Interesting read if only to remind oneself (must adopt that as my pronoun) of the sheer stupidity of the situation. Not sure it would work on my committed lefty friends who quite simply can’t hear or aren’t allowed to listen to information that they identify as ‘right wing’ or coming ‘from the right’. I no longer bother trying to peak them but this woman is right, it’s fatally undermined my friendships. When you no longer see people you once respected as rational, you kind of drift apart and you look at everything they say through the lens of ‘Yeah, but you believe men are sometimes women so...’
I am still in touch with mine, but I now keep off the subject and I realised the other day that they are too. My friend alluded to the whole debate and said ’I don’t want to lose friends over it’ which is such an admission of fence-sitting. It makes me sad to hear them say they don’t understand the issues: it’s because the left has never given weight to women’s rights or gay & lesbian rights. They’d be ashamed to say it about other political issues but they use it as a cop out.
🙂 Kinda goes down hill after "men are sometimes women", doesn't it ... 😉
But in many ways the whole clusterfuck reminds me of Lilliputian civil wars over egg-cracking protocols. The problem is that "woman" is defined as both a sex AND as a gender - "adult human female" AND anyone who looks like a "woman". But trying to answer the question of the latter is like the proverbial case of trying to jail jello to a wall; only the first definition has any coherence, specificity, and tangibility:
"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
Though the fly in the ointment with the first definition is what we're going to agree "female" means. The standard biological definitions for both male and female are based on having functional gonads which conflicts rather badly with those who insist that "sex is immutable" - it ain't; clownfish prove that.
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
The biophobes do love to talk about clownfish, although we're not clownfish or any kind of fish! But maybe we should be more precise and say "Human sex is immutable".
It's interesting that in Merriam-Webster this second definition is prefaced with the words "Among those who study gender and sexuality..." We can guess who those are: - academics in Gender Studies departments, the source of all this madness!
Good point about "academics in Gender Studies departments" - should close all of them, put their denizens out on the bread lines or digging ditches. Far too much of Academia is totally corrupted and virtually beyond saving:
Though "feminism" has to take some share of the blame for that:
"The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the [Women Studies] programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
As for clownfish, the biological definitions don't say anything about which species they apply to: if an organism - of any sexually-reproducing species - produces ova or sperm then it is male or female. And if they produce neither then they're sexless.
As for "sex is immutable" - seems to be something of a red herring or a category error:
The terms "mutable" and "immutable" really aren't applicable to categories which is what the sexes are. Would you say that "teenager-ness is immutable"?
We pass into and out of categories depending on whether we meet the membership criteria. That for "teenager" is being 13 to 19; those for male and female are having functional gonads of either of two types. The latter of which we don't acquire until puberty, and can subsequently lose thereafter - e.g., transwomen who cut their nuts off who thereby turn themselves into sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to pay to "dish with the girls" over nail polish colours ...
A friend asked me what a girl is and when I said 'juvenile female human' she went all 'cat's bum mouth'. We'd not 5 minutes before been talking about gender stereotypes. Her brain has been addled by reading a book about Social Constructivism. I was very disappointed but hopefully something got through. OTOH another friend dismissed something I said because I'd read it in The Times (or That Murdoch Rag). Tribalism. So boring.
Very few people are open to new information, and I've certainly seen that on this site! No, we all pretty much agree on the absurdity of trans ideology, but there's a bit more to life than that.
That is wonderful to read that she has a 100% success rate. No wonder Denton's stressed the importance of keeping gender ideology out of public debate; it falls apart so easily when you simply point to the facts.
I'm sure it would work privately on Josie Long, Bragg, Ronson et al, but they could never admit it publicly - as you say, they have no "golden bridge" to retreat across. I've no doubt they'll try to adapt their stance to the changes in whatever becomes acceptable to say in public, as more facts filter through to the mainstream.
But they can f*** off - as long as more and more people like this woman keep talking to people & just give them the facts, there is hope.
This is brilliant. I've already posted it to Facebook and I'll be emailing it to everyone today. Lorna Slater and her mates will be next. Thank you Mia and Graham!
Yes, the TRAs may in theory have screamed that a TW should always be acted by a TW, but Corrie inadvertently or deliberately (?) did them a favour by furthering the pretence that TW are just like women.
Laudable efforts. Three cheers to this brave and stubborn woman.
Nevertheless a word of caution - that are explicitely not a criticism of what this woman has achieved: This guide will only work for some people and you need to have a lot of time for this. If you tend to be controversial or emotional in personal debates - I know I can be - don't try it. You will fail in many cases and this will be frustrating.
If you are an outgoing and easy going and patient person - heck, go for it. You will be able to make a huge difference.
For the rest of us - including myself - there are other strategies that may work better. And this guide teaches us the most valuable lesson of them all: Have your info ready. Be persistent. Whatever approach you choose will have some effect in the long run. If you try.
Again: This is f..g important to share and talk about. But rather than copy that 1:1 see it as encouragement and reminder and a framework to find out what works best for you.
I am saying this because I have been involved in or professionally covered political movements in a broad sense of the word and more than once have I seen people employ great strategies to convince others - such as the one described above - that just weren't suited for their own personalities and experiences. This has left a lot of people I know frustrated and made some give up entirely.
