Yes, It IS "An Ideology".
And sorry, but its proponents are currently behaving EXACTLY like dangerous religious fundamentalists & cultists always have. Which is why we have to challenge the doctrine.
“My Existence Isn’t An Ideology!”
How many times have we heard this plaintive and not-at-all-manipulative cry or something like it?
One of the things I’ve found most striking and alarming when speaking to (aka “being abused by”) gender-supremacists of varying degrees of adherence to their cause, is just how so many, younger proponents particularly, genuinely seem to be unable to distinguish between the concepts of “Belief” (and ideology) and “Fact”, both with regard to others’ way of thinking, and in terms of their own belief frameworks. It has become one of the greatest obstacles in tackling the disinformation and propaganda campaigns we are seeing so frequently in the gender wars; many seem to believe, like all religious crusaders, that their “truth” is the ONLY truth, that it is somehow self-evidential despite the glaring lack of evidence, and many appear truly astonished that any alternative viewpoints or frameworks, even those that explain exactly the same phenomenon they use in their own arguments, could be even possible, let alone be considered to have any merit to them.
I mean, MY life and experiences as an actual woman isn’t an “ideology” either, nor is the verifiable fact that I am physically, biologically female, given I was born with a female reproductive system, my chromosomes are XX, and I made it from childhood to adulthood. My pretty well backed-up-by-evidence assertion that I personally, as those who know me would attest, am not a set of stereotypically “feminine” personality traits isn’t an “ideology” either, but apparently, it’s been decreed that a set of stereotypically “feminine” personality traits is what a woman is, and is a “fact” so immutable, so set in stone, so “known by everyone,” that it isn’t up for question and never has been.
Women who don’t call themselves "trans “ or “non binary” and who don’t, in defiance of those who’ve decided to give us the label “cis”, happily agree that we fit comfortably into such stereotypes ,don’t even exist, apparently. We are not possible. We do not compute. Which is strange when feminists and womens’ rights activists have been defying that “feminine” stereotype and pointing out the evidence that it bears no relation to female reality for well over a century now.
What Is An “Ideology”? How Does It Differ From Fact? How Does It Relate To Belief?
Examples of FACTS:
And yes, I know I’m largely preaching to the converted here, but just in case…
Fact: Human Beings are a sexually dimorphic species which is based, like most other species, on reproductive systems and, in humans, the capacity for production of small or large gametes. A small number of human beings have what are known as DSDs - physical disorders of sexual development affecting primarily the reproductive organs. None of these represent additional sexes and most, in biological terms, arise from either the male or female pathway. There is no third gamete.
Fact: Sometimes people with DSDs are referred to as “intersex”, although many with these conditions view this term as outdated.
Fact: Many societies historically have developed “rules” around the expected behaviour, supposedly “natural personalities” likes, and dislikes, and social roles of biological males and females, although these have often differed across societies and eras. The extent to which this are “natural” to the sexes is often debated. These rules or boxes have become, in some societies and belief frameworks, for example, 2nd wave feminism, known as “gender”.
Fact: People in various societies and eras have often rebelled against those expectations, “failed” to meet them in various ways or been punished for their non-adherence.
Fact: Different people in society have different views, ideas and belief frameworks as to what this means, if it is a problem and why/why not, and what the solution is to this. These include but are not limited to feminists, so-called “GC” people (who are often feminists), gender and queer theorists, and patriarchs, or traditionalists.
Fact: The “rules” and “gender” boxes set by society, and whether or not a person fulfils them is wholly unrelated to whether or not they have a DSD. So-called “intersex” conditions (physical) are not related to discussions of “gender” or what is known by some of the above groups as “trans identities”.
Examples of IDEOLOGY (aka Belief Frameworks, or a particular set of ideas, theories and beliefs)
Ideologies are belief frameworks. They may arise around (some) facts, although sometimes don’t require them at all. Many base their ideologies almost entirely on feelings. Religious ideologies are often built on what unexplained phenomena “mean” as well as a desire for order in society. About, for example, what we see or experience in life means, what we can extrapolate from any facts we observe, and how we think we should live as a result of them. Often, people treat ideologies as doctrine, particularly in the case of religions, but they are not the same as facts, although they may have some of their roots in them. They’re ‘explanations’ and frameworks. Crucially, ideologies built even around some of the THE SAME FACTS may clash substantially. For instance, these three different ideological perspectives just around sex and gender, and there will be others people have individually, which are variants.
