Be Kind 2.0 and the "Persuasive TRA"

[BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth]

This is a spinoff from another thread so as not to derail the original.

I thought it would be helpful to have a separate thread to discuss, and document, a phenomenon I have been seeing more regularly recently: the Persuasive TRA.

It occurred to me, after a few posters noted that the recent U-turns by a couple of politicians, and the wheedling TRA responses to the EHRC guidance, were akin to an abuser changing tactics and also asking us to "help" them in the new single-sex regime, that the whole thing is starting to pan out exactly as an abusive relationship often does. When is the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship? Normally, when she is leaving.

Well, women are leaving the abusive relationship with non-reality that men forced upon us some 15 years ago, and I would argue that now might be our most dangerous/difficult moment.

This is what I posted on the other thread:

I'm starting to see a bit more of what I am calling (in my own head) "Persuasive TRA." Now that they have lost everything that they bullied women for, some activists seem to be changing tack. Women must now fix the situation that TRAs have found themselves in. It seems to pivot on a sort of Be Kind 2.0.

I think women who have been in the game long enough will see through it, but we should be watchful. Stonewall is pivoting, activists are pivoting, and they will be preying on women's socialized kindness: watch for the destination and be on your guard.

I have read several posters on different threads appealing to everyone (women) to help calm trans-identified people's (men's) fears about what this new reality will look like, what it will mean for them (the men) now that they can't just do whatever they want anymore. What about the men's toilets? Are they safe? Where will they go? (Who will fix this problem?)

Well, apparently it is a problem that women can fix, if they just take a moment to think about it. Trans-identified men will be unsafe in the men's, so women need to join the fight to give these men something of their own.

Notice the pivot? The pleading? If you just... If you weren't so.... It can be different if you just... Sound familiar? To any woman who is in, or has escaped from, an abusive relationship, this will be all too familiar.

This is Be Kind 2.0. It's very similar to the original, except that instead of being forced to enjoy our abuse, we are being asked to fix it. And the "Persuasive TRAs" seem to be mobilizing, from what I have seen.

It won't start in the middle (with the women); it will start at the top (infiltrating government, think tanks, charities, etc.) and the bottom (schools). But they will use women to get this moving. Why not? It worked so well last time. And I believe that organizations like Stonewall will be leading the charge: the campaign can be something like Safe Spaces for Trans+ : All of Us Together.

If anyone else has seen this in action, it might be useful to keep a record of it here.

I imagine this thread will eventually be taken over by activists, but, until then, I would be interested in your thoughts.

It really, really started out so badly, but they seem to have recruited someone else to do the responses now. The first poster was just diabolically bad.

A funny one today, just because it's hotter in London that the Fifth Circle of Hell:

(with thanks to @TheywontletmehavethenameIwant

The cause seems to have gone from No Debate to If you can't baffle them with 'trans' science bore them with complete bullshit.

Some choice examples of tactics from recent threads that I have noticed, to add to the ever-growing list:

Recognising one is trans and therefore different but valid [a pivot to persuade women that trans-identified men are not saying they are actually women? is this trying to row back years of failed pressurization, in view of recent court losses?]

which doesn't sit logically alongside the next one:

male with a female soul [I think it used to be "male with woman-gendered soul" - so this may be an old tactic dressed up in new terms (man is not just "woman" but actually "female")]

Typical (common) behaviours to a sex isn't the same as stereotypical (expectations) behaviours [this has been argued before, but the "common vs. stereotypical" dichotomy seems to be making more of an appearance lately]

And another phenomenon I've seen popping up very recently:

the Persuasive TERF - these appear to be TRAs who mostly propound GC views when it's just natter, thereby establishing their "credentials," but work to undermine good news stories by regularly pointing out minor flaws in outcomes, sowing doubt in posters' optimism.

There seem to be one or two regulars who do this. I have experienced it personally on a few of my posts.

It may simply be pessimism or irritation that one poster made a good news point that another poster wished they had been able to make first. Or it could simply be a different point of view. But some of it seems carefully devised to deflect from, or to remove, optimism in the achievements that women have made recently.

And a doozy from the "arguing with a Terf" thread:

[my bold]
An LGBT organisation's purpose is to ensure the needs of everyone under the queer umbrella, and working on the image of trans people (which becomes the image of the entire community by association)

LGB people need to make the T look better! It's apparently right up our alley, and the raison d'être for all LGBT organizations.

