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!

Well that’s where the SCJ comes in handy, because it clarified that for the purposes of the law, sex means, well … sex.

But I also think that TWAW should be challenged just generally. We all know it’s not true and it’s used as a sleight of hand to get round this point, as you say. So I would just counter TWAW with ‘they are biological men’.

I think those who find dismissing the wider issues that allowing some male people to be treated as if they are female when they are not and never can be as obsession, hatred etc are always rather enlightening.

It really has become a very lazy emotional manipulation tactic.

As is mentioning that the group is a minority or mentioning the % they represent in the population.

What is remarkable is that due to the measurable impact in sport, we know that just one male person being treated as if he was female, directly impacts thousands of female people. Yet this is never acknowledged. However, the ‘just a few’ tactic has become significantly weakened over the past 5 yrs because the general public has seen the negative impact this ‘so few’ have.

There is always going to be a question about the power of demanded compliance where any individual’s belief based on their personal subjectively constructed reality doesn’t have any foundation in material reality.

As yet I have never seen an accurate and coherent annswer to the question, what other group’s gets to demand compliance such as this?

Also the ‘just a few’ has never been seen as a justification for over ruling categories in other sports.

I’ve never heard anyone say ‘just a few’ people doping is ok.

Or ‘just a few’ over 21s in an under 18 tournament. Or ‘just a few’ able bodied athletes in a Paralympic competition.

So why would it be okay here?

It was always a weak emotionally manipulative position. Yet, some people see it is progressive.

Just a few!

And yet, just a few male people took the Rio podium places for the 800 metres. When people start to understand the impacts in a measurable way, it is an unjustifiable position except as an emotional ploy that never then considers the needs of female people who are harmed.

There were 30 nurses who were directly harmed who complained (how many didn’t ) about one male person being included in the female single sex changing room in the Darlington NHS.

How many female rape victims had no where to go in Edinburgh for support because of 1 male person?

How many women having to bring cases to tribunal or court have to be counted before it is considered there are enough being harmed by so few male people that people stop using that tropish mantra?

’Only a few’ was never anything but an absurdly weak dismissal and shows more about the person who says it than the people they attempt to shame with it. Combined with ‘look over there, not here’ type directive posts that misogynistically instruct women what they ought to be doing instead, it is just a predictable script.

‘Don’t be silly’ - that’s DEFINITELY what the OP should say to her grown up friends who disagree with her to win them round!

It also demonstrates that even the people arguing for this ideology know that it’s wrong. Yet they continue go out to bat for it. What does that say about people?

Yes the “it’s just a few” line is such a tell. No one would say that if they thought trans-identifying male athletes were exactly like women in general or were just a normal subset of women - because if they did why would they see it being “just a few” as some kind of valid point?

It’s like so many aspects of the genderist argument - they constantly give away that they don’t really think TWAW. No one would say to an actual woman “I think of you as a real woman”. No one would think a TW was “gender nonconforming” or “gender diverse” unless they understood them to be a man. And so many times I’ve seen woke types on Twitter or in interviews saying things like “No one is saying humans can actually change sex” or “no one is saying lesbians have to sleep with TW” and similar (because they are ill-informed and don’t realise that’s exactly what a lot of activists do say) - giving away that they can’t actually argue with reality when it comes down to it because they’d look bloody stupid.

likewise when politicians are asked “what is a woman?” And they squirm and bluster and say it’s complicated and not something they can answer. But if they’re really TWAW and on the side of Be KindTM why don’t they just go all in and say “a woman is anyone who says they’re a woman, full stop”? That’s the actual basis of the misogynistic and dangerous situations we’ve seen in prisons, hospitals, sports etc. Yet put people who support those policies on the spot, and they won’t commit to it - because it would make them look ridiculous.

It says many things about them.

What it doesn’t say about them is that they prioritise female people’s needs when there is this conflict in needs to be considered.

Or that they even consider women’s needs and rights to be there at all, or a valid element in any conflict or balance of rights to be sought.

it’s one of the most bizarre aspects of wokery how women’s rights, which were very much at the centre of the previous political correctness boom in the 80s, have been so successfully made to seem like bigotry and “unkindness” just by labelling one small group of reality-deniers “more oppressed”.

