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.

Linking in to the "can't we think about the mental health of these poor people who think they are the opposite sex" (as was so disingenuously raised in HOC a couple of days ago) as a possible new tactic:

Someone has started a new thread re BACP (yes, them again)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5538342-bacp-take-affirming-stance-on-gsrd

It recognises that while diversity in gender, sexuality and relationships is a normal part of human experience, people whose identities fall outside dominant social norms often face stigma, discrimination and exclusion.

TRAs be whining about how bad having to follow the law is for their mental health.

I will be recommending they seek therapy. BACP therapists can tell them what they want to hear. Except that they will still have to obey the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidant_personality_disorder

Anyone care to comment about how this is different to the pattern of behaviour we see in teens and twenties somethings who identify as trans?

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9761-avoidant-personality-disorder

What’s the difference between avoidant personality disorder and social anxiety?

Avoidant personality disorder and social anxiety disorder (SAD)share similar features and behaviors. But they’re distinct conditions.

Social anxiety disorder (social phobia) happens when you have an intense and ongoing fear of being judged and watched by others. This leads people with SAD to avoid social situations.

People with AVPD also avoid social situations and relationships. But it has more to do with their low self-esteem than with anxiety. Anxiety is the core feature behind SAD, but it doesn’t have to be present with AVPD

(Just how is this any different from the disorder of Being A Teenager? see image attached)

New-ish tactic: the new term for Not Real Trans is "hoax" ( referring especially to crime/criminals).. I expect this terminology will expand itself to include other areas.

Hoax=Not Real Trans

Nifty little equation there. One of the usual suspects is arguing this point on another thread:

(AKA hoaxer-gender, credit BiologicalRobot)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5538270-darren-rigby-case-salient-details-left-out-of-reporting?reply=152724533

Thanks for all the great contributions so far!

Periodic Summary 1 - The "Persuasive TRA"

possible activist tactics to try to remove rights from women and girls
(many are as old as Time, but some new ones seem to be creeping in):

mirroring
wearing our arguments
wearing our history
'gender policing' - re toilets, esp. trans-identified women
Fog of Confusion (see also word salad and is/ought)
piggybacking
appropriation
bargaining and bartering
pleading (see also Can't we agree to disagree about gender?)
Mental health impact on trans people
using AI: 'use GC arguments to defend your position'.
manufactured outrage
is/ought
Treating minorities like they're conspiracies
Dehumanising transpeople
escalating the drama
Hoax=Not Real Trans (AKA hoaxer-gender)

AND... (the Classics)

➡ALL OF THIS, AKA "full on throwing things"
Refusal to talk. NoDebate.
BeKind.
Verbal aggression and belittling.
Walking on eggshells eg loss of jobs.
Darvo.
Gaslighting aka mirroring.
Whining.
emotional blackmail
word salad
drama and hyperbole
women’s objections appear mean, petty, almost obsessive (see "hysterical ")

There's been a bit of special pleading on behalf of subsets of the men who claim to be trans. Probably because the optics of crime and piss-protesting etc. have now got so bad that nobody in their right mind could see some of those people as fit to share spaces with women. So under the bus they go.

But there doesn't seem to be agreement on what the "real thing" consists of. We've been offered, variously:

• not being rapist-gender or a hoaxer
• having habits and preferences considered typical of the opposite sex
• being an actual biological female by virtue of hormones and surgery
• passing so completely that nobody knows anyway.

It's just madey-uppy nonsense, all of it, isn't it? And don't forget

-not a robot, but biological, and a woman, therefore a biological female

Another tack seems to be that wanting women-only spaces is somehow unfeminist and limits and diminishes women.

Much use of the word "segregation" (for its emotive, racist connotations), and a narrative that women's spaces were created by "the patriarchy" for women to be confined to or excluded into. Thus ignoring the true history of women's toilets, single-sex prison facilities, women's refuges and much else.

Related is Schrödinger's Safe Space. Safe and absolutely essential when it's a matter of transwomen being allowed to use it, but not a safe space at all when it's just for women.

The weak spot in the law is that it depends on enforcement and challenge to have any teeth. So the aim will be to persuade service providers not to bother with enforcement ("unworkable", "unkind" etc), and to guilt-trip or discourage service users into feeling they shouldn't complain or that it won't be worth it.

If that doesn't work, then look out for:

• campaigns to change the law outright via Parliament
• looking for holes in the law
• dog-in-the manger campaigns, and threats of campaigns, to get women's spaces turned into mixed-sex spaces or shut down altogether.

Yes it's funny how in TRA land it was once forbidden to suggest a man may possibly be pretending to be trans no matter how outrageous the behaviour or presentation. Just one of a long line of stupid rules everyone was supposed to go along with! Even men dressed as women who had raped women before conversion. Even men dressed as women who had sexually abused children. These men were to be classed as women and woe betide anyone who dare to miss pronoun them. But now as this idiotic ideology starts to crumble they begin woth the 'oh but they're not real trans they're hoax trans' yeah but no but.

These men were to be classed as women and woe betide anyone who dare to miss pronoun them. But now as this idiotic ideology starts to crumble they begin woth the 'oh but they're not real trans they're hoax trans' yeah but no but.

Which makes a nonsense of ‘Acceptance without exception’ and ‘I am who I say I am.’

‘Acceptance without exception’

Oh, I haven't heard that in a long time, it seems so 2020 now, doesn't it? They were so sure and confident about their rights, and now it's all falling apart, they're pleading with us, trying to persuade us, and turning on each other.

This is what happens when you try to build something made out of clouds on top of quicksand.

And we will never forget poor old Nicola Sturgeon getting into such a tizzy because she couldn't bring herself to call Isla Bryson a man. In the end all she could say was that Isla Bryson was a... Rapist. Nicola Sturgeon who could talk the hind legs off a donkey but was left a gibbering wreck having to answer a simple question.

It's far too late for me to even begin to understand this very clever statement, but I think it might be useful, so just pasting here for a later date:

FlirtsWithRhinos · Today 17:10
I work with a lot of very clever people.

The trap for the very clever is to be not quite as clever as they think they are, and to underestimate how clever other people may be. And so they dismiss issues they don't personally see as the other people just not being smart enough to see past the problems.

I suspect FWR has been around the TRAs too long and has absorbed their word saladness abilities. Or maybe I haven't been around enough clever people to understand 🤔 but dammit, I thought you lot would make me cleverer!

Don't start! It's too late for me! 😄

Nicola Sturgeon is a fuck wit who can't bring herself to call her fuckwit of a husband a grifting twat who helped himself to political funds because it might damage her reputation. Like diddums. I've spent the day dealing with worse.

Oi! My word salads are all my own doing thank you very much!

I've had far too much to drink today. Sadly I will think the same tomorrow when sobered up. My spelling is better whilst pissed.

Clever and full of shit are two different things. Don't fall for it.

No, no I've got it! I know it's in there somewhere! <...just need a few minutes >

'Clever' is kinda a loaded word, though, isn't it? It implies a lot more than 'intelligent'.

Well, Flirts clearly knows what it means, so that must be the "clever" part...
...Right?

Oh, I'm done for tonight, it's just beyond me at this point!

Well, let's just say, some words have a bit more elasticity about their meaning. Some, like 'woman', don't.

I can be clever and utterly shit faced whilst able to spell. Sober and my punctuation and grammar goes to shit. Make of that what you will. I can make a relevant argument in both states.

😂😂

I'm now hungry and even willing to eat a salad at this late hour. What happens if I eat one after midnight 🤔