The whitewashing and rewriting of history.

[1984Now]

After a decade plus of being immersed in the trans ideology culture war against women, children, science, and language (any other casualties?), I thought I'd heard it all. Men can become women, be in women's sports and prisons etc, adolescents can be put on irreversible medical pathways, the freedom to oppose should constantly challenged, silenced.
But what do I read in useful idiot Ian Dunt's Substack attacking the SC For Women verdict and the ECHR advice just rolled out? In the many replies to his tone-deaf piece.
That in the past, let's call this the liberal period that we've all lived thru, that TIM are women that have always been in women's spaces, not hidden, that other women have always been aware, been accepting, no controversy, indeed encouraged.
But that only in the last 10-15 years has a culture war erupted, only now have there been demands to exclude these individuals, only now have women learnt to be hateful.
Because there was harmony in the knowledge and acceptance and support of women in halcyon days past that men ID as women, and have taken part in these spaces, and have not been rejected. It was not news, not controversial, totally natural, it always happened.
Two things.
Those people supporting this view who remember the 50s-90s onwards are so radicalised, so deranged, that they genuinely only see what they want to see, are prepared to be so blind.
Those too young to remember will be cruelly fooled by older adults who shamefully tell total lies. About the present and now the past.
And on a more meta level, women have lost their freedoms to fully control their spaces today, and bad actors/deluded individuals are happy to whitewash history to say GC women are hateful today, and arent even allowed to hold onto memories of a past, that past has been rewritten.

Back In the Day we had Danny la Rue, Les Dawson, Kenny Everett, pantomime dames, drag acts etc, etc, etc and no one thought they were actually women. Not one person.

Transvestites existed but it wasn't something that was acceptable in public. Transexuals existed but were absolutely on the fringes of life and "acceptance" outside of very specific spaces was based on turning a blind eye if no harm was being caused.

I do think it's a shame that TRAs were so determined to overreach. It could have been a better life if they had campaigned for acceptance of differences in presentation and accommodation within third spaces. But thems the breaks and they've made their beds.

No doubt the same narrative is deployed in many similar situations.

One lot of people has the upper hand and overt rebellion is risky. A few brave souls speak out and are branded cranks and troublemakers. Eventually the rebellion gains momentum - and an attempt is made to spin it as a new thing which is only happening because the cranks and troublemakers have turned the heads of people who were perfectly happy to be trodden on. Well they must have been, mustn't they, because they didn't say they weren't.

No. Silence is not consent.

Until the last 15 years there were no men accepted as women. Transvestites lived on the fringes of society and appeared vested in only certain places - where the rest of society did not tread.
Men who thought they were women were absolutely not allowed in women's spaces, sports, prisons,refuges etc. Not one. And why? Because there were no such people and had one turned up they would have been removed/to to leave and made to do so. Dunt is a see you next Tuesday (sorry) and not the real, biological sort either. Also his article is a rant and his argument has more holes than a leaky sieve.

Indeed. If trans were so run of the mill, so not different, so accepted, there would have been no comedy content from men (badly) dressing up.
This rewriting and whitewashing bears no examination.
But the people making the claims have issues that would fill a mental health conference.

In the 1990s a man in the women's public lavatories, no matter how he was dressed, would have been ejected with prejudice, shortly after any woman who was in there started to scream at him. He would have been known to be doing a wrong and unacceptable thing, and she would not have incurred any blame. In the 1980s adolescent girls were told by their mothers and friends that if a man was making a pest of himself she could take refuge in the ladies until he got bored and went away, or enough other women had gathered to be able to see him off. In the 1970s the question wouldn't even have been thought of.

The reason women started to be up in arms during this century was the realisation that any man who uttered the magic words "I identify as a woman" not only would then have the right to walk into the ladies, anyone who challenged him would be guilty of a hate crime and might end up being prosecuted; would certainly be persecuted.

