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.

You are trying to make sense of the nonsensical, I fear.

Undoubtedly! 😁

Yes, absolutely. Faux concern to scold women for prioritising sex based rights campaigns.

It is true that they do not want "gender neutral" third spaces but an influential trans lobby has advocated very effectively for "gender neutral" all spaces.
Those trans activists do not want access to "women's toilets" nearly as much as they want access to "gender neutral" toilets that everyone is forced to use.

Those USA studies and recommendations were produced by well-known male trans activist academics who have dedicated a lot of time and effort to advocating for "gender neutral" to be the only toilet provision available.
That is, they do not want privileged access to The Ladies: they want all women and children to be forced to share toilet facilities with all adult men.

Oh I believe that is firmly in the Fuck No category. Male, female, unisex, all three.

Most recently seen on a few nearly-derailed threads overnight: attacking women as a "certain class."

(akin, I suppose, to "trying to make us feel guilty" for speaking the truth - ironic, isn't it?)😀

"Class" is clearly the insult du jour. No real indication if this is growing, or simply latched onto by a few, recent derailers.

I have come across this

https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2026/03/06/scholar-makes-case-moving-beyond-sexual-labels

An interview with a american academic would wants to remove sexual "labels" as they make life difficult (my poor wording) for trans people.

Its from a book that a university has published called Trans pleasure.

It would seem to confirm that theior are trans people out there that want to erase gay and lesbian people.

But then this is a group where professors stand up in front of boards and claim that they have had girlfriends with penises.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trans-women-sports-california-state-university-lawsuit-b2937185.html

I missed this thread when it first started so trying to catch up but very interesting reading. The concept of mirroring particularly as the amount of times I've seen TRA's say something like 'flat earthers' and thought, hang on, you've just nicked that!

And yes, the comments about 'class' on several threads over the last couple of days shows that it clearly is the TRA phrase de jour.

It's just so predictable.

Glad you're finding it interesting! I must admit, I am struggling to find time to do any analysis right now, so it's just a list of tactics. Hopefully I'll have more time in a few weeks. Work is just so bitty and all-consuming right now (had a Teams meeting at 6am today, with clients in Asia). I appreciate everyone's contributions. I hope I can find the time to pull it all together.

Thank you for this. Will try to make some time this weekend to read through!

Who needs to know whether the stripes are on a zebra or a tiger?
If the tiger gets it wrong, it misses a meal.
If the zebra gets it wrong, it gets eaten.

Men can afford not to know what sex they're dealing with.
Women can't.

Men can afford not to know what sex they're dealing with.
Women can't.

Obviously it's worse for women, but sex by deception is wrong and a crime, whichever way round it is.

And that's why that TiM was jailed for it last year. It applies equally, as you say.

I agree. Sexual deceit is very wrong in either direction.
It's just that when a woman discovers too late that what she thought was a woman is actually a man, it can be harder for her to do anything about it.

Brand spanking new, from the Large Amnesty Thread:

(regarding the threats of lawsuits against Amnesty)

Responding by threatening them with lawfare isn't a victory, it's proof they were correct.

So that's how they will justify all the lawsuits and tribunals!

So they'll not be taking their employers to court if they're unfairly dismissed for being trans, then?
Because being taken to court proves that you are in the right...
I despair.

Don't think too hard, it's not worth it!

Responding by threatening them with lawfare isn't a victory, it's proof they were correct.

I'm sure I've heard a version of this before...?

Is it from 12 Angry Men? Or To Kill a Mockingbird?

Probably much more prosaic than that.

If you're looking for logic, you won't find it here!

So slam dunk for SEEN in the latest tribunal, and DEFRA.

From the latest EHRC thread -

Make the case for including trans women in female-only provisions or language based only on the exceptional few, but then apply that justification to the whole group without exception because it's too mean or too hard to apply any distinction even though your initial argument relies on it.

"Some trans women are harmless and have taken steps to transition eg I.e hormones, surgery. So they should surely be allowed in. But there's no policing of spaces. So I guess we just have to let all the men who claim to be women in then, amirite? After all, it is obvious that it is better for women to be deprived of single sex spaces altogether than for a man who claims to be a women and might have got away with a bit of harmless casual toilet deception loses out, surely you monsters can understand that?"

Beat me to it! 😃Thanks!

@FlirtsWithRhinos
It has reliably been suggested that this is "motte and bailey" tactic:

(from online search)
The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a type of argument where someone presents a controversial claim (the "bailey") that is difficult to defend, and when challenged, retreats to a more modest and easily defensible claim (the "motte"). This tactic allows the arguer to avoid scrutiny of their original position by shifting to a safer one.

But I think it sounds more like a "bailey yet motte" tactic: use the defensible claim to bolster the controversial claim.

What do you think?

thanks also @Ereshkigalangcleg

Sure, that works. I think the term applies whichever way round the argument is put.

As an aside, accusing Feminists of using motte and bailey tactics is a long time favourite of one of the regular TRA pigeons (that's pigeon in the pigeon chess sense). I just realised where his latest nom de scold came from 😂

I love 'nom de scold'!

I saw on Twitter refer to the Herbert polycule as a ménage à twats earlier which also made me laugh.

So that's where it comes from! 😆