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

[Seethlaw]

... 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.

I would actually be quite interested to know, if the relevant posters would be honest about it, how they are gauging the views of GC people on these boards who don't post on the threads they are talking about. The ones whose voices might seem a bit boring, or calm, and therefore slip by less noticed, or who are dealing with situations that aren't 'don't buy this peanut butter'.

Surely they don't just think that the noisiest posters represent the majority of people who share a view or two with them?

So what do they believe about them and how have they reached those conclusions? Is it based on guessing? If not, what is it based on?
I've already had one person say they've guessed something about "the psychology at work" in my mind based on three sentences I posted. That's the kind of conclusion-drawing I find slightly dodgy.

@Dontmakemethinkofanotherbloodyusername I found your post interesting and found that much of it did resonate, as someone who has seen this board change over the years.

However people who haven't gone down a time suck of internet forums, twitter etc aren't dogmatic that every trans person is AGP, that rapid onset gender dysphoria is catching, or that online extremists or TRAs represent every single person who holds different views on gender.

This is interesting - some of us HAVE gone down a timesuck of these things, and decided we don't agree with those things (or any similar single claim) and aren't going to argue against them every time they crop up - perhaps we did for a year or two, but no longer have the energy.

These are precisely the sort of people whose views you don't see. So I'd be interested as to how anyone's assessing how prevalent they are or factoring them in when they talk about 'the GC movement' etc.

The social contagion nature of children becoming “trans” is fairly obvious. Seems an odd claim that it’s made up, whatever label you give it.

Why don't you use your words to actually reply to my post rather than this vague character assination? Again proving black and white thinking that you simply can't be GC and critique any online behaviour of GC groups as though GC forums are infallible to the usual pitfalls of the internet.

No it was a very simple response to your very long diatribe about what you think we all say and do.

You said nothing that I particularly considered interesting, original or worthy of any effort to engage with, @Dontmakemethinkofanotherbloodyusername- bit rich to make a load of vague accusations though and then complain about my post.

@Dontmakemethinkofanotherbloodyusername it really is that simple.

But both sides!

It's relevant insomuch as feminists, various iterations but particularly radical feminists, have heard the accusations of cultism before. "You're dogmatic", "You all hate men" "You're brainwashed" "You're brainwashing others". It's absolutely connected to adopting a position that shines a light on the behaviour of men.

And, sorry, but when you hold a position that appears to be "It's always a man (but not if they say they aren't one)" or at the very least "it's always a man (but no-one should demand adherence to the policies that recognise that)" then of course you will get pushback.

I expect when flat earthers post on astronomy forums and get a host of similar negative responses, they also put it down to black and white cult-like thinking and an inability to accept critique.

There's an article in Spiked today by Patrick West and in it he mentions

"In her 1997 book, Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture, Elaine Showalter not only noted that ‘hysterical epidemics require at least three ingredients: physician-enthusiasts and theorists; unhappy, vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments’, but also that ‘syndromes multiply as they interact with social forces’ such as religious beliefs or political agendas."

It seems to me a very pertinent comparison to the social contagion of 'trans' in children and young people we've been seeing in recent years.

That’s a really fair point. I’m interested in the exact same things. Why don't we see those more nuanced views expressed as much, and why do people run out of energy to share them? If a diverse range of opinions is regularly shared by people who still agree on the core belief, online spaces would show far fewer HC tendencies. But as you describe burnout creates the echo chamber when moderate, or exhausted members stop speaking up to avoid hostility, purity testing, or endless debates, it leaves the floor more to the dogmatic posters. I don't think anyone is trying to "guess" what quiet lurkers think, that would be impossible, so what's left what is actually posted and left unchallenged. If a culture of a space begins to be driven by a loud subset who dogpile any nuance, that becomes the visible culture everyone experiences, regardless of how many reasonable people are reading quietly in the background or NC to post certain opinions.

I haven’t time to respond to (or even read the whole of @Dontmakemethinkofanotherbloodyusername s post (because I have other stuff I should be doing, but point 1 is wrong for a start:

“Who is our leader? The test of HC thinking isn't whether you worship one person, but what happens if you criticize key figures or main stage influencers.”

The whole GC movement is split with women criticizing how others do stuff all the time. Criticism of key figures is rife. This point is laughably bad.

Anyway back to work. See you later!

Fucking round earthers, they’re the worst! 😂

Could you use your words to point out which part of my posts you're comparing to a flat earther so as to actually have a dialogue rather than a vague dig? And by using the flat earther / astronomy comparison, why my post about HC tendencies in online spaces means I can't believe sex is immutable or be GC?

Well yes, aren’t some of the posters bemoaning FWR on this thread implying that they share “GC” beliefs themselves?

I mean fucking hell, I believe in my Department in France the word 'Ultras' has been banned due to wildfires breaking out at the mere mention. It is 'light the touchpaper and stand WELL BACK'.

We argue ALL THE FUCKING TIME, with EACH OTHER and the only thing we have in actual common, apart from WEETABIX, is knowing there are 2 sexes and that men as a class are a threat to women and girls as a class.

Why don't we see those more nuanced views expressed as much, and why do people run out of energy to share them?

