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.

Oh, yes. We see. They must think we were born yesterday, when in fact we can see them coming from miles away. The only reason they don't know it, is because we're not allowed to call them out for it, because MN calls that "troll hunting." Doesn't mean we don't know who they are. I'm sure they think they're being very clever, but they might as well have "I'm not what I am pretending to be" painted on their foreheads. (Hilarious)

Fav summer tactic: Send the lackey in first, to start an obviously, borderline "offensive" post about how trans-identified men are viewed/treated/spoken to, complete with faux naïveté ("has this ever happened to you/have you ever thought this?)

Then send in the foot soldiers to start the pile-on, while, at the same time, being able to berate all the women for "allowing" the original "transphobic" post in the first place.

A variation on the bait and switch.

I'm calling it The One Where We Send In Mort The Mouse Lemur First, To See If He Gets Eaten, Before We Send In King Julien And His Troops

(or Mort 'Pon The Case)

Yes, that’s definitely got more common over the years as people got wise to overt trolling.

Has anyone noticed the segregation argument? (I may have missed it upthread).
"Well if you think women / girls are entitled to privacy from men when undressing / toileting then you must be arguing for complete segregation in the rest of society HAHAHA"

I've noticed in on a current thread where there's lots of unhinged AI regurgitated word salad but have spotted it recently from some of the male pigeons that descend to lecture women. It's never expanded on (as it lacks any credibility) but suspect it's being trialled.

Yes, that was noted 'way back in Periodic Summary 2

The "it's segregation" tactic (especially relating to the EHRC guidance and the EA)

However, it may be coming back around, as these tactics often do, when it's clear that their current attempts (to do what, exactly? WE can't change the law, duh) are clearly failing.

I think there's going to be a series of meltdowns between now and 5 August. after which date, of course, everyone who thinks the law is wrong/the law is too complicated to obey/women shouldn't have any rights will disappear in a puff of smoke (supposedly). Because of a law that says that everyone has rights.

<Yawn>

Yes, there was a particular poster last year or thereabouts who made that argument frequently.

JKR has also been taking notes regarding the arguments made by TRAs.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2083637556319543378

https://xcancel.com/jk_rowling/status/2083637556319543378

@CassOle Maybe we should compare notes! 😄

It looks as though the best tactic that activists can genuinely run with will be Make All Toilets Mixed-Sex.

This is clearly not a new tactic, and generally not beloved by the "validation" crew, but I predict that this is the one they will use now, since it's 6 August 2026 and there's no sign of rescinding the EHRC guidance or changing the EA 2010 on the horizon.

They'll run with it until services start being sued for indirect discrimination against women. This could take another decade to get through the court cases. Unless there are enough legal staff to point services in the right direction.

From the "Is this a sane pro-trans response to the guidance" thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5563404-is-this-what-a-sane-but-pro-trans-response-to-the-ehrc-guidance-looks-like

https://transfiguredmission.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/faqs-for-churches-following-ehrc.pdf

Apparently, "You cannot expect or require trans people to use the ‘wrong’ toilet, therefore you will need sufficient mixed sex / all gender toilets."

Thanks to @RareGoalsVerge for posting this.

I'd be totally cool with "make all venues that have room for more than 3 toilets have at least one gender neutral option"

I am not ashamed to support the view that it's not appropriate to make trans identified people use the facilities that match their birth sex if that makes them miserable. I don't share their beliefs but if I want them to learn to respect my beliefs I am bloody well going to respect the hell out of theirs insofar as possible without surrendering my own self respect, bodily autonomy, privacy and dignity.

I am disappointed that so many people are pushing for a hardline "everyone must use the facilities matching their birth sex" policy which has no respect for diversity of beliefs.

Women do have the right to single sex spaces. Those can only be upheld if there are plentiful appropriate, dignified and non-stigmatising unisex facilities that are an easy default to use whenever you don't need a specifically single-sex environment, alongside single sex facilities that are upheld to be based by biological sex only.

I'm also happy for unisex facilities to be available. I would not want single-sex facilities to be removed completely. I agree, the unisex ones should be in addition to the single-sex ones and in addition to the disabled/accessible toilet (bar places that only have room for one or two unisex toilets anyway).

So women can have single-sex spaces, but only when the special men are fully satisfied, is that what you are saying?

