So that’s what they mean by “inclusive”
This response to Tatchell prompted me to read Dr Em on forced teaming.
Why are ideologies antithetical to each other being presented as natural allies? Feminism argues that gender is a mechanism of a system of oppression, that gender consists of socially constructed sexist stereotypes which are then used to exploit women. [For instance] [t]he notion that because one is female one naturally wants to care and clean, one by nature of one’s female sex is submissive, polite. LGB rights rest on the idea that same-sex attraction is real and normal and should be afforded the same rights and respect as heterosexuality.
Transgenderism/transsexualism, in contrast, claims gender – women’s oppression and sexist stereotypes – are innate, or sometimes that the body has to be altered to conform because of oppression discomfort disorder. Gender dysphoria claims that the person is wrong, not the cultural sexism, exploitation or oppression. It avows ‘change the person, not the system’!
And so, the two are at odds. They don’t make a team. Feminism can’t be [fully or literally] “inclusive” of trans ideology because trans ideology is antithetical to feminism. That’s not a form of phobia, it’s just clarity about rival ideologies or activisms.
Neither feminism nor LGB rights are comfortable bed fellows with the men’s rights activism which emerged in the late sixties and early seventies in the form of transgenderism/transsexualism. This deliberate coupling of opposing ideologies is an example of wide-scale forced teaming.
Of what? Tell us more.
Forced teaming is a term employed by those who work on abuse, grooming and predation. It was originally coined by Gavin De Becker in his work The Gift of Fear and is also used as a concept regarding criminal activity such as con-artists and romantic scamming. The predator will create the idea that there is a shared goal, or an attitude of we are all in this together, we are allies, in order to disarm, gain trust and manipulate his target. The social contract that most people have been educated or raised in – that we should try not to offend others, be polite, be accommodating – makes forced teaming incredibly difficult to resist. In general, we don’t want to be rude and say ‘actually, your problems or goals are different to mine and so no, we should not work together’ or ‘no, I don’t feel comfortable with this’.
Except of course when we do. Forced teaming with Trumpists is pretty damn easy to say no to. But trans ideology has had a lot of success at branding itself as the latest wave of progressive improvement, and thus in the same broad category as anti-racist ideology and feminist ideology and anti-homophobic ideology. But it doesn’t belong there.
Forced teaming, when applied to movements, can be as large as many men claiming feminism should work towards their goals not women’s, or that the LGB should work towards heterosexual entitlement.
And sure enough, here we are!
Forced teaming is behind the dictate of inclusiveness. It is by this way that manipulative males gain access and can control and change the goals of movements. It is how individual males have entered formerly women’s groups and formerly LGB pressure groups and can both watch what is being said and direct the narrative.
So when we hear “inclusiveness” we should be thinking “forced teaming.” Very useful. Thank you Dr Em.
This was what I believed at one time, reflexively, thoughtlessly nodding in agreement. I might be wrong, but I think the majority of “support” for trans “rights” amongst the general population is the same. I believe it would melt away as mine did with the application of a little thought, which is what’s behind trans activism’s desperation for feminist critiques to be shouted down and outlawed without before they are heard.
Interesting concept, and well-written article — but I’m skeptical that this gives us a unique insight into the Genderist movement. Wouldn’t the Genderists be seeing the same problems coming from the Gender Critical side?
1.) Forced Teaming, deliberately coupling opposing ideologies.
What GC see: TRAs putting pro-gender views together with anti-gender views
What TRAs see: GCs putting discriminatory views together with liberal views
2.) Gaslighting.
What GC see: “That’s not a man, it’s a woman: don’t trust your personal instincts.”
What TRAs see: “You’re not a woman, you’re a man: don’t trust your personal insights.”
3.) Boundary violation, refusal to accept “no.”
What GC see: “Yes we WILL come into your safe spaces.”
What TRAs see:”Yes we WILL debate your right to exist.”
4.) Setting off Alarm Bells, making others feel physically or emotionally unsafe.
What GC see: Males in feminism, denial of same-sex attraction.
What TRAs see: “Doc Stock makes students feel unsafe.”
I’m not saying we’re no more right than they are. I think all the things the TRAs/Genderists “see” are phantoms of their imagination. It’s just that I don’t think this framework is particularly useful if both sides feel like it describes the other side.