I know what you're saying, Chris, I can be very passionate when speaking about topics that involve oppression and exploitation, and this is not comfortable for those raised with bourgeois sensibilities (never supposed to feel passion about anything). All I've done with people is to ask them what they know about the drugs and surgeries, trying my best to be neutral and calm, and since they know nothing they just double down on TWAW or whatever. Often with the old liberal cliche, "Some of my best friends are trans" with no self-consciousness whatsoever! One can easily picture them in the 1960s saying the same thing about black people.
I am lucky in that all my friends are firmly of the view that safeguarding children and young adults and vulnerable women is essential peaking.
That article is brilliant. Well thought out, fact based and logical. My sister peaked me about 4 years ago now and she discussed things using a similar approach.
The heterosexual men are transvestites in plain sight and kinks are out of the bag too - revolting as they are. Larping as women after being a bloke for 40/50 years. It’s a bloody insult.
I haven’t had to peak my close friends but I have spent time peaking several colleagues. I have noticed that it’s very easy now, little resistance. And in a majority of cases it requires no effort at all - it does seem the tide is turning. Sane people know the truth.
I maintain that an ideology based on lies, misinformation and misdirection always fails. The clean up from all the damage that’s been done to young people and vulnerable women is going to be immense and horrendous.
Great advice. I've never yet discussed this with anyone who actually agreed with the ideology. However , there's quite a lot of apathy and disinterest on the subject ,by my generation at least ( I'm 75 ). They obviously don't think it will impact their lives ! So depressing 💔👎😡
Bravo to Mia for this. I've peaked a few myself and having information to hand always helps the woke remove the poor informaiton to replace with different information. I don't think it will work on those "in the lie" as opposed to being outside of it though. If you are in the lie you are further motivated to believe it as your world view and sense of self depend on the lie being true. I have a family member who considers themself a gender nonconforming gay trans person (yes, person) and uses they/them pronouns. This befuddles me beyond belief as she is actually a hererosexual woman in a relationship with a heterosexual man who considers himself a straight man. But she believes it. She believes she is part of a "trans family" and to chose to abandon those beliefs would remove her from her trans family and reduce her to being an ordinary woman on the outside looking in. Not special any more, and quite probably rejected and even harassed and without her trans and woke friends. In addition, she would now just be a woman, and she would have to then (in her head) deal with being a second-class citizen in a world where the cards are stacked against you because of your sex.
I see this kind of reinforcing motivation present in most young women I know or know of who identify as trans or other genderspecial. Plus it's a magic 'get out of privilege free' card, as well as 'get out of being just a woman/second class citizen'.
The attractions of acquiring a special gender identity to young believers in intersectional identity politics and presumed hierarchies of group privilege are, I think, hugely underestimated in the mix of causes. Also for teens beginning individuating from allegedly boring/privileged parents, who in other eras would have found other ways (punk, hippie, goth, emo).
I completley agree. I think this aspect is underestimated, especially in younger people who become ensnared in the community. It is hugley reinforcing and validating whereas the reality is hugely boring. In a world where people who are seen as being special if they are not (for want of a better word), normal it is hugley rewarding too. If you aren't ADHD, or autistic, or have aspergers, or dyslexia or a food intolerance, etc. etc. then how can you be special? Ta daa - you can now self ID into the most special catergory of all (and I am certainly not belittling anyone with any of these conditions). You don;t get all that positive validation for being usual. The allure must be hugely rewarding. As you say, we used to do it through music affiliation, but that aspect of youth seems to have gone, and most importantly their parents often identify this way still. Rebellion and being special rolled up in one - what a drug.
'Rebellion and being special rolled up in one - what a drug.' Absolutely! And suddenly becoming a member of a 'protected minority group'. How empowering is that!
Very well-put. I'd add that part of the draw seems to be INTRINSIC "specialness"; note how such people never show any interest in labels or identities that one actually CAN "become". They aren't claiming to be Ivy League/Oxbridge graduates, doctors, or self-made millionaires. Only things that are passive traits: illnesses/conditions; sexual orientations ("I'm SOOOO GAAAY", as the "spicy straights" are so fond of saying); "gender identity" (i.e., personality). Stuff that's less a matter of "becoming" than of just who you ARE.
I think it's no mistake that so many "trans" people (the men at least) have a penchant for fascism-- they actually discuss how common a neo-Nazi background is for "girls" like themselves. Aside from the other obvious parallels between these two mind sets, there's the common emphasis on how passive traits (genetics; "trans-ness") make one special. I'm superior because I'm of Northern European descent! I'm superior because I have this magical "gender identity"! No effort or accomplishment necessary (conveniently enough).
My theory is that these people somehow think that intrinsic traits are fungible, and automatically translate into the really desirable ones: talent, charisma, attractiveness... being genuinely INTERESTING. Having, in short, a compelling personality. Because there ARE people who, regardless of worldly achievements, exert a natural charm and fascination. Others like them, want to be around them. But it's not something that you can proclaim, is it? You only know that you have it if others keep telling you so, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly as well).
Which is perhaps why this lot are so keen on "validation". They want us all to act the way we do towards those whom we truly find compelling; to "tell them" by being attracted to and interested in them. Or at least saying we are. At metaphorical gunpoint.
