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.

That was 100% me as a teenager. Self-conscious, constant issues with not having a solid friendship group, thought I was ugly and stupid, and I couldn't take criticism.

And yet, at 18, over the course of about 6 months, I emerged from my self-imposed chrysalis and had an absolute blast at uni.

I was also a tomboy. I'd have been absolute prey for the genderwang.

Oh, and I think I know what @FlirtsWithRhinos means.

Along the lines of 'No, those aren't really problems or uncomfortable facts - if you were as clever as me you'd know that.'
The other version is, 'You are not seeing the problem that doesn't exist is obvious to me with my mighty brain.' I have the feeling that this is Judith Butler's skillset.

Yes, exactly. You put it much better than me. Clever points to @EdithStourton 😁

https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/2062610227724198268?s=20

‘We’ll compromise on some single sex spaces but are prepared to present all kinds of legal shenanigans to keep using women’s toilets’
That’s the bottom line here I feel.

Thanks for this, I hadn't really noticed the "segregation " tactic and yes, "unworkable" will be an argument we will have to combat.

Guilt-tripping women into not complaining will be one of the easiest techniques for activists to use, as it is the essence of "Be Kind 2.0." There will be a lot of attempts to argue that, yes, it is the law, but it really doesn't apply if nobody complains. We'll need to be firm on this. Women who don't really know what has been going on to diminish their single-sex spaces might be unsure about if this is true or not.

Thank you! I was far too tired to work it out last night 😁

Beware the use of data to 'prove' there wasn't a problem.

We saw this with Bounty photographers. The NHS used the idea that because there were no officially logged complaints there wasn't a problem and it's not something they had an ability to be aware of and safeguard against, even though there's a whole huge load of legally binding consumer regulations about how you can't make high pressure sales in environments where people can't easily walk away or feel compelled to go along with.

Remember that MN was completely awash with women complaining about it and also expressing why they didn't make a complaint. Others commented they had complained unofficially but this didn't seem to be registering. All to do with women 'not wanting to make a fuss' and literally being told they should just be grateful they are alive and have healthy baby.

This was also all over the newspapers.

Yet despite the NHS being the largest employer in the country, no one who worked in these hospitals saw an article relating to their field of work and stopped for a second to think "hmm hang on a second".

It was only after MN intervened that politicians started to go "actually this isn't a great look is it?".

And then we've seen the same pattern repeat over treatment in maternity wards and the scandal that subsequently emerged.

And we have plenty here saying women are easy to ignore on the issue of women's rights being trampled by trans activists. Indeed it was a feature that Darlington NHS actively admitted in their decision making process with Rose. It was easier to say no to women than deal with a single individual who was male because they were more likely to complain.

Women need to get it into their heads that they need to complain unfortunately.

The NHS KNOWS how to manipulate a lack of complaints to suggest there is no problem to address. They have form for it. It's a deliberate strategy.

Beware the use of data to 'prove' there wasn't a problem.

Good point. We have been seeing, and saying, this for years. It's like the political system in China, or the unofficial intimidation and repercussions if anyone says anything contrary to what Trump wants to hear. Two sides of the same coin. They give you one guy to vote for, who are you going to vote for? Complain? We'll cut your livelihood off at the knees.

It's lose-lose at the moment, but we do at least have the law on the side of women's rights. Like you say, we just have to keep complaining, but I do realize that it's exhausting, and often impossible, for a lot of women.

Another pivot point (well, it's really an old one, but just using different words):

(thanks to @nutmeg7 )

Are you saying that the EHRC and the Supreme Court went to all the trouble of confirming that single sex services mean single biological sex (not gender presentation) as part of a right wing plot to distract us all from defunded public services?

Thanks, OP. I'm a gullible sort of person, so warnings like these really make a difference.

I'm glad you find it useful. I shall keep adding info here as I find it, as will others. If you think if anything, please do add it in here, it's all helpful!

(I imagine you are no more gullible than the rest of us. The twisting of words and their meanings seems to change weekly at the moment, and it's hard to keep up!)

From the charity sector (thanks to @IWantToRetire and contributors on the other thread)

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/debra-allcock-tyler-charities-not-allow-fear-become-chief-decision-maker/governance/article/1960836

You are unlikely to face serious consequences for carefully considering evidence, taking legal advice and reaching a reasoned conclusion, even if that takes time. You are far more likely to face criticism for making a hasty decision that later proves to be flawed.

Delay changes, obfuscate, plead confusion, argue that it's too difficult, delay, delay, delay... This is one message coming from the charitable sector. (Must have been speaking to Bridget!)

Some activists seemingly digging in for the long haul.

Re the education sector (schools), with thanks to @MrsOvertonsWindow

In a discussion about inappropriate literature for school-age children and the (often) school librarians who purchase these books (obviously, NASLALT: not all school librarians are like that)

Many of them are sadly responsible for purchasing second rate transactivist 'literature" designed to normalise sex change, gender identity and the erosion of boundaries to children.

Shades of Stonewall's new partnership with Diversity Role Models, et al., that I have been watching.

Targeting children and schools in this way will never not be an "interesting pasttime" for some activists. They may just decide to do it more quietly.

It makes me so angry how one sided this is. "We would rather knowingly continue to disrespect and distress women, and knowingly dismiss, delegimitise and override women's voices, than risk standing up to TRA demands then finding out we could have avoided it."