I feel genuinely sorry for that one; I think he has started to realise just what an ass he is being, but can't work out how to stop without looking as if he has "lost". On of his mates needs to take him to a pub and get him drunk, and then let him cry on his shoulder and go "waaah!"

And they wonder why we need the LGB Alliance?

It does seem like he's digging himself a hole, but a lot of it reads like "Oh, I don't know anything about UK law, so I'd better go look something up." Not realizing, or ever understanding, that posters know a lot more about it than you can find easily online! I've really only caught the last few pages, I've been "stuck" on another thread.

It's the wording I find so intriguing! Are they admitting that trans-identified people have an image problem? So, they're blaming LGB people. Not specifically women for once. Interesting.

Why not blame the activists for their poor image? Because they still need them.

They hate gay people and women?

I mean the whole premise of being trans is homophobic in many respects. For men it's about imposing feminine gender stereotypes and re-inacting them. For women it's about escaping them.

You can't get away from this because it's so ingrained in the ideology unfortunately.

DARVO. And once you see it, the pattern is very easy to see.

This really is the crux of it.

If a male person is going to claim to be oppressed in the way that female people are, they are going to twist the needs that female people discuss as the basis of the safeguarding decisions and policies that focus on providing equitable solutions to female people's unique needs to be their needs too. It makes sense when you understand that there are no boundaries to their claims at all. Anything that a male person thinks will be convincing to other people to gain support for allowing their subjective reality that they are female to be treated as if it is materially real, will be leveraged.

After all, what women's rights campaigners and feminists have been saying has worked to enact some changes to provide some safeguarding protection. So, those arguments are successfully convincing others why not acquire them? The arguments have been made by female people, after all. If someone wants to be be seen as being female when they are male, then in their mind this is just another added 'support' to achieve that (ie, by making that same argument, they are then associated with the others making the same argument.)

After all, what women's rights campaigners and feminists have been saying has worked to enact some changes to provide some safeguarding protection. So, those arguments are successfully convincing others why not acquire them? The arguments have been made by female people, after all.

Exactly. I think it was @Igmum who first coined the phrase "wearing our arguments." Activists will appropriate anything they think will work at this stage. They are clearly floundering. I see it all the time on these threads now. At least in the UK, I think their regime is toppling.

They get a thrill from doing it too. Especially if it’s a particularly outrageous reversal.

Your handy activist handbook summary. (this is getting very long now)

Periodic Summary 3 - The "Persuasive TRA"

The Shift: "from No Debate to If you can't baffle them with 'trans' science, bore them with complete bullshit"

The Difference of Opinion (or The Infighting) "Trans" is different but valid OR "Trans" is a male with a female soul
[so, which is it?]

The One About Common vs. Expectation: "Typical (common) behaviours to a sex isn't the same as stereotypical (expectations) behaviours"

The Persuasive "TERF": sowing doubt [possibly TRAs who posit GC views when it's just natter, but also work to undermine good news stories]

The PR Problem: LGB people need to make the T look better!

And, finally, some choice examples of "persuasion" from the thread below. Enjoy!

Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities | Mumsnet

The Who Cares?: "Transgender people have spent years transitioning: why stop now?"

The Other Who Cares?: Prosecution is fine. Persecution is what "transgender women fear.

The Threat: "people can be angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives"

The Other Threat: Women, don't prosecute, it's unsafe and you will be cancelled.

The Policing Problem: No one will police single sex spaces, and women don't have the time or resources to do this anyway

The Poor Menz: "Transgender women on medication will be threatened with violence going in the men’s spaces"

The Pretend You Just Don't Notice [a man in your female single-sexed space]

The Emotional Blackmail: Fighting for women's single-sex toilets will be bad for disabled people [disabled toilets will be "used as third and fourth spaces. The toilet will be clogged or dirty"]

The NATWALT: "I’ve met trans women and they respect women’s rights"

The Lie: EIAs show that the "men’s is not 💯 safe for transgender women" [what EIAs?]

