How explain trans ideology to inclusivity trained friend

[Whatnown]

Hello, I’m trying to explain all the trans stuff to friends without sounding nuts. I’ve explained that it’s not a rebellious youth thing, it’s from blokes in frocks who own some big pharma companies and want big profits, also men in frocks who want their fetishes normalised, also men in frocks who want to perve, also confused young people who are being told their normal curiosity means they must be trans. But I’m doubting how measured I sound, and it sounds a bit mad if you are speaking to a cynical friend that has had inclusivity training.

gCan anyone recommend links to anything that explains all this for the dubious and cynical? I have sent her the link to the actual essay by jk Rowling https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
other suggestions helpful!
im sure I can’t be the first to ask this, maybe the results could be pinned at the top of the thread like on several other threads?
thank you!

The past week or so we've had lots of different people posting, wondering what it's all about. Interesting that FWR is so popular all of the sudden!

OP, if you really want to understand, lots of info to read here:

Break it down for me? 2 - General Break it Down archive thread | Mumsnet

If you really want to go way back (2018)

Break it down for me? | Mumsnet

Or just choose any recent general thread and you'll find lots of useful input.

Happy reading!

First of all you need to discuss what an ideology is with her. What is an ideology and how does an ideology function and reproduce itself.

Then you can begin to explain how 'transgender' ideology came into being at a certain period in time.......evolving out of post modernistic ideas about the self, and utilising key themes and terminology from later stages of feminism.

All ideologies are effectively framing devices. Complete frameworks through which to view and interpret the world.

You cannot see how something is constructed or how it functions if you don't get some critical and/or reflective, objective distance from it.

Watch some Amy Sousa - Known Heretic on YouTube

One way to frame things when you have opposite views is to ask about. hypothetical situations. Believers think TW are actually women in some undefined, spiritual way just because they say so, and so must be regarded as women even if what you actually perceive is a bloke in a dress and a wig. Because that’s what they’ve been told, by official charities and training organisations, no less.

if you ask “but what if you couldn’t actually change sex, and no one really had an inner “true self” that was the opposite sex? Would you agree then that men shouldn’t just get access to women’s spaces on their own say-so?”

most will probably agree on that basis but say But TW are women”. Then you can explain no one has ever provided evidence for this or explained how it works which is why you have some doubt about it, but also even if it were true, this system makes it easy for any man to exploit, including the most dangerous. Once they have agreed to the basic concept that women deserve privacy and protection from men in some situations (even if they think twaw) they cannot square that circle and you just present —bleeding obvious reality— your view as a kind of innocent deduction and humble reasoning that leads you to questions you need explained to you.

likewise with transing children - “but what if this was a social contagion or fad, and lots of children were irreversibly harmed? If it turned out there was no evidence for it and medical transition caused more harm and suicide than not doing it, would you still support it?” Let them engage with reasonable thoughts rather than trying to “prove” your POV. There are countless cast-iron logical arguments that leave gender ideology in the dust but they don’t work because people won’t listen when they are wedded to the idea of being kind and progressive.

The most extreme TRAs will just become aggressive or try to shut you down but IME most well-meaning people will have a think. I’ve had these kinds of conversations with several friends and they often say “I hadn’t thought about it like that” or “that’s what was making me feel uncomfortable but I hadn’t put it into so many words”.

Seconding this recommendation

I work in biological sciences so I start with the key concept that sex is not the same as gender. And mammals can’t change sex. Once we agree on those basic ideas, then it is possible to think about - what is gender? Why does it matter? Can we make laws and rules based on gender? Or maybe it is safer to stick to defining spaces based on sex.

I agree though OP, it can make you start to feel like a mad conspiracy theorist. That’s because so many organisations and institutions and even whole countries have swallowed this nonsense and put it into policy. Yet it still doesn’t make any sense or hold up to any logical scrutiny, which is why so many genderists don’t want any debate.

But in the uk at least, thinking humans can’t change sex, sex matters and women have rights as a sex class, actually puts you line with the law which goes some way to reassure me that I haven’t lost my mind.

I think I would go with a language based approach. That there are times it’s really important to know about someone’s sexed body- like medicine: differing doses of medication; differing symptoms. That statistics need to be accurate to be useful, so language needs to be clear. If you want to know whether women are well represented in specific fields, you need a word for women that doesn’t include anyone else. If you want diversity and inclusion on boards and in fields, you need accurate language to identify the diversity.