We were of course quite reasonable not to want just any old man to be able to claim unchallenged that he was a woman. Trans people (transvestites, almost all of them) quietly going about their lives and not being monumental pitas we had put up with; I had known and not objected to several for quite a long time by the eighties. Sexual predators, usually in unconvincing wigs and sometimes poorly-applied slap, who by 2010 had noticed they now had free rein to go into the ladies and get their rocks off by frightening and upsetting women, no.

At first we were told it would never happen; then it started to happen, and the jig was up. The lie had been exposed. We never thought that all transwomen were rapists or sex pests, but we always knew that people pretending to be transwomen might well turn out to be one or both of these things, and we disliked being proved right. Then we got stroppy about it: what did anyone expect?

I believe trans ideology is like a series of Russian Dolls, pull one doll away, there's another one underneath. Hence we go from men can become women, to men who became women were always accepted and encouraged.
It's also a wishlist, wishful thinking in action.
With what the TRAs and useful idiots like Dunt and his sheep think was reality is really what they wish would have been the case, that men could always have become women and be totally accepted for it. That's a wish, not what happened.
And that they wish all this hateful exclusion today wasn't the case. Because it never happened then.
Because if it actually was true that transvestites and transexuals were allowed free access to toilets in the pre 2010s world, then that would inform exactly why the hateful TERFs have to be opposed today.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5544939-code-of-practice-explained-by-akua-reindorf-in-response-to-ian-dunt?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thought Id share this heartening riposte by Akua Reindorf. Im encouraged that we have such brilliant and clever legal minds on our side.

Fifteen years ago TRAs hadn't manipulated and lied to generations of children and teens fooling them into such nonsense that they could switch sex. Kooky parents of toddlers and primary age kids hadn't been influenced to push these ideas onto their kids swayed by the oh so cool 'celebs'. Tiny tiny kids who at that age believed they were mermaids, birds, spiderman. It's truly unforgivable. Medical clinicians hadn't prescribed puberty blockers or carried out horrendous surgery to remove healthy body parts from children! Sick twisted ideology that should never have been anywhere near children.

Did Dunt never watch Little Britain?

Transgender rhetoric makes a lot more "sense" once you realise that the whole thing is based on the idea that you can make something true simply by declaring it to be so.

Indeed.
It has a factual void at its centre, because the fast are that humans are either male or female, that's decided before - not 'attributed at' - birth, and it's impossible to change sex.
So all of the TRA arguments and claims are suspended above this factual void, and I think that's why they become so aggressive so quickly, why they use hyperbole like 'annihilation' and 'literal genocide', why #nodebate - because they can't afford to allow rational debate and basic fact-finding to expose the void at the centre of transgenderism.

Re-writing history, especially lesbian and gay history, so they've 'always been there' is another tactic. As is getting popular culture, which also tends to be youth culture, 'onside'.

We're too close to it, and too badly affected by it, to do so, but future sociologists will have a field-day working out how such a flimsy ideology took such firm hold so quickly...

Can he hear himself? 'only now have women learned to be hateful' - is how he phrases women saying no.

Women standing up for their own legal rights is 'hateful'.

Women not passively indulging, enabling, having boundaries or needs of their own is 'hateful'.

And as per bloody usual a total erasure of women as anything more than a barrier to poor men. Nothing about why women fought this through the court for years and what happened to women on the way.

The misogyny of these men is just jawdropping. The huge Mummy Issues writ large.

That's not me saying that, I'm paraphrasing Dunt and his followers. It's them, men AND women, who say that there was a peaceful past where other than isolated instances of eg beating up a transvestite outside a pub, that men who IDd as women freely inhabited women's spaces, women knew all about it and weren't in the least bit perturbed.
Becoming perturbed about it, to the point of a zero sum culture war ONLY happened in the last 10-15 years, as right wing forces radicalised TERF voices, and went about destroying the previous harmonious balance of rights and acceptance.
This is the rewriting of history and whitewashing of women's common experience I'm trying to highlight in this thread, and the sheer cosmic level insanity at the heart of this opinion.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

No, my fault, I tend to type faster than I think, lol.
I'm always being told I can't expect others to know what's in my own head if I'm not crystal clear.

