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.

In 2020, this was what I was remembering

Thank you, looks like Stonewall has either forgotten (or think we have forgotten), or don't care.

Transgender Trend have diligently researched all the queer theory groups making a living out of schools and exposed the complicity of the DfE, professional organisations, local authorities & of course schools in enabling them to have uncritical access to children of all ages.

Their complete failure to prioritise safeguarding and the legal requirement for schools to be politically impartial in the face of the demands of "the sacred caste" is shameful.

It really is a weird feeling. I've noticed this argument style a lot recently and it's given me a sense of uncanny valley. I know they are trying to use our arguments against us and yet what they are saying makes no sense. It's the same feeling I get watching a very realistic AI-generated person. In fact, maybe the responses themselves are AI and they've just typed in 'use GC arguments to defend your position'.

You might be on to something, never even considered that. Well, I suppose they will try everything they can, and come at us from all angles!

To borrow a quote that is as old as democracy "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

There has also been a lot of 'is' and 'ought' being brought up by the TRAs recently.

Very astute observation, OP. Now that you put it into words, I've realized I have also been seeing this.

Yes, I have noticed that as well, and remarked about it on a couple of threads recently, but the word salad being presented was just impenetrable to me (I suppose that's the point), so I still don't really understand it. It seems to be lifted from some new rule book. Must keep an eye out for it again!

It is reassuring to know that it isn't just me ! Something is shifting, but it's difficult to pin down at the moment, so just trying to keep my eye on lots of avenues.

Great thread with so many excellent observations and points!

The forced teaming suggestions by the TRAs is about 15 years too late for me. They can fuck right off and sort their own mess now. Just imagine how much we could have all achieved if Trans movement hadn't had such absurd and totally illogical demands. Instead it's been years and years of battling to keep hold of and win back our rights.

Something just reminded me- this is something @Igmum picked up on earlier, and she called it "wearing our arguments."

Maybe they are using AI to help them with this.

Yes, sad but true. Now we've witnessed how those who govern and police us were more than happy to to strip us of our protections and legal rights we can never trust them again. How they allowed children to be manipulated and harmed as if it was perfectly acceptable. How these people in power and authority spoke such utter lies with true conviction "her penis" and with a straight face!

This, I've seen this a lot. That "gender policing" will impact females.

It's the other way round. Telling some men that they can go into the ladies' has left women more suspicious of people who look as if they might be men.

If anything these years of messing with the rules and letting men into women's spaces without question has increased hostility towards transmen or otherwise extremely gender-nonconforming women. Because women can't trust that (say) a rape crisis organsation has only referred (biological) women to a supposedly women-only group.

This morning I saw a tweet from GMB saying that we, yes WE were 'manufacturing outrage' and that there were not many complaints.

Well when you hide complaints and sack people or ban them for complaining, thats why there might be few complaints.

And GMB ofncourse, are hiding replies. Exactly how they could say they had no complaints.

And the last 10 years has been violent men and their Manufactured Outrage at women saying no. I mean, it is the whole fucking issue in one single tweet.

“I don't see a rush by TRAs to fix maternity services”
**
Remember when they began their push for “period poverty”? How popular is that cause now? You’ve pointed out a potential new pathway for them. It will be interesting to see if that one gets picked up.

I suspect not, because they are currently in damage control. They adopted new tactics after the Supreme Court (the most successful being to wait for the guidance). Now they are moving into a new phase, which may be simply defiance of law and guidance (“impossible to apply”) but might also pivot back to 2015 when they decided to try to change the EA to remove women’s rights altogether. Or it may be something else. Too early to call what the predominant campaign will be.

Thanks OP for starting this useful thread. I’m less in this campaign and less on Twix than I used to be, so hadn’t noticed the trend you mentioned, but it’s undoubtedly in the mix. I think it will only be a matter of time before we see which new tactic will predominate. They’re just trying a few out and will pursue the one that they find most appealing. Fortunately for us, the one they choose is rarely one that is persuasive to those on the fence because they have no real sense of what the public will tolerate and certainly no idea of what will be popular for normal people.

Gay rights were achieved by campaigners who worked out what would be acceptable to most people and worked from there. The current push towards normalization of perversion and to claim men are literally women have both been less successful in achieving what they set out to. Personally, I hope that continues and they miss their mark and fail to get what they want, like PIE ultimately did in the 70s.

