DiscussionWhat’s your elevator pitch to get other people to understand your concerns with Gender Ideology?

submitted by yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" from self.LGBDropTheT

Do you have an “elevator pitch” for planting the seed that gender ideology is a problem. Do you have multiple depending on whether someone is LGB or some other factor ?

What are the points you find it important to hit? What do you find are the biggest roadblocks?

With the dominoes falling in the UK, we will have more opportunities to voice our opposition to gender ideology. Even if you don’t live on or around TERF Island, the happenings there are important, easily citable precedents. Sometimes I’m able to plant the seed by bring up news about things like the Tavistock whistleblowers, Keira Bell case, Allison Bailey case, arrests of parents and individuals stating that they don’t believe in gender identity or support child transition, the self-ID proposal being dropped by the UK, German, Spanish, and Japanese governments, and now the implosion of Stonewall UK resulting from the investigation at the University of Sussex which concluded that Stonewall gave inaccurate and potentially illegal advice, and in any case advice that opened all of its adherents to serious legal risk — the same legal risk they sought to avoid by joining Stonewall’s scheme. People deep in gender woo would at least expect to be hearing about this stuff in the news if it happened. Surely their political groups would be sounding the alarm about the threat to the lives of trans people . So the fact that there’s a liberal media blackout says a lot. It begs the question “why?”

I try to at least plant the seed with everyone I reasonably can because the general public needs to be aware that while some LGB people are perpetrators and/or stooges in this, far more are victims or all of the above.

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You ask a super interesting question and I've written, deleted, and rewritten a response several times now so the resulting will be incoherent word salad ill befitting of the art deco, Calridge's-style elevator I had in mind.

*deep breath*

Firstly I'd argue that it doesn't mean anything to 'feel like' any particular sex, and anybody who offers any sort of explanation about what it 'feels like' to be a woman will inevitably be relying on tired sex stereotypes. My favourite colour is purple. I don't like football. I like fruity, brightly-coloured alcoholic drinks. A male I remain.

Why do we choose to believe that someone can 'feel like' another sex (something they demonstrably never can experience) but immediately pooh-pooh the idea of 'feeling like' a different race or nationality. Any number of anime-obsessed weebs will wax lyrical about how great Japan and Japanese culture are. Some (though fewer than they would like you to believe) speak a high level of Japanese. Are these people not entitled to call themselves Japanese, by gender logic? If we accept one, we must accept the other. What next, then? Can I 'feel like' a cat because I'm disdainful of other people and want to spend ~16 hours of the day asleep in a sunbeam? Can I 'feel like' a child because I really like Harry Potter and [whatever the youth are into these days]? Why is only sex mutable and fluid, but not race, age, height, etc. Why can't I identify as an attack helicopter? Genuine question.

[–]usehername 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most liberal normies have at least a basic understanding of the truscum/transmed stance, which boils down to "sex-inverted brains". Basically, "man's brain in a woman's body". Studies have disproven the idea of "male and female brains" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804 I always bring that up. With that out of the way, never refer to trans people as "trans women/men". It's a misnomer and befuddles the participant. Speak of them truthfully, as men in women's sports or women at gay men's retreats (if they're LGB). Spaces are sex-segregated for a reason. I'm not opposed to a third-option, in fact I think most places would benefit from a third, private, single-toilet restroom for people who don't feel comfortable in either or parents with different-sexed kids. If they try to give me the "this never happens" when I talk about the need for sex-segregated spaces there's this little handy blog detailing the many times assault does happen: https://theysaythisneverhappens.tumblr.com/

Of course the fact that "gender identity" is only based on stereotypes. It's okay for men and women to be feminine or masculine, but the words man, woman, boy, and girl, and the pronouns she/he are used to describe the sex of a person (factually true) and I'm not going to lie to preserve someone's feelings. Truthfully, it's more cruel to lie to the person. What other delusions do we go along with? Do we tell an anorexic girl she actually is fat as hell and give her a gastric bypass to validate her? Also explain the true horrors of SRS, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and the fact that none of this even helps the patient's mental health. My line is this: "The treatments are clearly causing physical harm (which I've explained earlier), but the whole point of all that was to improve a patient's mental health. They actually make the patient's mental health worse. So what's the point?" I never try and argue when people say "adults should be able to get the treatment" arguing is pointless because they inevitably bring up "my body my choice" (as if it's comparable) yadayadayada. Instead, I argue that these "treatments" are against the Hippocratic oath "do no harm" and doctors should not be able to perform them.