@Whatnown , I think the problem is twofold:

A) The issue has become polarised into 2 conflicting 'sides' (trans rights activists vs gender critics)

B) There are several different groups caught up in trans ideology. Yes, some of them are adult men who are AGPs and/or are predatory. However, many sincere trans-identifying people are themselves vulnerable and not aggressive or predatory

Inclusivity training will emphasise the vulnerable sincere trans-identifying people and claim that gender critics are bigoted meanies for oppressing them

I think if you go straight in with talk of AGPs and predators, there's a big chance your friend will mentally classify you as one of those bigoted meanies and won't engage with any further discussion

I agree with PPs that you need to take a softly-softly approach which focuses more on exploring doubt and compromise. You could say you are happy to use people's preferred names and pronouns, but that maybe there are issues with other things TRAs are asking for such as men being put in women's prisons. You could acknowledge that some trans-identifying people are sincere in their beliefs, but wonder aloud how we can stop men who aren't sincere from cynically taking advantage of the opportunity to enter women's safe spaces. Most of all, you can ask your friend what they think in a spirit of non-combative exploration: "Do you think people can change sex?" "Do you think there are any issues with replacing sex with gender identity?"

Remember, you're not crazy. The biological definition of men and women is both scientific and (in the UK) the legal one. It's crap that you have to pussy-foot around when talking about this issue with your friend, but if you want to keep her as a friend and possibly change her mind you will probably have to hold back a bit

Just wanted to add: if you can gently introduce any doubt into your friend's mind, she will almost certainly become more gender critical. Because gender ideology just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It only maintains its current standing in some groups by calling its opponents bigots and holding off debate. If you can convince your friend you're not a bigot and get her to discuss/think about the issues she will probably peak

In my head, I see everything - all of it - as a gigantic inverted pyramid.
The entire ideology: all the claims, all the behaviours, all the problems... are all balanced on the minute little point of that hefty pyramid, and it says "transwomen are women".

But unfortunately that is a complete fiction. A individual's personal belief at absolute best, and an outrageous and actively harmful lie against society at worst. Remove that untestable, unsubstantiated, thought and everything else crashes into dust.

No civilisation should/could (can) run on such a fragile and easily debunked idea, ergo...

There's really no point in throwing all this stuff at someone. You will just look like a loon.

Most people came to the realisation over time so I would think it would be a struggle to change someone's mind in a single conversation especially as presumably she is deep in the culture and has some embedded assumptions that she hasn't questioned up until now.

It's very simple.

Do women need some single sex spaces, prisons, sports etc?

And

What is the difference between a MAN and a transwoman?

Is it what you wear?
Is it your hair style?
Is it make up?
Is it behaviour?
Is it surgery?

Or is it just how you feel?

Do you think we should allow men into women's spaces, prisons, changing rooms, just because they want to? Because this is what it comes down to.

I think there's a difference between shoving it down people's throats when they didn't ask, and discussing it in a reasonable way if/when it comes up.

For me it's come up when discussing kids' friends who have announced a trans ID, public figures like JKR, and issues like school policies around toilets and trips etc. When they come up I will say (gently and calmly) "but I don't actually think that's a good idea" or "I think JKR is right in what she actually said" because I don't like lying (or lie well) and I do think it's important in this, as in feminism generally, to be prepared to air views and raise points if you disagree with someone. It can be done respectfully.

But I think an important part of feminism is talking about things and presenting different points of view or options to other women, as has been done for me before and women still do do for me. Whether it's telling a woman of course she can wear that if she wants, or reassuring her she can leave that relationship if she wants, or discussing how we can still be disadvantaged at work through various mechanisms, or opening up the option to discuss the gender debate by letting them know I'm not policing their their thought and we can talk about it. Even though in this particular case there's a risk to me and there are situations where unfortunately I have to be careful in order to keep my livelihood, I still do it when i can. Being scared to talk about it honestly is how GI maintains its grip.

This is excellent advice. It's easy to want to get in the more extreme ends of this because once you've seen it, these are what makes you most angry.

But starting there won't help you.

I think making it real helps. If she has a daughter and that daughter had been raped, should she have to reframe her trauma in a group counselling session to include a trans identified man?

If her mum was in a hospital ward receiving intimate care which she had specifically requested a woman for, and a trans identified man, still with beard because presentation isn't part of this, just feeling, would that be okay?

