Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Tell me you don't know what a cult is...

402 replies

Seethlaw · 14/08/2026 09:23

... without telling me you don't know what a cult is.

I grew up in a cult-ish church. It had some very unpleasant aspects to it indeed. The very concept of the GC movement as a cult utterly baffles me, and irritates me quite a bit, I must admit.

Where is our Leader? Some say JKR is that, even though she obviously didn't create the movement, since she joined it after it already existed. Okay, but then where is the cult of personality? Where is the hanging onto her every word? Where is the compulsory study of her life? Where is the regular and compulsory show of support of her as our leader?

What are the specific beliefs that random people outside the movement don't believe? "Men can't become women and vice versa" is not such a belief, since loads of people who would never call themselves GC also believe it. So what are our specific beliefs?

What is the rite of entry into the movement? How does one know that they themselves or someone else is a member of the movement?

Where are the big gatherings where the leaders speak The Word? Where are the regular gatherings where the members reinforce each other's beliefs?

What are the demands made of the members? Where are the compulsory meetings? Where are the financial requirements? Where are the specific behaviours we have to adhere to?

Where are the punishments for leaving the group? How do you even know you've left at all? And where are the stories of abuse and control told by the former members?

I could go on forever.

Accusing GC people of belonging to a cult is just as ridiculous and offensive as claiming, for example, that there's a trans genocide going on. It's deliberately appropriating the real suffering of other people to make a completely false and unsupportable point because there's no actual valid point to make. It's utterly reprehensible and shameful.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Seethlaw · 18/08/2026 06:13

rocer · 17/08/2026 21:58

Yes, but beware.

Buddhism also teaches rebirth.

... And it seems difficult to reconcile rebirth with anatta (nonself). If there is no self, what is it that's reborn?

Perhaps Aristotle had it right when he described the soul as the Form (the structure in a particular sense) of the body. No body entails no soul.

(Augustine also thought along these lines (some present-day Christians still do), which is why 'Resurrection of the Body' made it into the Christian Creed: if there is no soul without a body, you can't have eternal life without your body.)

Why mention this in the context of discussion of gender identity? --Just to let people know it's not at all a new thing to deny the existence of gender identity in the sense TRAs want it.

Not only Buddhism, but also Aristotelianism, denies what you call "... the very foundational principle of gender ideology ..." Some of us think they get this right: there is no such thing as gender identity.

... And it seems difficult to reconcile rebirth with anatta (nonself). If there is no self, what is it that's reborn?

Heh, I certainly can't argue Buddhism at all, but I'll point out that the Wikipedia article linked above starts with precisely a distinction between "not-self" and "non-self":

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: 𑀅𑀦𑀢𑁆𑀢𑀸) is the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self exists, and is the absence of essence in any phenomenon.[1] While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatta is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.[2][3][4]

Not only Buddhism, but also Aristotelianism, denies what you call "... the very foundational principle of gender ideology ..." Some of us think they get this right: there is no such thing as gender identity.

I agree. And even the TRAs' arguments point to this, as far as I'm concerned: if someone can have not only a male or female gender identity, but also none at all, both at once, or most tellingly, one that is neither male nor female (non-binary), then it's not about gender at all! Gender as a concept is directly linked to sex, so is binary in nature. Something that is outside of this binary is necessarily not linked to gender; it may cross over with it, but it's not linked in nature to it. So even the TRAs end up arguing that gender identity is not about gender, and thus at best the term is a complete misnomer, at worst the thing itself doesn't exist.

I personally believe it doesn't exist, precisely because nobody can agree on what it is. Nobody can give a better explanation for it than, "I feel like a man/woman". Well, since sex exists, and sex stereotypes, and the whole concept of gender, which are far more than enough to explain such a feeling, there's absolutely no need to posit the existence of some vague, undefinable "gender identity".

OP posts:
Clusterfuckular · 18/08/2026 07:37

Rebirth in Buddhism can be a rather long and involved discussion!

There is the possibility of the idea being rather simple materialism.

We are matter, and remain matter. Form changes.

But I think that's a whole other tangent.

'Gender identity' can exist like any idea can exist. The idea it is something innate and unchanging is pretty obvious cobblers, though.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page