I also bring up the fact that the stats detailing huge amounts of violence against them are fabricated/pulled from a country where the majority of trans people are prostitutes and prostitution is dangerous. I actually pulled up their murder stats in the U.S. vs. the general population and did the numbers in front of someone, which showed they were 10x less likely to be murdered than the average person. Also the fact that trans-identified males keep their penises the vast majority of the time.

If you're looking for high-profile examples of depravity:

Alok Vaid-Menon: "non-binary" pedophile

Johnathon/Jessica Yaniv: "trans woman" pedophile and predator

Angela Long Chu: very extreme misogynist, "essence of a woman is an expectant asshole and dead, dead eyes"

Fallon Fox: trans-identified male fighter who broke his female opponent's skull in the ring and said he loved it

There are more but that's the gist.

[–]hufflepuff-poet 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

". So what's the point?" I never try and argue when people say "adults should be able to get the treatment" arguing is pointless because they inevitably bring up "my body my choice" (as if it's comparable) yadayadayada. Instead, I argue that these "treatments" are against the Hippocratic oath "do no harm" and doctors should not be able to perform them. "

This feels tougher to argue, atleast with TRAs I know. That's dangerously close to saying "trans people shouldn't exist." Since trans ultimate goal is to transition and "pass", denying doctors the ability to even perform their "affirming healthcare" is literally killing a bajillion trans people 🙄

[–]usehername 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I have been accused of wanting genocide by TRAs, but that's a good line for normies. I find it helpful to drive my point about transition being harmful, not helpful to the patient by telling them the fact that ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

[–]endless_assfluff 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I talk about how the language the gender ideology movement chose to use made it possible to gaslight marginalized groups about their own sexual boundaries.

(Because this is a language issue, I may use words I don't personally agree with using, but that help disambiguate for people familiar with woke terminology.)

People have shared characteristics and it's okay for them to have groups where they talk about their shared experiences. Home country, pet ownership, Yu-Gi-Oh fandom, whatever. There are people who identify with the concept of masculinity, the concept of femininity, neither, or both. That's fine. They can all get together and talk about identity. There are people who are born with the organs required to produce sperm but not the organs required to produce eggs, and there are people born with the organs required to produce eggs but not the organs required to produce sperm. That's also fine. They should be able to get together and talk about sexual-organ-related issues, or shared experiences, or how the perceived ability/lack of ability to gestate young has affected them, or whatever.

Sex and gender are different, sure. So we should have clear, unambiguous terminology that does not conflate the two. Instead, what happened is that the gender ideology movement took words that referred to sex and decided they now meant something else. When people say "trans women are women" or "trans women are men," what makes these statements true or false is the definition of 'man' or 'woman' the speaker is using. The first is saying "people who identify with femininity identify with femininity," the second says "people with the organs required to produce sperm but not the organs required to produce eggs are people with the organs required to produce sperm but not the organs required to produce eggs." The core disagreement is over what the words 'man' and 'woman' should mean.

What they did is like redefining 'prime number' from 'any number greater than 1 with exactly 2 positive divisors' to 'any number anyone says is prime,' insisting that all theorems involving 'prime numbers' still apply for the new definition, and vilifying anyone who not only uses the original definition of 'prime number,' but who dares to mention divisors at all. Whole fields of mathematics would vanish overnight. But what makes formerly-known-as-prime numbers significant isn't that they have a special name, but that they all share a core property of having exactly 2 positive divisors. Furthermore, this group of numbers still exists even if we aren't allowed to talk about it.

(Side note: mentioning intersex conditions in this context is like saying "but what about 1?" Okay. Even if the multiplicative identity exists, composite numbers are still not prime. I say this not to exclude intersex people from any group---not an expert in that---but rather to highlight which specific fallacy this argument uses.)

Why not let the word that meant "people born with the organs required to produce eggs but not the organs required to produce sperm" keep its original meaning and create a new word that means "people who identify with the concept of femininity"? As you all know, it's so they can retcon any previous usage of the words "woman" and "man," etc., to have been specifying groups by gender all along, when they originally specified groups by sex. And also to paint people as bigots for using the "wrong" definition of words they made ambiguous. Bottom line---that bathroom doesn't say "woman" on it because it's for people with this or that identity, it's because bathrooms are a setting where sex organs become relevant and some people don't feel comfortable exposing their sex organs, even semi-privately, in a space the opposite sex is allowed to enter. That is, the word "women" referred exclusively to AFAB people when the decision to label these spaces was made, and so should continue to specify that same group of people. And changing what words mean isn't going to change anyone's sexual orientation.