The Other Lie: "Transgender women have won" [this one is especially desperate]

The Truth: "We need a truce of sorts" [And there it is, ladies and germs: THEY WANT A TRUCE]

…………………………………
Previous summaries
Periodic Summary 2 - The "Persuasive TRA"

The Word Salad tactic (really, a Classic):
"No, those aren't really problems or uncomfortable facts - if you were as clever as me you'd know that.'
The "it's segregation" tactic (especially relating to the EHRC guidance and the EA)
The "it's unworkable" tactic (especially relating to the EHRC guidance and the EA)
The guilt-tripping women into not complaining tactic (especially relating to the EHRC guidance and the EA)
The use of data to 'prove' there wasn't a problem tactic (when they refused to allow the collection of data in the first place, e.g. recording "gender" instead of "sex")
The "it's part of a right wing plot to distract us all from... (defunded public services)" tactic
The delay changes, obfuscate, plead confusion, argue that it's too difficult, etc., tactic (currently being used in some charitable circles)
The inappropriate literature tactic (using transactivist 'literature" designed to normalise sex change, gender identity and the erosion of boundaries to children) - this one is not new, but ongoing, but is subterfuge, and links to activists in schools
The Rapid Onset Women with Alopecia, Cancer Survivors and Butch Lesbians Concern (or Rapid Onset Everyday-looking Women Concern) tactic: women who look "like men" will be challenged in women's toilets and changing rooms
The Tiny Number tactic (shifting seamlessly from toilets to opportunities: 'it's just a tiny minority (of boys and men taking sporting opportunities, scholarships, funding, awards, places on teams and endangering others) so why worry?')
The Criminal Gender tactic (akin to Rapist Gender but broadening out now to include "everyone we don't think should be included as true trans because we really don't like the optics.")
and previous summary:

Periodic Summary 1 - The "Persuasive TRA"
possible activist tactics to try to remove rights from women and girls
(many are as old as Time, but some new ones seem to be creeping in):
mirroring
wearing our arguments
wearing our history
'gender policing' - re toilets, esp. trans-identified women
Fog of Confusion (see also word salad and is/ought)
piggybacking
appropriation
bargaining and bartering
pleading (see also Can't we agree to disagree about gender?)
Mental health impact on trans people
using AI: 'use GC arguments to defend your position'.
manufactured outrage
is/ought
Treating minorities like they're conspiracies
Dehumanising transpeople
escalating the drama
Hoax=Not Real Trans (AKA hoaxer-gender)
AND... (the Classics)
➡ALL OF THIS, AKA "full on throwing things"
Refusal to talk. NoDebate.
BeKind.
Verbal aggression and belittling.
Walking on eggshells eg loss of jobs.
Darvo.
Gaslighting aka mirroring.
Whining.
emotional blackmail
word salad
drama and hyperbole
women’s objections appear mean, petty, almost obsessive (see "hysterical ")

Have we had 'the newspaper only reported the story to imply that a minority is dangerous and must be shunned. If it were a cis person committing the crime, it wouldn't have been reported' added as a TRA argument yet?

!! haven't had that yet, thanks!

Recently I've seen;

So a 'cis' woman commits a crime. We must condemn all 'cis' women and take away their freedoms.

Said in reply to two recent but rare cases where a woman was charged with a crime.

That's particularly feeble, isn't it? Thanks, will add to the list.

I'll have to do some kind of analysis of these lists at some point. The list is just too long now.

(I'll add that to the list!) 😄

Another one for the stewing pot:

"inclusive feminism" is the new "feminism" - and includes trans-identified men as "women" (but not trans-identified women, for some strange reason that only those on TRSOH understand)

from the Tinkerbell Tribunal, Thread 4:
Page 37 | Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 4 | Mumsnet

NC - so achieved a shift to an adoption of
..your view
ED no this is global acceptance
NC almost universal adoption in civil service
ED most feminists are inc feminists, the ones that I know in civil service
J - inclus fem incl trans people
ED yes
NC - so your work place activism has ach an almost total victory, so you think no more activism?
ED everybody has reached the consensus that incl feminism is the way forwardTrans allies now have to defend 30 years of feminism, accept TWAW

"Inclusive feminism"??? TRAs really are cuckoos in the nest.

Obviously, 'inclusive feminism' is far better than the old-fashioned sort you wims used to have.

Oh yes. Anything that is nominally for women is improved by the addition of men, as every fule kno

Trojan Horse Feminism.

Just like these new women are so much better than the old-fashioned sort of women. Ricky Gervais got "inclusive feminism" bang to rights in less than two minutes.