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.

I think the emerging tactic is "It's too hard to say no to trans people's desire appropriate opppsite sex spaces as identity props so all spaces will become Gender Neutral. You will lose Women-only spaces altogether and serve you right!"

Otherwise known as "If I can't have you no one can". An age old classic of Patriarchal rage.

Tactics and Trends - Summary 5

The latest tactics:

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

The Faux Concern (GC groups are anti-women and are not doing anything for women's rights)

The Forced-Teaming (or Mummy Will Fix It) (disadvantaged groups should look out for each other)

The Don't Be Rude One (asking about my sex is like asking about my genital surgery)

The "You're Stupid and Obsessive" One (you know nothing, so shut up and educate yourself - but if you take the trouble to educate yourself you are unhealthily obsessed)

It's Just Not Working, Ladies (translation: everything women are doing is having a huge effect, so stop doing it)

DARVO-ing The Captured (women's and GC orgs. are "captured")

The Colonial One (British feminists are "feministing" wrong because...colonialism)

The Summer Holidays One: Mort 'Pon The Case (you'll have to read earlier in the thread!)

The Guidance Ones:
It's too expensive to implement
It doesn't mean anything (we'll do what we want until someone complains)
It's too hard to implement: don't take them to court, we must change hearts and minds first.

The latest trends:

What I am noticing now are two, parallel strategies:

a. a return to and acceleration of Be Kind 2.0/Persuasion - bargaining starting to be replaced again with anger and denial
b. a stepping up of No Debate 2.0 (see upthread)

and two, newly emerging trends:

c. The Non-binary Conundrum (overtaking "trans"). A cause looking for supporters and a piggyback ride. It is also a term looking for legal definition.
d. Minimize the Issue: "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.

Plus, since the EHRC guidance came into force:

e. Make All Toilets Mixed-Sex
f. We Need Further Guidance

g. Transwomen Men who identify as trans say they will just use the ladies anyway.

Yes, it's in as a tactic under The Guidance Ones, but I could equally see it as an emerging trend, thanks.

from the Are We a Cult thread:

The One Where We Are "Using" Feminism For Nefarious Purposes: women are using feminism as an excuse to "attack marginalised" groups.

Oh, and we're also using rabid pitchforks at the same time.

I haven't used my rabid pitchfork since last autumn to stab errant lawn leaves. It's probably pretty rusty by now.

There's been quite a bit of "using opposite-sex toilets isn't actually illegal".

Which ignores the fact that service providers and employers have certain legal obligations in that area; and that if somebody kicks up when the provider or employer has asked them to comply, they are in the same position as any other disruptive service user or uncooperative employee, i.e. the fact that their stroppiness happens to be toilet-related becomes fairly irrelevant.

I have fallen in love with 'proportionality/balancing rights' which is a legal term. This is true but only when constraining the power of the state over the individual.

This week so far, and last week, there have been a lot of posters eager to dispute the actual law by replacing it with "word-salady terms that we just came up with at 1am, that we wish were actual law, but aren't, so we'll just keep repeating the word salad over and over again until we make it true because we live in a fantasy world where everything we say is right and true, instantly, and everything everyone else says is Just Wrong."

For any of those wishful thinkers reading this (and I know you are), I don't care. Wishing the law were different doesn't make it so. If you want to change the EA 2010, then put your money where your mouth is and take it to court. Don't just whinge about it on MN.

Not sure if this has been mentioned.

I am seeing a lot of the new ruling allows "cis" men to prentend to be trans men and enter the women's toilets,

A niffty bit of bait and switch continuing along the lines of "cis" men are the enemy, we are all "girls" together.

The bit that I found amusing in this is that it was a trans woman fioming in the women's toilets after the guidance came out.

Thanks, it may have been mentioned before, but can't recall now. It's definitely picked up since the guidance came into effect, so one to watch for!

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

it is anyone being able to get away with just saying "I identify as female" that poses the danger. It's another DARVO, isn't it?

The point is that TRAs wanted self ID which you correctly point out is that saying that you are trans is enough.

TRAs are now saying that
1/ If a trans person assaults anyone then they are either not trans or the wrong sort of trans
and
2/ Its only "Cis" men that would do this and they are therefore the enemy of both "cis" women and trans women.

So in short your post however is transphobic because trans people want self ID,
but only if they can retrospectively gatekeep it

At the risk of going round the list of tactics repeatedly, there’s one that I’m noticing in full force ATM.

We could call it the mandolin or hairspliter or dancing on the head of a pin. It usually involves some element of the motte and bailey (or goalpost moving). It is v successful for thread derailing and also pointing discussion away from the massive, visible from space elements of the topic under discussion and down into the weeds of “you’re confusing correlation with causation”.