Crap, but it's always like that. She's lucky to have a partner who apparently can handle this. Must be very tough on him, too. I know I couldn't handle this kind of pressure for any extended period of time, and I suppose that goes for most people.
As it doesn't impact on him directly he just seems to ignore it. Other than her changing her hair style and colour everything is the same as she's just chosen self ID as says she is femme presenting. He's part of the same peer group and largely stays silent on the subject. Denial is his way of handling it I guess.
Still, it forces him to ideologize a relationship and pretend to be something he is not. I.e. to some degree he has to present as a gay man, in his relationship and with the peer group. So, it is not only self denial for her, it is the same for him. Of course, it is the same with wives or partners of "transwomen". The partners are way more affected than with most other social or medical conditions, and I certainly don't mean to say that having a partner with a severe mental illness or who is under other forms of severe mental stress is ever easy. But at least you get - albeit limited - understand and support from outside. Here? You risk being ostracised if you ever hint that the situation may be problematic for you.
He doesn't present as a gay man and is accepted as not being a gay man because it is all about feelings - ergo she feels she is a trans gender nonconforming gay person who is femme presenting and he feels he is a straight heterosexual man. He does not have to pretend otherwise as it's all about self ID so as long as he doesn't go against what her and the peer group say, he is accepted as a straight man in a relationship with a gender non-conforming gay trans person who is femme presenting. I suspect ignoring this mind bending stuff is the only way to cope with it.
Quite right. Though the transgender ideologues are trying to define "male" - and "female" - as genders too. Sadly, even Wikipedia is striking their colours to sail under that flag:
"Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete,[1][2][3] or ovum, in the process of fertilization. ....
In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender."
Don't see them referencing that use. Wonder why ...
But, ICYMI, my tale of woe about getting "cancelled" there for objecting to similar uses relative to transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard who supposedly "transitioned to female"; rank insanity:
It is interesting to note that one of the interests professed by the male "lesbian" Janedoe in the article, is "editing Wikipedia". I was trying to tell my children (boys, 16 & 19) the other day that Wikipedia is not to be trusted because of the ideological stance of editors -- of cases of people trying to make *their own* entries more balanced and therefore more accurate and they are almost immediately edited back, and of how other (seemingly innocuous) entries have an ideological slant, so it is not to bs trusted. But I couldn't convince them! "But you have to be an expert to do the editing", "No smoke without fire" etc... What is Wikipedia doing with an entry on "male" anyway? Since when is it a dictionary?
Sure a bunch of TRA dudebros there with their thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales on anything to do with gender. I'd been contacted by several groups of feminists who had wanted to organize a "full-court press" of feminist Wikipedian editors to rectify some of that, though nothing has come of it yet so far.
But Wikipedia isn't really a dictionary, it's a full-fledged encyclopedia. It has some 6 million articles - just in English; they're not all corrupted by transgender ideology. Still an incredibly useful resource in so many ways, particularly on math, science, biology, & history. A large part of the reason why I was so bent out of shape by their articles on gender. You might be interested in this oldish article by Natalie Wolchover at Live Science:
Or allow adults who "identify" as children to play Little League. Or those able-bodied people who "identify" as disabled to compete in the Special Olympics.
It's all very 'Little Britain'. Such a pity Matt Lucas won't recognise how prescient they were and instead is a paid-up member of the anti-woman brigade.
Funnily enough, yesterday was the first time in over 6 months that I felt my Guardian reading friend, (who has been a friend for over 40 years), was ready to listen to what I was saying..
Strangely, it was the rules on primogeniture and the trans women with their female penises, haranguing Lesbians that were the light bulb moment.
It's an interesting guide and very no nonsense approach but I don't think everyone would have this kind of success. I think partly as a result of their own confidence and the receptiveness of those listening. I've found that it's difficult to reach the stage of getting people to listen to let alone consider this much information.
I've talked to some about the impact and likely long term affects of giving puberty puberty blockers to children. Most of those I those I spoke to weren't aware that it isn't as simple as 'pausing' development, and the child could simple stop taking them and go back to developing normally if they changed their mind about going in that direction. This is the information they're been given, and have accepted unquestioningly the supposed expertise of those treating kids. There was interest and a change of opinion regarding this.
Even so, conversations haven't got as far as discussing adults who have a firm sense of their gender identity, whatever that might be based on and motivated by. The mantra and orthodoxy around it has been embedded. Trans women are women, regardless that most who are attracted to women appear to reject other trans women as potential partners. Presumably, this is because they don't want a sexual relationship with people who have the same gentlitals they do. Yet some expect lesbians to disregard their sexual attraction and accept someone with a penis as a woman, and lesbians who don't are 'vagina fetishists'.
Most of the people I've attempted to engage share this this view, or in fact don't, but aren't going to challenge it because that would make them transphobic. Just like the idea that predatory men would claim to identify as women to gain access to women is tranphobic. It comes from the same source that promoted the idea that gay men where a threat to young men because they were going to try to make them 'turn gay'.
Good luck to anyone who can get those committed to supporting this to think about it more deeply and see that there isn't a parallel at all.