They won't pick up on it because the stats on dead women and babies are too high for them. It shatters the monologue of 'the most vulnerable in society' when you identify another group who are more likely to end up prematurely dead than you.

And yes, this matters. In the hierarchy of the most oppressed this is very inconvenient to your narrative.

Remember when they began their push for “period poverty”? How popular is that cause now? You’ve pointed out a potential new pathway for them. It will be interesting to see if that one gets picked up.

I seem to remember Liam ‘Lily’ Madigan tweeting a pic of himself with something about period poverty written on his hand, but then when someone asked about getting involved admitting that he’d only tweeted to ‘raise awareness’ & didn’t actually know anything about it.

they are currently in damage control.
Yes, this! It's the waiting period for us now, isn't it? And while we have a bit of space, I'm hoping to get ahead of the curve so we'll be ready for the next tactic.

I know that women here are very aware of tactics, and that many of us are now primed and ready, but it won't be us they go for. They'll look for vulnerable targets. And since we've been shown that government and the police will not help us, we'll have to do it ourselves.

Re Stonewall Proud Employers scheme, new from 2025:

see third para below, especially. This is what it means to be "proud" now: "privilege training" and "mandatory EDI training." They have learned nothing!

https://news.fmbusinessdaily.com/2026/03/emcor-uk-part-of-ocs-achieves-trailblazer-status-in-stonewalls-proud-employers-accreditation/

EMCOR UK, now part of OCS, has been accredited as a Trailblazing Employer in the Proud Employers Accreditation Scheme.
^^
EMCOR UK had a strong performance in all eight categories: leadership, empowering individuals, employee network groups, the employee lifecycle, policies and benefits, monitoring, supply chains and external engagement.
^^
Mandatory EDI training, allyship and privilege training for leaders, inclusive parental leave policies, anonymous diversity monitoring and targeted staff survey engagement were also recognised.

This is just the first one I found. Might start a separate thread, if there are a lot of them.

This is an example of what I was referring to earlier, where the argument is ostensibly favouring women but the framing’s that the focus on toilets as a single sex space is a kind of lesser/silly bone of contention.

Apparently written by Paul Knaggs but reads AI to me.
‘it makes women’s objections appear mean, petty, almost obsessive’
’purpose built, universally accessible facilities would solve the practical problem of provision’
Is that so Sir?

Nowhere in the article is the importance of single sex toilets mentioned.

Perhaps Paul Knaggs heart is in the right place but trans activists really really want access to female toilets and it’s the weak point where they believe they can gain traction with their ‘just want to pee’ sad faces. At recent marches the placards all pointed in this direction.

Toilets are the most straightforward way to visibly intrude on women and girls, they’re where the greatest number will be affected, they’re the most readily available, they’re an incredibly intimate female space associated not just with obvious bodily functions but also menstruation, fixing you hair and make up, mirrors….

From a safeguarding perspective though they are the potential opening to so many harms, indignities, crimes and fetishistic behaviour. Absolutely crucially they’re the space where young girls are most likely to have their boundaries blurred or become confused as to who is safe or not.

I’m really wary of narratives diminishing the importance of toilets as a single sex space.
All single sex spaces matter.

Labour Heartlands: the conjuring trick at the toilet door

Actually I agree wiith 99% of the Knaggs article. (I'd pay serious money for an AI that could write that precisely and make such a solid argument.)

I agree with you there's a weakness in his argument (well two actually, there is also a point where he refers to "trans people" when he means "transwomen aka men") and that he has underestimated the importance of importance of toilets as such. But he's right about how toilets have been used to trivialise a lot of other things.

He's missed that this trivialisation includes the argument about toilets themselves because for material reasons single-sex toilets matter more to women than they do to men. And thanks to you for nailing that down!

New thread on Stonewall's Proud Employers scheme, so I won't bore you all stupid on this thread!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5537780-educate-motivate-and-inspire-lawmakers-stonewalls-new-proud-employers-scheme-and-strategy

Someone read about the 'is/ought problem' on Wiki* and decided that they are now a philosopher. Then it was used by other TRAs, thinking that it wins all arguments, and means that special men should use female single-sex facilities because they want to.

*Or it has been mentioned by a prominent TRA, such as Contrapoints or similar.