We keep seeing ppl who push gender ideology,whether trans or not,demonstrate few boundaries around what they consider dangerous or harmful to other ppl while having exaggerated boundaries around what constitutes harm to those under the trans umbrella (I.e misgendering=violence)

They will minimise and deny something is concerning enough to address even when it obviously is. It’s disconcerting and bamboozles most people quite successfully by shifting the conversation away from what we ought to do about a harm, to us having to try to prove it even is one.

If you have to justify why something you know to be damaging *is* bad it can actually be a difficult task. If people didn’t grasp for example that stealing is wrong and found the harm done to those who had been stolen from unconvincing, how would you convince them?!

This may be the purpose of discussions in this vein. By making you explain that the sky is blue,birds will sing and that Male violence exists, for example, they put you in a position of having to prove the need for safeguarding rather than working on that safeguarding itself.

If they refuse to see any common sense lines that can be drawn to protect ppl then having to prove the need for a line is a continuous task. It reminds me of L.Muggeridge talking about how socialworkers are told to have a clear grasp of what’s “normal”in order to protect children

Being asked to deny when something is clearly outside the realms of normal or,more exactly,outside the realms of socially good/neutral human behaviour is dangerous.I could list examples all day but some of the things we are not allowed to recognise as being outside of that are:

We talk sometimes about all this being a consequence of trying to “queer”everything through queer theory but QT is only a partial answer.The ppl who benefit most from a failure to safeguard others are those who either only care about their own wellbeing or those who are predators

QT is a useful tool for both but they’d invent another tool if one wasn’t to hand. Even the best person currently a TRA is dealing with a dissonance that allows them to understand safeguarding as vital to one group of ppl (TW)while not acknowledging a need to safeguard any other

That lack of consistency& their refusal to understand when something is either important or wrong though it is self evident that it is seems fundamental to keep noticing.Especially given the aggregate of what they’re doing has shifted the Overton window on this to a dark place

One where even talking about the idea other groups might need safeguarding or shouldn’t be subjected to harmful behaviours can see you denounced and dismissed as bigoted, transphobic, paranoid or obsessed.

Few TRAs even need sinister motives when the rest carry the momentum. In order to unknowingly push dangerous ideas the majority only have to believe theyve stumbled upon an occult(in the sense of it being hidden)truth about the nature of things the rest of us don’t have access to

But whether dark reasons or not,all their work is derailment.While we have to justify women have rights that need to be upheld&prove safeguarding matters,theyre letting it appear this is a negotiation&not a clear instance of them violating boundaries or supporting others that are