If someone’s concept of ‘kindness’ and ‘inclusiveness’ harms female people and relies on supporting subjective reality that has no basis in material reality over material reality, then I think those believing they are kind and inclusive have a very skewed understanding of those terms.

Of course, those who believe they are the ones who are kind and inclusive and tolerant, who then also resort to using emotionally coercive tactics such as name calling and falsely representing people’s view to support incoherent positions and concepts, really show over and over that they are the very opposite of kind, inclusive and tolerant. But of course, anyone who points this out is then further name called and misrepresented. Yet the hypocrisy and the dishonesty exists.

One of the issues here is that our moral frameworks/language have been hugely dumbed down and thus made less effective.

Kindness is not sufficient in itself. Kindness to a trans identifying person must be accompanied by kindness to vulnerable woman. Figuring out how to do that practically requires justice, not kindness. Justice is a lot more logical and hard headed than kindness, it requires weighing up everyone’s needs.

It strikes me that ‘be kind’ can be partly attributed to moral / intellectual cowardice. Instead of doing the hard yards to figure out what’s right and implement it, people are simply caving to the demands of those who shout loudest.

“It strikes me that ‘be kind’ can be partly attributed to moral / intellectual cowardice.”

I think it is greatly attributed to moral / intellectual cowardice. And this comes from several motivations which are very different in psychological / philosophical orgin.

I do think a lot of the motivation for pushing "be kind" is pure selfishness and moral one-upmanship. "Look at me, identifying the most oppressed group that you must prioritise / latest progressive cause, I'm morally superior." It also takes moral and intellectual cowardice not to question it, or to allow yourself to be cowed into submission by someone pushing it on you. But I think a lot of people aren't even aware of that in themselves. They just want to jostle for a high enough place on the greasy pole of performative kindness that they don't look bad.

That's kind of an analytical take, but also based on many people I know (lots of academics, civil servants and arts types) who are so like this. They may be degree-educated and have jobs that you would imagine would require critical thinking ability, but they don't seem to think at all. They just desperately want to be on the latest woke bandwagon so that they're safe from finger-pointing. Thinking past that point could entail falling off so they welcome the idea that any challenge must be about "hate"/bigotry/being far right or whetever.

I also know full-on TRAs who actively try to reason and argue that TWAW and are very entrenched in a bubble of only other TRAs – but they are a different group.

What is the difference between a MAN and a transwoman?

Thats a good question and I hadn’t thought about it from that comparison. Trying to explain the differences between a woman and transwoman is the wrong start.

This is a response to contributor called Canadian but I can't use social media properly! Apologies. New to this.

I am one of the people you think sound mad who have some level of obsession and fear with Gender Identity Ideology and the way it has pervaded our culture.

I thought I would attempt to explain my 'madness'.

After an internet safety talk at my children's primary school 18 months ago I found out that it wasn't if but when my children saw pornography in today's world. This came as a big shock.
I have attempted since then to not only try to get myself well-informed about what I can do about this for my family but also within the local schools, wider community etc. I now find, that many of the organisations I have been recommending in relation to the harms of porn and the damage of a culture that sexualises children, I find that many of those same bodies are all signed up to Gender Ideology and see it as an important part of sex education.
So I am in the very weird predicament of not wanting my children to be part of a sex ed programme which I have been advocating for. We live in Ireland where for example we have Self ID etc. I have only found out about all of this in the last couple of months and actually feel quite foolish now I have found out about all the Gender stuff. It started after picking up Helen Joyce's book on Trans in the library quite by chance because it relates some of the culture things I was interested in (many cross-dressing, drag queen themed and trans refrences in sexualising culture that my kids were coming across like Katseye and Chappell Roan).