Because it's been like talking to a brick wall, unless you tell them exactly what they want to hear, they don't listen, nuanced is wasted on them, just like facts, logic and common sense is.

I personal don't see there's any need for 'nuanced', it's pretty straight forward women need single sex spaces and men need to stay out of them.

Who is THEM in your sentence?

Exactly. Who the fuck cares whether people are “nuanced” or not. It’s not up to anyone but them how they choose to express themselves and likewise, you do you, FWR critics.

Who is our leader? The test of HC thinking isn't whether you worship one person, but what happens if you criticize key figures or main stage influencers. If questioning the strategy, or actions of prominent movement figures leads to immediate dogpiling and accusations of betrayal, you are in a cult of personality ecosystem, just a distributed one.

So... JKR? She's the only one I can think of who fits the "key figures or main stage influencers" criterion. Who else would you add to the list?

However people who haven't gone down a time suck of internet forums, twitter etc aren't dogmatic that every trans person is AGP, that rapid onset gender dysphoria is catching, or that online extremists or TRAs represent every single person who holds different views on gender.

There's no GC dogma, beyond "Men can't become women, and vice versa", which is a scientific fact. Beyond that, people are free to believe whatever they want.

Doctrinal purity and black and white thinking. Reports aren't treated as nuanced, empirical papers to be debated they become treated like sacred scripture.

Well, no, since by definition you don't turn on sacred scriptures and on the prophets who provided them. That's the whole point of them being sacred scriptures: you stick to them no matter what. As you yourself said, we don't do that, not even with Cass and her report.

What Is the rite of entry? Well it doesn't help that people have started to describe peaking in the way of religious testimonials which combined with asking members to share these "peak" moments can act as a rite of entry into the group, proving ideological alignment and building immediate trauma bonding camaraderie.

That would be the equivalent of a testimony indeed, not a baptism. Asking people to share how they got into a group is perfectly normal and usual. When I joined the trans community, I was asked to give such a "testimony".

ideological online spaces have punishments too whether it's for leaving or being an outsider which could include dog piling, specific in-group language insults such as referring to women as handmaidens, dick panderers, captured or character assassination such as saying someone supports child abuse because they aren't publicly GC enough

I've never seen that happen to a former GC person. Then again, I can't remember reading about a former GC person at all.

The worldview becomes totalizing (every single social issue, news event, and interpersonal interaction is viewed strictly through one lens).

What makes you believe that this routinely happens to GC people?

The group adopts black-and-white thinking (you are either 100% with us, or you are an enemy/traitor. Language becomes weaponized through specific jargon, shibboleths, and thought terminating cliches designed to shut down internal debate.excommunication, dogpiling, and character assassination.

This definitely doesn't happen on this board. The members here don't all agree on anything except the central, basic, scientific tenet: men can't become women, and vice versa.

The behaviours can show up anywhere but there are some people on here and X who have fallen into the totalizing mindset described above

Sure, I can imagine that some people become radicalised. But that's irrelevant to whether the movement itself is a cult. People can become radicalised about literally anything, as you say: fitness, politics, wellness, religion, or social issues.

Making an entire second thread

It's not a second thread, since I didn't make the previous one. At best, you could call it a reaction thread. Remember: we're not a hive mind. I didn't coordinate anything with the OP of the other thread.

In high control environments, systemic self-criticism is usually strictly forbidden.

And if that were the case here, then the thread "Are we a cult?" would have been deleted based on its title only.

The fact that simply pointing out high control tendencies, which can occur in most movements, has gotten so deeply your skin is kind of proving the point.

Quite the contrary: it's because I don't agree that there are high control tendencies in the GC movement that it got under my skin. There can be extremists, yes, but there's no high control beyond expecting a "No" to the question, "Do you believe that men can become women?"

Exactly

Its all perfectly straightforward.

I've no doubt there are all kinds of nuanced conversations, for those who want to have them, about sex, gender expression and how they interact.

But all that is totally irrelevant to women's need for single sex spaces and men's need to stay out of them. Humans can't change sex, so this one is very simple.

Opening a reply with 'I didn't actually read your post, but here’s why you’re wrong' pretty much sums up the level of reading comprehension some will admit to while still having a strong enough reaction to have to respond with disagreement before they've even digested the point.
Point 1 wasn't saying people never disagree. Factions, infighting, and women criticizing each other exist doesn't mean HC dynamics can't exist..Incessant infighting, factionalism, and accusing each other of betrayal are trademarks of radicalized groups even.my point was, what happens when you criticize key figures? You get dogpiled, accused of betrayal, or dismissed. Your knee jerk, unread dismissal is that exact atmosphere.

There were various strawmen and mischaracterisations of GC beliefs & behaviour in your longer post, and you took people reacting negatively to that as further "proof" of black and white thinking.

My point is that a robust negtive response to a post on social media is more likely to indicate the post was BS, than that the people responding are somehow cult like.

Who's them? You sound like you're talking about people who believe TWAW rather than those who are GC.

'Them' would be the people the nuanced views were directed at, the ones that tired people out so much, people stopped being nuanced in their views because it was like talking to a brick wall.