I think you’re right, people are too afraid of being thought of as transphobic. My friends reply with a thudding silence after a while they will resume their normal friendship but obviously feel it best that it is never mentioned again. and my adult daughter rolls her eyes and says please don’t keep going on. Which I don’t, I am so bloody silent about it considering how I feel.
As for getting her to read Mia’s post …she’d cry as soon as autogynophilia was mentioned. Cry because she is afraid her previously progressive mother and second wave feminist who has published many feminist images has become reactionary and she is so upset by that. So we agree to silence.
I just know sense will prevail till then salute and support everyone battling against this folly. The law will have to be changed back. Men don’t have cervixes, they do in law which is why Keir Starmer will say they do. That law should never have been passed. The confusion over sex and gender has got to be unravelled and enforced. It is so embedded.
I know what you mean about the reaction to the mention of autogynophilia from your daughter. The few times I've discussed it no one's actually cried but they interpret the idea of this as code for right wing reactionary transphobia..."who said that's real? Someone made it up". While not questioning the 'science' used to support gender identity ideology. I don't think the same people are going to adopt an entirely contrary view based on what I say to them, and anything written would be dismissed as anti-trans propaganda.
At least I was able to painfully draw a dear friend's attention to the reality that the testosterone gel his autistic teenage daughter is currently using (the result of contact with Mermaids then Gender GP) brings about changes that are potentially harmful and are irreversible. He was distressed by her desire to transition and now he's understandably deeply worried about the impact of cross sex hormones on her physical and mental well-being.
I agree that sense will prevail in the end and laws will change. Obviously, I hope that happens as soon, but hope aside, I feel we're some time away from that. Nevertheless, there's going to be a lot going on between now and then as more people begin understanding that trans rights activism doesn't have that much to do with trans people or their rights and everything to do with misogyny and the erosion of women's rights and freedoms.
The essential reason I speak up is that, as things stand, women and girls are not protected from men who may self-identity as women primarily to gain access to spaces traditionally, safely separated by sex.
That does not mean that transwomen with penises are de facto dangerous, of course not, but that the opportunity for men to self ID for sexual abuse is so big you could drive wild horses through it.
Not all trans women are prepatory in the same way that not all men are predatory, but some are, meaning they represent a risk to women and girls. Unfortunately, most or all the advocates of self ID seem unable to understand and accept this.
Just as they seemingly won't acknowledge the lengths sexual predatory men will go to contriving opportunities to abuse. Identifying as trans to gain access to women's spaces is a lot less time consuming than going down a particular career path, for example.
Thank you, Mia Ashton is brilliant. I'd like to have the detailed description of AGPs she mentions,--how exactly is the best, clearest, most succinct way to describe? I have failed in this one. Photos are important and I can find those. This is harder in a phone conversation, but all this stuff could be put on a website that we could go through with our friends. So if she or anyone has a really good link or verbiage on how to describe AGP, please share. Also a good source for the 80% statistic.
When researching AGP it is important to remember that men offering "insight" into this paraphilia are most often attempting to spin away from how the decision to indulge the fetish harms women and children. While some would have us believe that uncritically platforming men describing various AGP-driven "compulsions" is paramount to our understanding, women's stories of how we are affected by the sexual coercion implicit when a man is actively engaged in arousing himself in this manner, whether it be behind closed the doors of the woman's home or on a public platform, that offer the most useful and practical information. We expect toddlers to learn by example to manage their dangerous and harmful compulsions, men's excuses for indulging theirs is simply a distraction.
I've done all of these on an old school friend recently who knows a TIF - a daughter of another school friend. She said I had a point with it all but I've "swung too far the other way". That I need to live and let live. I said I did, except when women are losing rights and children being harmed. I don't think she'd thought about it at all, and I've told her she can re-friend me on FB (she unfriended me) when she's got to peak trans. I'm sure she'll get there eventually.....somtimes it takes time for people to process it all, and de-program themselves.
Interesting read if only to remind oneself (must adopt that as my pronoun) of the sheer stupidity of the situation. Not sure it would work on my committed lefty friends who quite simply can’t hear or aren’t allowed to listen to information that they identify as ‘right wing’ or coming ‘from the right’. I no longer bother trying to peak them but this woman is right, it’s fatally undermined my friendships. When you no longer see people you once respected as rational, you kind of drift apart and you look at everything they say through the lens of ‘Yeah, but you believe men are sometimes women so...’
Same boat here, my woke friends are saying, 'I miss talking to you!' And I'm thinking, 'You won't be when you hear what I have to say'.
I am still in touch with mine, but I now keep off the subject and I realised the other day that they are too. My friend alluded to the whole debate and said ’I don’t want to lose friends over it’ which is such an admission of fence-sitting. It makes me sad to hear them say they don’t understand the issues: it’s because the left has never given weight to women’s rights or gay & lesbian rights. They’d be ashamed to say it about other political issues but they use it as a cop out.
Yes. This.
🙂 Kinda goes down hill after "men are sometimes women", doesn't it ... 😉
But in many ways the whole clusterfuck reminds me of Lilliputian civil wars over egg-cracking protocols. The problem is that "woman" is defined as both a sex AND as a gender - "adult human female" AND anyone who looks like a "woman". But trying to answer the question of the latter is like the proverbial case of trying to jail jello to a wall; only the first definition has any coherence, specificity, and tangibility:
"woman: an adult female person"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman
"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Though the fly in the ointment with the first definition is what we're going to agree "female" means. The standard biological definitions for both male and female are based on having functional gonads which conflicts rather badly with those who insist that "sex is immutable" - it ain't; clownfish prove that.