I’ve got sucked in a couple of times recently and it’s difficult to know when to leave it alone as if you don’t carry on till the end there is an element of doubt left for the lurkers.

Another variation on obfuscation of the law:

From the psychological burden thread:

The Law Doesn't Actually Mean What It States (or I Don't Understand the Law and I Don't Like the Law, So I'm Going to Pretend That There's a Nuance Here That You Forgot About)

"A conflict in rights requires a balancing of rights or proportionality test that depends on the particular circumstances involved."

(ignore the fact that the SC ruling has already explained about "balancing of rights" and "proportionality")

Another one: asking what "we" think about a topic rather than what do you think, firstly framing Gender Critical Feminists as a group that follows prescribed views rather than individuals that come to their own individual conclusions, and secondly trying to force a "GC" objection to something quite innocuous like a small local Pride event or something trivial like the fact a TW chap also likes to dress as an orc to make Gender Critical Feminism look petty and obsessed with trivia.

I like the Dancing on the Head of a Pin.

I suppose we could also just call it Squirrel! 👀

(or, The Way My Brother-in-Law The Lawyer Argues When He Knows He's Wrong But Will Never Admit It) ... [you know who you are] 😆

Round 'em up and conquer, rather than divide and conquer?

It's a belittling tactic, isn't it? Force women to argue about and waste time on trivialities. I guess the only way to counter this is to not engage at all, as difficult as that is sometimes.

What I find interesting about the statement that is put out there about the guidance being unworkable, is that it ignores that the reason that it is unworkable is because so many trans women and institutions are going to ignore the law.

Not because it is actually unworkable.

Just realized that this was previously noted by @JanesLittleGirl thanks. Looks like it's becoming a "popular" tactic. Or perhaps all the posters are the same person!

I think that, for UK TRAs, this comes from the GLP:
We think it’s entirely possible, depending on the circumstances, for service providers to justify offering their services on a trans-inclusive basis as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
https://goodlawproject.org/how-the-code-of-practice-gets-the-law-wrong/

For our Aussie TRA(s), I think it is perhaps more to do with the differences between Aussie Law and UK Equality Law

I have noticed a few usernames using this argument over the last few weeks but I don't remember seeing any two of them on the same thread.

There is a classic "conflict in rights requiring a balancing of rights or proportionality test" that has been playing almost continuously for the last 30 odd years: Stop & Search. The government has a legitimate aim to reduce the incidence of wounding and murder on the streets. Stop & Search addresses this legitimate aim but is it a proportionate means? Where does the balance lie between being able to walk unhindered down the street and being able to walk safely down the street?

This is where the legal balancing and proportionality actually exists. It has fuck all to do with men using the women's bogs.

I'm contemplating starting a new thread, because I don't want this to be buried here, and I don't want to completely take over SSSIS' Draft Conversion Bill thread, however for now, I'll stick it here:

After having watched Stonewall and partners for a while now, I think I can finally see where their main focus is going to be, at least for now: "conversion therapy."

Evidence seems to be growing that activism is coalescing around the Draft Conversion Bill, gathering activists in psychotherapy professional bodies, Stonewall, and the Government together.

A few of us have posted information on various threads, but seeing it all in one place really shows the momentum:

from the Government:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill

from UKCP and PCPB:
https://www.pcpb.org.uk/consultation-opens-into-conversion-practices-and-gsrd-guidelines/
There is concern about how this consultation is being conducted.
https://x.com/i/status/2093715470847197559

from Stonewall campaigns:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/ban-conversion-practices

from Nick Wallis' GenderBlog, re The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP)
https://genderblog.net/call-for-nhs-therapists-to-educate-clients/

from TerfTimes:
Caring will be criminalised | TERF Times
https://www.terftimes.com/p/criminal-caring/

Stonewall haunting No.10 | TERF Times
https://www.terftimes.com/p/stonewall-still-haunting-government/

If the Conversion Bill actually takes off (and I think there is some doubt about this, as no one seems to like it as it is right now), I believe it will be used to prise open other doors relating to non-binary, reduction in single-sex spaces in favor of mixed-sex (however indirectly discriminatory these may), and self-ID of a sort.

I expect that as long as the draft bill still has legs, this will be one of the most important arenas for activism that we should be watching.

Unsurprising to see that the 'Ban Conversion Practices' coalition has Puppy Pride - 'the global social network for all pups and handlers' - as a member.
https://www.banconversionpractices.com/about

Thanks for this, it's a useful list of supporters to keep an eye on. I'm entirely unsurprised to see Amnesty UK International on there.