it is a problem that women can fix, if they just take a moment to think about it. Trans-identified men will be unsafe in the men's, so women need to join the fight to give these men something of their own.

Notice the pivot? The pleading? If you just... If you weren't so.... It can be different if you just... Sound familiar? To any woman who is in, or has escaped from, an abusive relationship, this will be all too familiar.

This is Be Kind 2.0. It's very similar to the original, except that instead of being forced to enjoy our abuse, we are being asked to fix it. And the "Persuasive TRAs" seem to be mobilizing, from what I have seen.

It won't start in the middle (with the women); it will start at the top (infiltrating government, think tanks, charities, etc.) and the bottom (schools). But they will use women to get this moving. Why not? It worked so well last time. And I believe that organizations like Stonewall will be leading the charge: the campaign can be something like Safe Spaces for Trans+ : All of Us Together.

If anyone else has seen this in action, it might be useful to keep a record of it here.

I imagine this thread will eventually be taken over by activists, but, until then, I would be interested in your thoughts.

It really, really started out so badly, but they seem to have recruited someone else to do the responses now. The first poster was just diabolically bad.

A funny one today, just because it's hotter in London that the Fifth Circle of Hell:

(with thanks to @TheywontletmehavethenameIwant

The cause seems to have gone from No Debate to If you can't baffle them with 'trans' science bore them with complete bullshit.

Some choice examples of tactics from recent threads that I have noticed, to add to the ever-growing list:

Recognising one is trans and therefore different but valid [a pivot to persuade women that trans-identified men are not saying they are actually women? is this trying to row back years of failed pressurization, in view of recent court losses?]

which doesn't sit logically alongside the next one:

male with a female soul [I think it used to be "male with woman-gendered soul" - so this may be an old tactic dressed up in new terms (man is not just "woman" but actually "female")]

Typical (common) behaviours to a sex isn't the same as stereotypical (expectations) behaviours [this has been argued before, but the "common vs. stereotypical" dichotomy seems to be making more of an appearance lately]

And another phenomenon I've seen popping up very recently:

the Persuasive TERF - these appear to be TRAs who mostly propound GC views when it's just natter, thereby establishing their "credentials," but work to undermine good news stories by regularly pointing out minor flaws in outcomes, sowing doubt in posters' optimism.

There seem to be one or two regulars who do this. I have experienced it personally on a few of my posts.

It may simply be pessimism or irritation that one poster made a good news point that another poster wished they had been able to make first. Or it could simply be a different point of view. But some of it seems carefully devised to deflect from, or to remove, optimism in the achievements that women have made recently.