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.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth
Thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5558370-lambeth-council-to-challenge-new-discriminatory-guidelines-on-single-sex-spaces

At the moment Mumsnet claims to have lost that thread down the sofa cushions. I hope that is only a glitch.

Oh you're right, it has disappeared! Well, I got the text I wanted anyway, thanks.

ps try this link:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5558370-lambeth-council-to-challenge-new-discriminatory-guidelines-on-single-sex-spaces

The Non-binary Conundrum

It was clever in making an intuitive or strategic appeal to left leaning people’s self belief as a ‘good’ person and in aligning gender ideology as a ‘good’ cause. Those lawyers at Denton’s were smart. It’s led to incredible harm and even deaths from surgery complications and/or worsening mental health, but still it achieved the intended objectives. Goal setting theory in action.

Thanks to @DrBlackbird

This tactic is what we need to be aware of now more than ever. "Non-binary" is a cause looking for supporters and a piggyback ride. It is also a term looking for legal definition. Let's watch for the next stratgic shift.

To add to The One Where The Guidance Doesn't Mean Anything (or, "we can do what we want until someone complains")

and The One Where It's Too Expensive (to alter all the toilets, etc.)

Ta-da! ⬇

It's Too Hard: don't take them to court, we must change hearts and minds first.

The One Where My Sex Should Be Kept Secret (NHS-related)

"What we're seeing played out on this thread and elsewhere is a desperate attempt to undermine the SC judgment and all the related cases by insisting that birth sex is such a shameful secret it must be kept confidential.

If you can't identify someone's sex then you can't enable all the legal single sex spaces, services and requirements and we're back to men claiming to be women being able to invade ss spaces and to violate women with impunity."
[my bold]

from the NHS recording sex thread:
Page 8 | NHS update on recording patient sex and gender identity | Mumsnet

thanks to @MrsOvertonsWindow

Have we had "you know nothing, so shut up and educate yourself - but if you take the trouble to educate yourself you are unhealthily obsessed"?

I can guess which thread you've been watching!

It's fascinating watching all this played out on here. There's the dogged repetition of a single demand - that sex is oh so secret and shouldn't be recorded on medical records for very special people. Countered by so much informed critical thinking and extensive knowledge amongst posters on here.

It showcases how so many aspects of of society have been trashed by self centred, self interested groups to the detriment of the needs and safety of the majority. A real case study of the impact of narcissism on others.

"I never ask if they've had genital surgery, it would be rude."

My experience has been that I have never needed to ask. If they have had an orchidectomy and a penectomy, they make no secret of the fact; they are absolutely longing to make sure you know all about it and about how dedicated they are to being a Real Woman. Mind you, they might be lying.... But probably not.

That one's going to be a tricky one to condense into a pithy by-line!

A bit like, how do you know when someone's vegan, then? 😁

Hah. My experience there was that nine people finally managed to decide where we would go to get food, and it wasn't until after we had got there that the vegan told us there would be nothing on their menu she could eat!

They are absolutely throwing everything at it now. Twisting every phrase in the guidance that they think can possibly be twisted, assigning blame to anyone who happens to be in the vicinity (except themselves), and setting up for an all-out foot stamping fest from 5 August, I imagine. Reminds me of a relationship I had once.

Narcissists really cannot deal with the real world. They can function only in an imaginary one, designed by and catering for ME ME ME ME ME (stamp).

Another one: (variations on the same theme on two different threads): gender critical feminists are wrong because they're British, and British feminism is wrong either because it's prudish or because it's colonialist (take your pick).

These kind, tolerant, open-minded types do love their xenophobic stereotypes, don't they? Deary me.

Noticing the Gender Critical observation that institutions, legal bodies and do on can be "captured" by trans activism is being appropriated and DARVO'd into the UK media, government and legal system being "captured" by Gender Critical feminism.

Presumably because in the UK female people still have legal differentiation to male people even when those male people really really want them not to.

Yes and “lawfare” was first levelled at GLP rather than GC cases.

I thought it was at that headcase ex-cop who spent so much time taking women to court for nothing in particular?

It was first used about the legal attempts to stop Brexit as far as I know. Which Maugham was involved with, obviously.

Rishi Sunak criticised “lawfare” (widely interpreted as being a dig at the GLP) four years ago.

So what I’m saying is that it’s largely a reversal. It’s a criticism of TRAs turned back around.

Thanks for this, that makes sense to me! It seems somebody has just found "law fare" and decided to run with it for now.

What I am noticing now are two, parallel strategies:

a. a continuation and acceleration of Be Kind 2.0/Persuasion
b. a stepping up of No Debate 2.0

and two, newly emerging trends:

c. Non-binary as an identity to overtake "trans"
d. Trend of minimization: "no one cares except you, because you're... (old, out of touch, "feministing" wrong, Right Wing, losing sight of the Bigger Picture of Women's Rights, a Colonialist/British), etc.

Just a few thoughts. Thanks for the contributions so far!

A new one, from "The Future of Gender Ideology" thread:

It's Just Not Working, Ladies. Everything We Are Doing Is Wrong. We Need to Rethink Our Strategy.

(translation: everything women are doing is having a huge effect, so stop doing it)

Yes, definitely some usernames who tend to pop up with "As GC as they come but really, it's not actually possible is it" posts. I actually hope they are bad faith, I'd feel very sorry for a woman who genuinely had that level of despair about women's future.

I'm sure they are, Flirts.