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.

A fairly straightforward AIBU thread has taken an interesting turn, and I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this:

Aibu feeling uneasy about men taking little girls to the toilet in the womens toilet? | Mumsnet

There are a couple of posters on that thread who have said that fathers should be taking their very young daughters into the women's toilets, rather than the men's, for reasons of "safeguarding" and that women should accept that because little girls have rights to "single-sex spaces" too.

One even said that if women keep insisting on female-only spaces, eventually we'll just end up with all mixed-sex spaces, because why on earth should a father take his daughter into a nasty, risky space such as the men's toilets (completely dismissing the argument put forward that she will be with her Dad!).

The argument seems to be that

a. men's toilets are disgusting
b. men's toilets are full of half-naked men
c. men's toilets are fine for Dads with their little boys (for some strange reason that hasn't been explained) but not their little girls
d. there has been no arguing that women should be taking their little boys into the men's (not that I have read so far)
e. safeguarding little girls should come before adult women's rights
f. little girls also have the right to female-only spaces (completely ignoring the fact that once her Dad is there, it's become a mixed-sex space)
g. if we keep on insisting that women have their own spaces, there will be nowhere for Dad to take his daughter to the toilet, therefore, we women are talking ourselves into mixed-sex spaces only

I can't see this becoming a serious tactic, because:

a. a man would either have to take his daughter everywhere with him or
b. borrow someone else's female child every time he wanted to use a female space (!)
and
c. having only mixed-sex spaces everywhere would be indirect discrimination against women.

Anyway, without wanting to rehash the entire thread here, just wondered if anyone had seen this being put forward as a serious tactic as a way of arguing men into women's spaces? Someone on that thread mentioned that it has been gathering speed in the US, although where activists would go with this eludes me!

Over the last few months that topic has been cropping up here and on AIBU in various guises far too often to be genuine IMO. Either a wide eyed chap asking if it's ok or a wide eyed lady asking if her discomfort is OK.

There's a wonderful Terry Pratchett scene with a child trying all sorts of trivially transparent ways to find a loophole in the teacher's clear rule. I think of it so often with these TRAs. I will try and find it.

"But what if this happened?" "What if that happened?" "What if this and then that happened?" as if some tiny exceptional circumstance somehow proves sex can't really matter the other 99 million times 🙄

That toilet thread was weird and the voting had a very short timeframe.

I know the normal argument is for men taking children into unisex toilets or accessible toilets instead of men’s toilets . This was as a justification for universal designs. Because I am such a toilet safety nerd ‘expert’, I even know how and why that happened. However this is a newer concept about men taking daughters in a female toilet.

Obviously not ok and would lead to the extinction of single sex designs. Which won’t happen of course. It falls down as an argument on so many levels.

Back in the early nineties I was taking my three-year-old daughter into the ladies when a man approached me and asked whether I could possibly take his daughter in as well, since he didn't want to upset anyone who might already be in there, what with being a man and all. This was normal behaviour then.

The fact that it was Neil Gaiman and his small daughter might make this story slightly more remarkable, but in those days he was simply doing what any decent man would have: staying out of women's spaces.

Thanks, yes this is exactly how it read to me: what about what about what about... trying desperately to find that one perfect reason to have the chocolate bar right before dinner. "It has milk in it, doesn't it? Isn't that healthy?" 😝

Ok,so not just me thinking this was weird, good to know!

I thought I read one poster comment that the EA 2010 actually has a specific exception for Dads to take their daughters into the women's toilets- that was an extreme reach, I thought??

ed. sp.

Yes. I expect that thread is on some sort of other social media post like a bat signal.

It’s really difficult as I know the reality of what is happening in toilets re outcomes v design and want to make people aware who are actually happening. The actual facts. Yet I am reticent and at odds when posters are like that.