What this use of language demonstrates is that the gender ideology movement is causing harm its supporters may not have intended. Rather than creating their own words, they took them away from someone else. And this has the side effect of preventing people from setting boundaries related to biological sex. If it is not, then why is it "hateful" for AFAB people to have communities that center themselves, but "not hateful" for people who identify with femininity to do the same thing? Why not label bathrooms "AMAB" and "AFAB"? Why do they allow "feminine-identified people exclusively attracted to feminine-identified people" to have a word but not "AFAB people exclusively attracted to AFAB people"?

I then say, I don't support gender ideology because I want people to be able to express themselves independently of gender roles and I also want people to respect the personal sexual boundaries of others. I think people from outside a group shouldn't be allowed to control the language people inside that group use to talk about themselves. And we can't do that with an ideology that says it's unethical to acknowledge that humans have gonads.

(I've been successful with this, but honestly, that's mostly because I refuse to have discussions with bad-faith actors. My biggest roadblocks have been people with no understanding of formal logic and people who think it's okay to use logical fallacies to justify their beliefs. It's rough to address, and dealing with that kind of thing tires me out so hard I rarely interact with people online.)

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was a very interesting read, thank you.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The one that has worked on a couple of people in my life:

  1. Transwomen aren't gay men the majority of the time. I explain AGP using Bruce Jenner as an example. Was he female when he was running triathlons? He's fathered five children. Upon having it explained they'll usually understand and be able to name a transwoman they know personally who isn't gay.

  2. Misogyny and transing of lesbians. I'll walk them through why someone would not identify as a woman and what that says about their views towards women. I'll point out that lesbians, especially young ones, are transitioning at a ridiculous rate and that they're trying to escape homophobia by becoming men. I had a good score recently (unfortunately, but it made my point) when I had this talk with my mother and Ellen Page came out as trans about a week later. My mother is ignorant about gay issues mostly but considers herself quite the ally- more because of a gay uncle of mine than because of me- and she knew Page as a lesbian activist previously. Point made.

[–]SerpensInferna 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Hannah Mouncey and Fallon Fox.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Usually I start small with simple questions like 'do you think a man who wears makeup is still a man? What about a woman who cuts her hair short and likes math? Is she still a woman?' if they say yes then I start to probe.

'Do you think men should be allowed in women's changing rooms?' Most people say no. I then ask 'what if that man wears a wig and lipstick?' Most say 'he's still a man!!' That's when I tell them they'd better not say that at work because it could get them fired. That's usually enough to have a discussion.

[–]Shales123 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tell them to Google Karen White, Jessica Yaniv, cotton ceiling

I find most straight people have actually been empathetic about cotton ceiling. I live in an extremely liberal city but once I stopped being afraid of speaking my mind I discovered that most normie straight people don't either agree with radical transgenderism

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Conservatives call this redpilling (a Matrix reference) and it's the same process being taken from a different angle. We're all trying to break media conditioning and social conditioning through personal interaction. You can Google "redpilling techniques" and get guide after guide. Here's some examples:

Communication Tactics

-Shut up and let the others talk. Recognize repeating patterns, highlighted views, personal opinions. Learn to listen to EXACTLY what was said.

Choose how to interact. Only listen (to get information). Raise your voice (to pass information).

Decide how to communicate Know your enemy and/or opposition. Depending on who you’re dealing with, you need different ways of communication. Example: Emotional Controversial Understanding Helping Distracting NOTE: Try shifting the topic to general behavior morals and point out wrongdoings that this individual would agree on.

Breaking Down Hardcore Normies/Leftists [Hardcore gender cultists for us] [This is a trolling technique]

An aggressive method to use in some rare cases:

-Find out the core belief of your opponent. -Find out the weak spot. -Use your higher knowledge/wisdom to expose their weak spots. -Use irrefutable facts. -Stick their nose in it. -Watch them get angry. -Know the seed has been planted. -They will try to disprove you but won’t be able to.