Maybe this rewriting of history as in Dunt's narrative that transwomen were always over decades in women's spaces with cis women, known to those women, happily accepted by cis women, is the corollary to the rewriting that trans were at the forefront of Stonewall riots in 1968, and all those trans characters in RTDs breakout gay drama Queer As Folk, and all those trans women/NBs throughout history that have always been accepted as women, Boudica, Elizabeth 1 etc.
Not only is present day trans ideology wishful thinking, but rewriting history is a wish list as well.
Who could ever have imagined that adults could demonstrate less critical thinking skills than 7 year old children?

The "Elizabeth I was trans" guff is a complete fabrication; every time the question of her possible marriage arose, she was given intimate physical examinations to prove that she was a) female and b) virgin. Saying on one occasion when she was rallying a crowd that she had the heart and stomach of a king of England really doesn't make her trans!

(Joan of Arc wasn't trans either: she was a woman who wore men's dress in order to be able to move freely when she was running an army.)

Yes, guff.
And also guff that the women's toilets at the Ford Dagenham factory in the late 70s had transwomen partaking, known by the other women, and wholly accepted/encouraged.
And a million other female spaces.

Ian Dunt has revealed himself to be a nasty, hostile, sexist wee man and, despite publicly promoting himself as being an UltraLiberal ™️ for the last two decades, it's seems he really doesn't see women as real human beings capable of rational thought.

Another disappointing male public commentator to add to the list of Men Who Don't Listen To Women 🤬

One thing Dunt and his fellow cultists always fail to correct for is that they deliberately choose to live in a vacuum. They do not tolerate any mention (let alone discussion) of opposing viewpoints so they can happily go along thinking their little bubble is the world, and the WHOLE THING is based on a catchy slogan of TWAW/TMAM without any actual factual basis whatsoever. Like all good cults, I think they genuinely believe that everyone "right" thinks like them; and the rest are Bad People.

Except outside that bubble, the vast majority of people don't have the first clue about their nutso ideology. And those that do hear of it discard it as the ramblings of youthful idiots or "they probably mean Kenny Everett or that Lily Savage chap".

They don't oppose it because its so patently ridiculous there is no point. And similarly, when we speak up, the things we claim are happening are also so outlandish they can't possibly be true so again are largely discarded (also, patriarchy). It's only those of us who are right in it who see the danger and corrosion and damage it causes.

Almost anyone who has met one nice trans person (who do exist) seems to find suggestions that there may be nasty ones, or ones who are not trans at all just saying it in order to get what they want, unacceptable, too.

Even if they also know four or more trans people they dislike, or distrust, or find creepy, or just always avoid.

I do find that slightly mindboggling.

Yes, and I guess if you live in a fantastical present (men can become women, it's fine to medicalize adolescents), then you have to confect a fantastical past.
And the hateful women who oppose are fantastical in their own way.
The liberal arrow of history now goes both ways.

Exactly. Webberley is a great case study for what happens next.

She is getting more and more deranged by the day, because she has no way back after the atrocities she has enabled so she just has to keep digging deeper now, it's her only choice. She's posting on social media and the comments are largely against her.

She now openly says things like "no teenage girls have had mastectomies. Trans girls have had medical condition of gynaecomastia corrected". It's all so horrifically newspeak.

(For clarity, Gynaecomastia is an exclusively male condition)

Really? I didn't know that. I don't know what's more horrifying, the belief in the absurdity, or the drive to make the absurd so mundane via linguistic cartwheels that it results in almost seeming rational/normal.
It's not enough to leave it at men can become women, they call women non males, they say girls have a condition corrected, and now, men who became women were over history in women's spaces, some secretively, but mostly openly, and women were just great about it.
What wave of feminism was this again? I must have missed it.