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
The biophobes do love to talk about clownfish, although we're not clownfish or any kind of fish! But maybe we should be more precise and say "Human sex is immutable".
It's interesting that in Merriam-Webster this second definition is prefaced with the words "Among those who study gender and sexuality..." We can guess who those are: - academics in Gender Studies departments, the source of all this madness!
Good point about "academics in Gender Studies departments" - should close all of them, put their denizens out on the bread lines or digging ditches. Far too much of Academia is totally corrupted and virtually beyond saving:
https://michaelrobillard.substack.com/p/how-i-left-academia-or-how-academia?s=r
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/academia-beyond-salvation
Though "feminism" has to take some share of the blame for that:
"The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the [Women Studies] programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
As for clownfish, the biological definitions don't say anything about which species they apply to: if an organism - of any sexually-reproducing species - produces ova or sperm then it is male or female. And if they produce neither then they're sexless.
As for "sex is immutable" - seems to be something of a red herring or a category error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
The terms "mutable" and "immutable" really aren't applicable to categories which is what the sexes are. Would you say that "teenager-ness is immutable"?
We pass into and out of categories depending on whether we meet the membership criteria. That for "teenager" is being 13 to 19; those for male and female are having functional gonads of either of two types. The latter of which we don't acquire until puberty, and can subsequently lose thereafter - e.g., transwomen who cut their nuts off who thereby turn themselves into sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to pay to "dish with the girls" over nail polish colours ...
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
Adult Human Female … there never was, an AND !
A friend asked me what a girl is and when I said 'juvenile female human' she went all 'cat's bum mouth'. We'd not 5 minutes before been talking about gender stereotypes. Her brain has been addled by reading a book about Social Constructivism. I was very disappointed but hopefully something got through. OTOH another friend dismissed something I said because I'd read it in The Times (or That Murdoch Rag). Tribalism. So boring.
Very few people are open to new information, and I've certainly seen that on this site! No, we all pretty much agree on the absurdity of trans ideology, but there's a bit more to life than that.
I love this guide - works almost every time. Only unsuccessful when receiver of info refuses to accept what you say is true
That is wonderful to read that she has a 100% success rate. No wonder Denton's stressed the importance of keeping gender ideology out of public debate; it falls apart so easily when you simply point to the facts.
I'm sure it would work privately on Josie Long, Bragg, Ronson et al, but they could never admit it publicly - as you say, they have no "golden bridge" to retreat across. I've no doubt they'll try to adapt their stance to the changes in whatever becomes acceptable to say in public, as more facts filter through to the mainstream.
But they can f*** off - as long as more and more people like this woman keep talking to people & just give them the facts, there is hope.
This is brilliant. I've already posted it to Facebook and I'll be emailing it to everyone today. Lorna Slater and her mates will be next. Thank you Mia and Graham!
Brave! Good luck and you might just have inspired me to do the same. ❤️
Graham, don't know where you got the article but expect the lady in question is Mia Ashton.
Write-up in an earlier GC News:
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/sat-march-5-and-sun-march-6-2022?s=r
“Today’s Extraordinary Revolutionary Female (T.E.R.F.)”
Flanked by a couple of Canada's "Famous Five":
https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/how-why/exclusive-meet-the-sculptor-who-immortalized-canadas-famous-five/
Her article in The Critic; she's clearly a going concern:
https://thecritic.co.uk/canadas-war-on-children/
Hayley Cropper syndrome is still a huge obstacle. I sometimes wonder how but then I remind myself I was afflicted by it less than 3 years ago.
Yes, the TRAs may in theory have screamed that a TW should always be acted by a TW, but Corrie inadvertently or deliberately (?) did them a favour by furthering the pretence that TW are just like women.
Oh it was deliberate. They knew a male/male love tory would not be accepted. They chose a below-average-height woman to play Hayley
Laudable efforts. Three cheers to this brave and stubborn woman.
Nevertheless a word of caution - that are explicitely not a criticism of what this woman has achieved: This guide will only work for some people and you need to have a lot of time for this. If you tend to be controversial or emotional in personal debates - I know I can be - don't try it. You will fail in many cases and this will be frustrating.
If you are an outgoing and easy going and patient person - heck, go for it. You will be able to make a huge difference.
For the rest of us - including myself - there are other strategies that may work better. And this guide teaches us the most valuable lesson of them all: Have your info ready. Be persistent. Whatever approach you choose will have some effect in the long run. If you try.
Again: This is f..g important to share and talk about. But rather than copy that 1:1 see it as encouragement and reminder and a framework to find out what works best for you.
I am saying this because I have been involved in or professionally covered political movements in a broad sense of the word and more than once have I seen people employ great strategies to convince others - such as the one described above - that just weren't suited for their own personalities and experiences. This has left a lot of people I know frustrated and made some give up entirely.