It's like all the aghast shock when FWS celebrated a SC win, as if had the verdict gone the other way TRAs would not have had a 5 day pink and blue Fuck You fest.

I am really sorry to hear what happened to your DC. That sounds really horrible.

I assume that when the boys have said it "does not count" they mean that they know that your DC is female even if they have taken on a trans identity. Because of all the rules around privacy your DC is now at risk and the boys know this full well - if noone in authority can mention "female" in relation to your DC then how can they provide protection against sex based violence?

This is the whole point of many of the posters here. Remove all the boundaries and there are no safeguards. It is women who suffer whatever their identity!

I would ask why you would want to encourage your DC into more male single sex situations where they will be even more at risk? It makes zero sense. A female taking on a trans identity and entering male spaces is not a sensible thing to do - especially if they are already a young vulnerable person. Please encourage them to seek out a third space or stay in the female spaces to avoid problems with safety, dignity and privacy.

If you weren't previously aware, you might consider that if the Supreme Court had not found in favour of biological sex that in due course your DC (if they got a GRC) would have no protection in relation to work related pregnancy security, pay, time off etc. You may think this is an unlikely scenario but it is a possibility and you should keep an open mind about gender roles.

It sounds like you have many issues with men - please stop putting these issues on to the women here who also share these concerns. While I understand you are in pain, I just can't grasp why you blame women for the cruelty and boundary crossing of the boys at your DC's school. Please get a grip of yourself and target the people who are the problem - not the women here.

Please direct your anger towards the boys who perpetuated these assaults and - if you can bring yourself to acknowledge the reality of biological sex - do your DC a favour and get the school to put safeguards in place ASAP. It would be a lot better use of your time than coming on here berating women for wanting to avoid what has happened to your DC for themselves and their daughters.

We have a name for this phenomenon now! It's called RAPID ONSET WOMEN WITH ALOPECIA, CANCER SURVIVORS AND BUTCH LESBIANS CONCERN 😁
Thanks to @HenriettaSwanLeavitt from another thread

Another one (twist on the tiny number of transwomen in toilets/changing rooms) - not entirely original, but a nice tactical shift (from the thread about Emma Hilton's new, inexpensive test for sex)

'it's just a tiny minority (of boys and men taking sporting opportunities, scholarships, funding, awards, places on teams and endangering others) so why worry?'

Thanks to @Wishesandhorses

This really is an example of the mutation of the argument from "there are ten percent or more of the population who are trans so they should be taken seriously", isn't it.

It is clear, from the sad story of sexual abuse at school which has happened since "transition", that encouraging a child in the belief that presenting as/pretending to be the opposite sex from his or her own will solve his or her problems has had the opposite effect: it's made things worse for that child.

That must lead to the most appalling guilt in the adult who failed to prevent this for her child.

Maybe it’s the GRA that needs revising (or repealing) because it’s not possible for men to actually “live as” women. They are men.

Hell yes.

We had safe spaces until the last 15 years when males infiltrated our spaces. Firstly, you show callous ignorance of the female sex needs. Women flee to the ladies to escape a man. We cry. Seek help. We miscarry there. We change out at the sinks to go clubbing. We wash blood-stained underwear at the sink, and baby sick off our blouses. We are in a semi state of dress. We don't want MALES there, understand?

Secondly, if cubicles are the 'answer' to female spaces, they are the answer for transwomen in the mens! So checkmate! Males have no reason at all the enter the ladies since they have 'cUbiCleS' in the mens! How about that!?

PS There has been zero increase in 'anti-trans' violence. Evidence from the UK however, shows there has been a MASSIVE INCREASE in anti-women violence. Solely due to the efforts of the misogynistic anti-women Mens Rights/pro-trans movement. Congratulations, you have that on your conscience.

There are cubicles in the males. There you go. 💁

Considering you show great disdain for the hard fought and won sex-based needs and rights of the female sex and the hateful and bigoted misogyny you show in your anti-women posts, it's no surprise your daughter picked up on your attitude and decided she had to be a boy to earn your love and not disappointment. You had gender (sex) disappointment with your child, wish they were born a boy and she picked up on that. No surprise there.

Btw, most people at these 'counter' protests are males, misogynist males protesting against feminism the same way they did at our right to vote and against Womens Lib in the 1970s. Misogynist males who are creating an increase in hate and violence against the female sex. Early 1900s, 1970s, today. Misogynist chauvinist pig males protesting against feminism was ever thus and will never change, no matter the age. The overwhelming majority of the public are aghast and disgusted with the violence of the anti-women ('pro-trans') Mens Rights movement.

Well quite - the Supreme Court concluded from case law that “living as a woman” had come to be - having a utility bill stating a name typically associated with the target sex for at least 2 years.

I mean - I know I meet that criteria - but theres a bit more to being an actual woman than that?!

Criminal Gender (akin to Rapist Gender) but broadening out now to include "everyone we don't think should be included as true trans because we really don't like the optics."

No "criminal gender" proponent seems able yet to define where the line should be drawn between "really, really, honestly has changed sex because they said so" and "really, really, honestly has changed sex because they said so, except if I don't like it because this person committed a crime."

This concept seems to be making a comeback and is seen with increasing frequency on threads.

Thanks to @murasaki