Women do have the right to single sex spaces. Those can only be upheld if there are plentiful appropriate, dignified and non-stigmatising unisex facilities

Well, I completely disagree with you on this, as does the law. As far as "stigma" goes, if women are being forced to believe (or expected to act as though we believe) that someone else's view of themselves takes precedence over our material reality, then the stigma is self-inflicted.

Respect is also earned. There hasn't been any respect from activists, or any attempt to earn women's respect either.

Mixed-sex toilets, etc. are the solution that women have been talking about for more than a decade. Activists refused to consider them. Now that this is all they have to look forward to, they want to remove all single-sex spaces and make everything mixed-sex. Demanding again, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine. We won't let this happen.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe activists, and many trans-identified people, brought this on themselves. Now they'll have to get used to the consequences.

ed sp

It's very Wheesht for Indy.

It's hard to be ok with it because their beliefs are sexist and deligitimise the self knowledge of female people who just see ourselves as female.

Basically it sends the message that it's ok to see other people as sexist gender stereotypes - or at least the message if you do happen to see other people as sexist gender stereotypes, we don't want to make you uncomfortable by insisting you leave your sexism at the (toilet) door so we'll play along.

So it's hard to see that sexist belief being treated by venues, service providers, employers etc as reasonable and something that has to be accomodated.

If GN is presented as "people who don't care about sex" that would be different, but it isn't. It's drawing lines between people based on assumptions about their personality which unlike the risks that lead to some things being segregated by sex don't have any empirical evidence to.support them, just trans people's sexist ideas.

Most years people gored to death by unicorns have worse stats than murdered TIM in the UK.

I’m not ok with it either, but it takes some of the wind out of the TRAs’ sails and I don’t think decision makers will agree to making them use the men’s.

But it’s not our job, I don’t really care either way sad long as all men stay out of the women’s.

That will teach me not to read and post in haste.

Single-sex facilities must be upheld even if there is no space for a unisex option to be added.

People who have altered their bodies and are uncomfortable using the facilities for their sex might need to do a bit more planning to ensure that unisex facilities are available at their destination or nearby enough to use during their trip. People with disabilities have to plan like that all the time, or decide not to go to certain places where their needs are not met. People with congenital disabilities or disabilities due to accidents have not made a choice to alter their bodies, yet they must plan like this. Why can't people with trans identities plan a bit? They always have the option of using the facilities for their sex, after all.

I am still not against additional unisex facilities being added, where possible.

Mixed/Gender nuetral spaces were brought up at the start of this.

And it is worth remembering that it was the trans lobby that shot the idea down because TWAW #Nodebate etc.

So once again we are in this position because of the trans lobby but you will never hear them admit to it, cause its all transphobia.

We Need Further Guidance (Your Local Council Hard At Work Of Thinking)

From Islington Council, thanks @ElenOfTheWays

Also known as "Fuck you female people. Who cares whether you have legal rights or not? We don't. You don't deserve the rights you have being respected, and we don't care how that makes you feel because trans people and how they feel matter so much more than you" 🤬😡🤬😡🤬

👍🏼

But why would using the facilities provided for their sex make anyone miserable?

Presumably this comes down to a handful of reasons.

1). They don't want to face up to the reality of their sex. This is very unfortunate, but it isn't societies problem to solve. If this is the case, they need therapy.

2). They get a kick out of using women's spaces for reasons of power or fetish or some combination of both. If this is the case, then I'm sure you'll agree we do not owe them any sympathy or accommodation.

3). They would be genuinely unsafe. I've never seen any evidence for this, but if it's the case, the. It's the argument for third spaces. However, I fail to see why lecturing women to accommodate these men is the answer here. Surely the men making other men unsafe in the toilets are the problem and therefore need to be dealt with. It's not women's problem to solve.

So while I am a for third spaces if required, I fail to see what 'diversity of belief' we should be accommodating here.

It's all either delusion, mental illness, fetish, nasty attitudes to women or terrible behaviour by other men. There is absolutely nothing here that women should feel pressure to facilitate.

How many times just on this board have we been told that 3rd spaces are 'othering and transphobic' and the mere mentioning of them is akin to genocide.

Anyone who doesn't believe me, just google 'Mumsnet third spaces' and you'll see that nothing less than the complete capituation by women has been acceptable to TRA's.

It's only now, when they have finally gathered this isn't going their way, that calls for 'a reasonable, kind solution for all' are being touted.

And at this point, women's patience has worn out. We're no longer prepared to deal with over indulged toddlers who treat the word no as a personal slight.