Would she mind her five year old getting changed in the communal changing rooms with an in tact male because he believes in his trans identity?

And if the above is okay because you believe TWAW, is there a point at which it would be okay to question it? If yes, where is the line and who decides where it is? As many people have found themselves in hot water for doing just this, even when someone has been using a trans identity in 'bad faith'.

Where does one start? I really mean that.
My whole personal ethos is not to talk about good and evil, radicalisation, grooming etc, what's right and wrong, but I'm finding it hugely challenging not to, and more and more, I find I can talk about 101 standard psychological and societal reasons for the phenomenon, but more and more I see the evil of motivated transIDd men pushing an agenda, the trans child pipeline to societally accepted AGP kink, the successful transformation of a male lifestyle choice/kink/affectation/extreme temperamental proclivity to a social justice revolution/minority rights outcome.
And liberal Western society turned inside out as our broad inherently inclusive nature (as compared to eg Afghanistan etc) is weaponised against us.
Not sure if that helps, or I sound like the kind of person who would put off the middle of the road ambivalent "trans ally", lol.

I think the life long customer of pharmaceutical services is about the most far fetched garbage I have ever heard and it makes the gender critical arguments look stupid. ditch it.

The problem is, so many heartfelt objections can sound unhinged to the "on the fence "trans agnostic.
I've been in a discussion with a prominent Green talking about how she was cancelled by the party to her friend who's borderline skeptical but not really bothered either way, and me completing the meet, with my more evangelical takes.
Talking about trans children being a myth, AGPs existing, institutional capture of NHS, education, academia, media, arts etc just goes down like a lead balloon with the "on the fencers".
They may not "get" trans ideology, but they gel with "live your best life" mantra and see trans people who are accepted as being happy, and reluctant to judge on others lifestyles.
Even this Green, explaining how she was rejected by (now ex-) friends and colleagues in the party, was met by shrugged shoulders in her friend.
My pithy takes were "understood" by him, or should I say tolerated, just didn't elicit a shocked response.
I believe this fellow is exactly what trans ideologues see as representing acceptance widely in society, maybe not fully on board with enthusiastic approval, but deffo against any rolling back of trans acceptance in society.

Are you prepared for her to explain stuff back to you? About the breakdown of alternate ideologies?

Or are you expecting to the the one doing the leading and the teaching?

well, #nodebate has not furnished TRAs with many arguments, and it has forged and polished ours into deadly scalpels. I reckon a two way discussion is always best.

very true. Thats why I go back to basics, essential truth on the binary nature of sex, even more stooge, that 99% of sexual assaults is carried out by males - and it is not the trans risk profile we worry about, but the male one, and stick to that.

It's amazing how many "on the fencers" let this go by. When you say, "you do know they're still male, they're only IDing as female", the cogs start whirring inside their brains, their eyes light up, and they reply "well, yes, that's right, isn't it?"
The Q then is, push on, or let them find out more of the truth themselves?

I mean talk about a tight rope...

If I was God (ie a program controller, lol), I'd make a reality show format where people argue this out, uncensored, unlimited, in real time.
Get down to it.
A Christians v lions for our insulated risk free modern age.
And I don't just mean ordinary citizens...doctors, journalists, writers, philosophers, scientists, statisticians etc.
I truly believe had this had been done in the past, so much of the bubble would have burst.
That 15-20 years of No Debate, on top of the legal changes embedded by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, so skewed the odds onto the TRA comfort zone.
The damage done systemically and institutionally was done when we couldn't talk freely.
Everytime I talk to on the fencers, there's always a lightbulb moment. It doesn't always lead to them changing their minds. But it always leads to the space for them to reflect.
In an unconnected area of politics, I've had my own epiphany moment just this week, and over the last month, where I've rolled back lazy beliefs and giving politicians the benefit of the doubt.
It's like a deep cleanse when you do.
I wonder how many epiphanies that trans agnostics have had after talking to the likes of us on MN?

Really? Are most trans people who begin down the path of surgery and hormones not on them for life?

Are they on them for life? Yes.

Does "big Pharma" make millions out of them - god no.

None of the drugs are restricted or copyrighted, they are generic, as generic as they come - drugs that can be sourced from literally thousands of suppliers. They are as commodity as they come. Nobody has any control over them, there is zero profit to be made on trans people in the pharma industry.