I read the Trans book and was pretty alarmed by what I found out there. ASD kids and children who would be same-sex attracted being taken down this track for example. Planting an idea, 'you feel different? this might be why.' The social contagion element amongst girls. The connection with eating disorders. The list goes on. The large numbers of kids with really difficult childhoods from places like Blackpool in UK that were being sent to the GIDS. The list goes on. I remember being 13 and how difficult and confusing it was without all this. Why are Belong To Quality Mark's for schools being rolled out in Ireland in an unquestioning way with so much evidence for a need for caution.

The Cass Review said that social transition was not a 'neutral act'. Why is gender identity then being taught as fact in Irish Secondary Schools? Would it be possible for my children to question gender identity in school in Ireland without being seen as prejudiced? The lack of discussion and openness all seems very creepy to me.

I wanted to cry, did cry, when I found out about how porn-saturated our culture was and now the discovery of how entangled all the sex ed stufff is with gender ideology yes does make me feel a bit mad.

I’m genuinely sorry to hear how upset you are, and that Helen Joyce’s Trans book has frightened you so much. I’m sorry as well that she would probably be delighted - it’s absolutely a book designed to fearmonger and to create a moral panic.

This is a book that claims that the gay rights movement was ‘infiltrated’ by paedophiles, and argues that people claim to be trans women for sexual gratification (it’s Joyce herself hyper sexualising the trans community and taking a ‘porn-saturated view’ here). She also offers up a transparently anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that trans activism is being supported by some wealthy ‘global’ elites and lists three Jewish billionaires. It sounds like Joyce’s ‘social contagion’ argument has worried you; the concept of ‘rapid gender disphoria’ she discusses has been widely debunked. It’s not scientific.

Have you read any books by trans writers? It might give you some balance (and maybe some peace of mind).

Would you like to suggest which writers? I am sure we will find it beneficial to have those suggestions?

The book ‘Trans’ has survived the false anti-Semitic accusations. Would you like to list any other investors that she should have included for accuracy? Or are you just going to label accurate facts as being problematic and that those investors should have been left out just in case someone believed that mentioning them would be out of hatred?

social contagion has been debunked? Really? Please do link us up with that debunking. I am keen to have a read through.

And would you like to post the evidence that also disproves that some male people derive sexual arousal from being treated as being female by others? I too would be interested in seeing that evidence that also contradicts the testimony of some male people who have described this as being part of their decision to transition.

Your fears are correct, I'm afraid. This is a massive child-safeguarding fail. However, one by one people are waking up to what is happening. Support for gender ideology decreases in polls year by year. It has taken a strong hold in some countries, but it will be pushed out because women and men like you are asking all the correct questions and realising that the answers are simple: there is no such thing as a 'trans' child and changing sex is impossible.

This is a book that... argues that people claim to be trans women for sexual gratification

Is it your claim that no "trans women" get sexual gratification from dressing as a woman?

Did you know studies have shown many cis women (as many as 93%) experience erotic arousal at the thought or image of themselves as women? (The moser study)

Human sexuality / erotic responses are complex - it doesn’t mean trans people are more likely to be predatory, or that it’s the main thing driving their transition.

I replied with a list of resources for you but it’s been deleted, maybe for too many links or something - I don’t know. But it’s easily googleable.

What do you mean by ‘survived the false anti-Semitic accusations?’ Do you just mean ‘Helen Joyce has said she’s not anti semitic and I have chosen to believe her?’ Would I like to list other investors? No, because JOYCE foreground 3 Jewish donors and uses language like ‘global agenda’ (a known anti semitic trope). She isn’t getting the benefit of the doubt from me.

So you accept that at least some trans identifying men get sexual gratification from dressing as a woman.

Doubtless you will also accept that those men are among those who demand access to women's facilities and single-sex spaces.

Does that not raise any alarm bells for you? That's something you're entirely comfortable with? Really?

I'm a liberal-minded sort; I don't mind what sort of things people do for kicks in private. But those facts put a different spin on the "we just want to pee" theme. I don't think it's acceptable for those men to co-opt unwilling women into their sexual role-play.

@TwoLoonsAndASproutSource for the CJ story please.

Can you actually explain WHY you think someone with an apparently fairly typical erotic response about their OWN embodiment as a women would be more of a threat to another person than anyone else? I genuinely can’t see the link.