I know what you're saying, Chris, I can be very passionate when speaking about topics that involve oppression and exploitation, and this is not comfortable for those raised with bourgeois sensibilities (never supposed to feel passion about anything). All I've done with people is to ask them what they know about the drugs and surgeries, trying my best to be neutral and calm, and since they know nothing they just double down on TWAW or whatever. Often with the old liberal cliche, "Some of my best friends are trans" with no self-consciousness whatsoever! One can easily picture them in the 1960s saying the same thing about black people.
"Some of my best friends are trans" usually means they may have briefly talked to one at some point in their lives...
I am lucky in that all my friends are firmly of the view that safeguarding children and young adults and vulnerable women is essential peaking.
That article is brilliant. Well thought out, fact based and logical. My sister peaked me about 4 years ago now and she discussed things using a similar approach.
The heterosexual men are transvestites in plain sight and kinks are out of the bag too - revolting as they are. Larping as women after being a bloke for 40/50 years. It’s a bloody insult.
I haven’t had to peak my close friends but I have spent time peaking several colleagues. I have noticed that it’s very easy now, little resistance. And in a majority of cases it requires no effort at all - it does seem the tide is turning. Sane people know the truth.
I maintain that an ideology based on lies, misinformation and misdirection always fails. The clean up from all the damage that’s been done to young people and vulnerable women is going to be immense and horrendous.
Great advice. I've never yet discussed this with anyone who actually agreed with the ideology. However , there's quite a lot of apathy and disinterest on the subject ,by my generation at least ( I'm 75 ). They obviously don't think it will impact their lives ! So depressing 💔👎😡
Bravo to Mia for this. I've peaked a few myself and having information to hand always helps the woke remove the poor informaiton to replace with different information. I don't think it will work on those "in the lie" as opposed to being outside of it though. If you are in the lie you are further motivated to believe it as your world view and sense of self depend on the lie being true. I have a family member who considers themself a gender nonconforming gay trans person (yes, person) and uses they/them pronouns. This befuddles me beyond belief as she is actually a hererosexual woman in a relationship with a heterosexual man who considers himself a straight man. But she believes it. She believes she is part of a "trans family" and to chose to abandon those beliefs would remove her from her trans family and reduce her to being an ordinary woman on the outside looking in. Not special any more, and quite probably rejected and even harassed and without her trans and woke friends. In addition, she would now just be a woman, and she would have to then (in her head) deal with being a second-class citizen in a world where the cards are stacked against you because of your sex.
So true. Well described, thanks.
I see this kind of reinforcing motivation present in most young women I know or know of who identify as trans or other genderspecial. Plus it's a magic 'get out of privilege free' card, as well as 'get out of being just a woman/second class citizen'.
The attractions of acquiring a special gender identity to young believers in intersectional identity politics and presumed hierarchies of group privilege are, I think, hugely underestimated in the mix of causes. Also for teens beginning individuating from allegedly boring/privileged parents, who in other eras would have found other ways (punk, hippie, goth, emo).
And if is hugely attractive to autistic youngsters, who seem to be very present on Twitter these days declaiming their trans-ness (often non-binary).
I completley agree. I think this aspect is underestimated, especially in younger people who become ensnared in the community. It is hugley reinforcing and validating whereas the reality is hugely boring. In a world where people who are seen as being special if they are not (for want of a better word), normal it is hugley rewarding too. If you aren't ADHD, or autistic, or have aspergers, or dyslexia or a food intolerance, etc. etc. then how can you be special? Ta daa - you can now self ID into the most special catergory of all (and I am certainly not belittling anyone with any of these conditions). You don;t get all that positive validation for being usual. The allure must be hugely rewarding. As you say, we used to do it through music affiliation, but that aspect of youth seems to have gone, and most importantly their parents often identify this way still. Rebellion and being special rolled up in one - what a drug.
'Rebellion and being special rolled up in one - what a drug.' Absolutely! And suddenly becoming a member of a 'protected minority group'. How empowering is that!
Exactly!
Very well-put. I'd add that part of the draw seems to be INTRINSIC "specialness"; note how such people never show any interest in labels or identities that one actually CAN "become". They aren't claiming to be Ivy League/Oxbridge graduates, doctors, or self-made millionaires. Only things that are passive traits: illnesses/conditions; sexual orientations ("I'm SOOOO GAAAY", as the "spicy straights" are so fond of saying); "gender identity" (i.e., personality). Stuff that's less a matter of "becoming" than of just who you ARE.
I think it's no mistake that so many "trans" people (the men at least) have a penchant for fascism-- they actually discuss how common a neo-Nazi background is for "girls" like themselves. Aside from the other obvious parallels between these two mind sets, there's the common emphasis on how passive traits (genetics; "trans-ness") make one special. I'm superior because I'm of Northern European descent! I'm superior because I have this magical "gender identity"! No effort or accomplishment necessary (conveniently enough).
My theory is that these people somehow think that intrinsic traits are fungible, and automatically translate into the really desirable ones: talent, charisma, attractiveness... being genuinely INTERESTING. Having, in short, a compelling personality. Because there ARE people who, regardless of worldly achievements, exert a natural charm and fascination. Others like them, want to be around them. But it's not something that you can proclaim, is it? You only know that you have it if others keep telling you so, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly as well).
Which is perhaps why this lot are so keen on "validation". They want us all to act the way we do towards those whom we truly find compelling; to "tell them" by being attracted to and interested in them. Or at least saying we are. At metaphorical gunpoint.
Poor "Jazz" was accepted to Harvard.
But is he still there? He seemed to be having huge problems.
Very good point you are raising here. Sorry your family member is going through that. I assume she is still rather young?
Yes, there's a peer group she is part of and they all reinforce it with each other.
Crap, but it's always like that. She's lucky to have a partner who apparently can handle this. Must be very tough on him, too. I know I couldn't handle this kind of pressure for any extended period of time, and I suppose that goes for most people.
As it doesn't impact on him directly he just seems to ignore it. Other than her changing her hair style and colour everything is the same as she's just chosen self ID as says she is femme presenting. He's part of the same peer group and largely stays silent on the subject. Denial is his way of handling it I guess.
Still, it forces him to ideologize a relationship and pretend to be something he is not. I.e. to some degree he has to present as a gay man, in his relationship and with the peer group. So, it is not only self denial for her, it is the same for him. Of course, it is the same with wives or partners of "transwomen". The partners are way more affected than with most other social or medical conditions, and I certainly don't mean to say that having a partner with a severe mental illness or who is under other forms of severe mental stress is ever easy. But at least you get - albeit limited - understand and support from outside. Here? You risk being ostracised if you ever hint that the situation may be problematic for you.
He doesn't present as a gay man and is accepted as not being a gay man because it is all about feelings - ergo she feels she is a trans gender nonconforming gay person who is femme presenting and he feels he is a straight heterosexual man. He does not have to pretend otherwise as it's all about self ID so as long as he doesn't go against what her and the peer group say, he is accepted as a straight man in a relationship with a gender non-conforming gay trans person who is femme presenting. I suspect ignoring this mind bending stuff is the only way to cope with it.
What a brilliant piece. I must start folders like this on my phone.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/23/how-the-trans-ideology-dehumanises-women/
Apologies if this doesn’t work , or in fact is totally inappropriate but it’s the only way I could figure out how to do it
👍 🙂
"Ms Dolezal is white, and Mr Lavery is a man. We just have to start saying this now, out loud."
Indeed. Though "male transvestite" is probably more accurate, and a rather deluded and demented one at that.
Yes, of course... and only a man (or boy) can be (a human) male.
Quite right. Though the transgender ideologues are trying to define "male" - and "female" - as genders too. Sadly, even Wikipedia is striking their colours to sail under that flag:
"Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete,[1][2][3] or ovum, in the process of fertilization. ....
In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male
Sure, and "male" can also refer to those plumbing and electrical connectors with convex mating surfaces ... 🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
Don't see them referencing that use. Wonder why ...
But, ICYMI, my tale of woe about getting "cancelled" there for objecting to similar uses relative to transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard who supposedly "transitioned to female"; rank insanity:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedias-lysenkoism-410901a22da2
It is interesting to note that one of the interests professed by the male "lesbian" Janedoe in the article, is "editing Wikipedia". I was trying to tell my children (boys, 16 & 19) the other day that Wikipedia is not to be trusted because of the ideological stance of editors -- of cases of people trying to make *their own* entries more balanced and therefore more accurate and they are almost immediately edited back, and of how other (seemingly innocuous) entries have an ideological slant, so it is not to bs trusted. But I couldn't convince them! "But you have to be an expert to do the editing", "No smoke without fire" etc... What is Wikipedia doing with an entry on "male" anyway? Since when is it a dictionary?
Sure a bunch of TRA dudebros there with their thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales on anything to do with gender. I'd been contacted by several groups of feminists who had wanted to organize a "full-court press" of feminist Wikipedian editors to rectify some of that, though nothing has come of it yet so far.
But Wikipedia isn't really a dictionary, it's a full-fledged encyclopedia. It has some 6 million articles - just in English; they're not all corrupted by transgender ideology. Still an incredibly useful resource in so many ways, particularly on math, science, biology, & history. A large part of the reason why I was so bent out of shape by their articles on gender. You might be interested in this oldish article by Natalie Wolchover at Live Science:
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
Thanks for reading my Medium article - my "view" and "read" statistics are going up by leaps and bounds! (284 & 52) 😉 🙂
Re connectors ... in Spanish too they use "macho" for the one with the pin and "hembra" for the one with the slot. Makes complete sense.
Very interesting piece, thank you!
You hit the nail on the head with this...
"We might just as well create separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts."
Or allow adults who "identify" as children to play Little League. Or those able-bodied people who "identify" as disabled to compete in the Special Olympics.
It's all very 'Little Britain'. Such a pity Matt Lucas won't recognise how prescient they were and instead is a paid-up member of the anti-woman brigade.
Funnily enough, yesterday was the first time in over 6 months that I felt my Guardian reading friend, (who has been a friend for over 40 years), was ready to listen to what I was saying..
Strangely, it was the rules on primogeniture and the trans women with their female penises, haranguing Lesbians that were the light bulb moment.
It's an interesting guide and very no nonsense approach but I don't think everyone would have this kind of success. I think partly as a result of their own confidence and the receptiveness of those listening. I've found that it's difficult to reach the stage of getting people to listen to let alone consider this much information.
I've talked to some about the impact and likely long term affects of giving puberty puberty blockers to children. Most of those I those I spoke to weren't aware that it isn't as simple as 'pausing' development, and the child could simple stop taking them and go back to developing normally if they changed their mind about going in that direction. This is the information they're been given, and have accepted unquestioningly the supposed expertise of those treating kids. There was interest and a change of opinion regarding this.
Even so, conversations haven't got as far as discussing adults who have a firm sense of their gender identity, whatever that might be based on and motivated by. The mantra and orthodoxy around it has been embedded. Trans women are women, regardless that most who are attracted to women appear to reject other trans women as potential partners. Presumably, this is because they don't want a sexual relationship with people who have the same gentlitals they do. Yet some expect lesbians to disregard their sexual attraction and accept someone with a penis as a woman, and lesbians who don't are 'vagina fetishists'.
Most of the people I've attempted to engage share this this view, or in fact don't, but aren't going to challenge it because that would make them transphobic. Just like the idea that predatory men would claim to identify as women to gain access to women is tranphobic. It comes from the same source that promoted the idea that gay men where a threat to young men because they were going to try to make them 'turn gay'.
Good luck to anyone who can get those committed to supporting this to think about it more deeply and see that there isn't a parallel at all.
I think you’re right, people are too afraid of being thought of as transphobic. My friends reply with a thudding silence after a while they will resume their normal friendship but obviously feel it best that it is never mentioned again. and my adult daughter rolls her eyes and says please don’t keep going on. Which I don’t, I am so bloody silent about it considering how I feel.
As for getting her to read Mia’s post …she’d cry as soon as autogynophilia was mentioned. Cry because she is afraid her previously progressive mother and second wave feminist who has published many feminist images has become reactionary and she is so upset by that. So we agree to silence.
I just know sense will prevail till then salute and support everyone battling against this folly. The law will have to be changed back. Men don’t have cervixes, they do in law which is why Keir Starmer will say they do. That law should never have been passed. The confusion over sex and gender has got to be unravelled and enforced. It is so embedded.
I know what you mean about the reaction to the mention of autogynophilia from your daughter. The few times I've discussed it no one's actually cried but they interpret the idea of this as code for right wing reactionary transphobia..."who said that's real? Someone made it up". While not questioning the 'science' used to support gender identity ideology. I don't think the same people are going to adopt an entirely contrary view based on what I say to them, and anything written would be dismissed as anti-trans propaganda.
At least I was able to painfully draw a dear friend's attention to the reality that the testosterone gel his autistic teenage daughter is currently using (the result of contact with Mermaids then Gender GP) brings about changes that are potentially harmful and are irreversible. He was distressed by her desire to transition and now he's understandably deeply worried about the impact of cross sex hormones on her physical and mental well-being.
I agree that sense will prevail in the end and laws will change. Obviously, I hope that happens as soon, but hope aside, I feel we're some time away from that. Nevertheless, there's going to be a lot going on between now and then as more people begin understanding that trans rights activism doesn't have that much to do with trans people or their rights and everything to do with misogyny and the erosion of women's rights and freedoms.
The essential reason I speak up is that, as things stand, women and girls are not protected from men who may self-identity as women primarily to gain access to spaces traditionally, safely separated by sex.
That does not mean that transwomen with penises are de facto dangerous, of course not, but that the opportunity for men to self ID for sexual abuse is so big you could drive wild horses through it.
Not all trans women are prepatory in the same way that not all men are predatory, but some are, meaning they represent a risk to women and girls. Unfortunately, most or all the advocates of self ID seem unable to understand and accept this.
Just as they seemingly won't acknowledge the lengths sexual predatory men will go to contriving opportunities to abuse. Identifying as trans to gain access to women's spaces is a lot less time consuming than going down a particular career path, for example.
I'm so sorry you and your daughter are in this situation. It must be very hard on you.
Thank you, Mia Ashton is brilliant. I'd like to have the detailed description of AGPs she mentions,--how exactly is the best, clearest, most succinct way to describe? I have failed in this one. Photos are important and I can find those. This is harder in a phone conversation, but all this stuff could be put on a website that we could go through with our friends. So if she or anyone has a really good link or verbiage on how to describe AGP, please share. Also a good source for the 80% statistic.
When researching AGP it is important to remember that men offering "insight" into this paraphilia are most often attempting to spin away from how the decision to indulge the fetish harms women and children. While some would have us believe that uncritically platforming men describing various AGP-driven "compulsions" is paramount to our understanding, women's stories of how we are affected by the sexual coercion implicit when a man is actively engaged in arousing himself in this manner, whether it be behind closed the doors of the woman's home or on a public platform, that offer the most useful and practical information. We expect toddlers to learn by example to manage their dangerous and harmful compulsions, men's excuses for indulging theirs is simply a distraction.
I think the photos of obvious sexual arousal are a good place to start.
I've done all of these on an old school friend recently who knows a TIF - a daughter of another school friend. She said I had a point with it all but I've "swung too far the other way". That I need to live and let live. I said I did, except when women are losing rights and children being harmed. I don't think she'd thought about it at all, and I've told her she can re-friend me on FB (she unfriended me) when she's got to peak trans. I'm sure she'll get there eventually.....somtimes it takes time for people to process it all, and de-program themselves.