Belief Framework/Ideology: PATRIARCHY
“The fact that humans are a dimorphic species with physical differences between the sexes means that the male sex is “naturally” more dominant in character and the female sex is “naturally” more subservient. Not only is the way that nature or God intended things to be—which we can tell because male bodies are stronger and more powerful, and female bodies are smaller and produce the babies— this clearly means that an ideal society must reflect that, that it is “meant” to be. Men should be in charge and run society; women should be subservient, support, have the children and run the home. Men are the default human; women are the support. Power should rest in the hands of males, and pass down through the male line, which women will provide for him. It is the natural job of women to know their place in society, to attract him sexually, to have the children and look after males, and in turn, males will provide for them and ensure the passing down of his name through the male line. A woman becomes a man’s possession on marriage. Everyone should be heterosexual. As this is what God or nature planned for society, we must strive to uphold this, and force, punish, change or remove anyone who threatens it or fails to fulfil these roles.”
Belief Framework/Ideology: 2nd Wave FEMINISM/”Women’s Lib”
“The patriarchal belief framework is wrong. Although humans are a sexually dimorphic species and it is indeed true that males are larger and stronger than females and females are the ones who have the babies, this is no reason for women to be “naturally” subjugated, or men to consider themselves their natural superiors, or owners. The male sex has merely been taught that it is to be dominant and that women are a subservient class, and have acted accordingly, as we can see from how women are and have been treated in society historically and globally. This is wrong and unjust. We know women aren’t ‘naturally’ subservient; it is a ploy to maintain male power in society by the patriarchy. (We also recognise that these ideals impact males who fail to ‘fit’ the patriarchal ideal, although they are not our prime concern here. except in terms of saying that we believe boys should NOT be taught that they are to be dominant or that we exist to serve them). We deliberately centre women, as we believe that continuing to prioritise males before ourselves at all times feeds and sustains patriarchal ideals. We do not agree to prioritise males or that our job is to centre them. We want liberation from the restrictions of patriarchal ideals, the freedom to be who we are as people instead of subjugated as “feminine” and inferior, to vote, to be educated, to own our own property, to work, to earn our own money, not to have to marry, not to be considered property of males, to have power in society, to not be tied to the home because of our children, to destroy the idea that male power and dominance is ‘natural’.
No, we are not naturally subservient, but as we are physically smaller and the ones who have the babies, the reality is men are often continuing to use violence to suppress us and enforce patriarchal ideals and male power. Societally enforced sex stereotypes about what women (and men) “naturally” are and should be, which we will refer to as “gender”, is one of the main tools which the patriarchy uses to keep women, female people, subjugated in their place and has been disseminated throughout our culture through religions etc. “Gender”, the idea that women and men “naturally” have certain personality traits, likes and dislikes is the enemy, is biological essentialism, a tool of patriarchy for male dominance, which should be dismantled, leaving us all free to be who we really are as human beings rather than restricted by such “gender” boxes. Gender is a prison, today’s“gender identity” is a nonsense which feeds into patriarchal ideas and reifies them. The full range of human personality traits should not be assigned to Blue and Pink “Male” and “Female” boxes at all. They are just human traits. “Male” and “Female” are bodies, not traits. Misogyny has, throughout history, and as continues to be demonstrated globally and culturally, shown itself as hatred and denigration of the female sex, who are treated as second class citizens, often as male property. It must be resisted and not given power."
Belief Framework/Ideology (GENDER IDENTITY THEORY):
“Gender is in fact far more important than sex. Sex has NO bearing on who a person is and their experiences whatsoever, and it’s “biologically essentialist” to claim that biology has any impact on human lives at all. And it’s not true that human beings are sexually dimorphic. There are more than two sexes—we know this because intersex (DSDs) exist, proving that sex is a spectrum. Human beings aren’t born “male” or “female”— these are merely concepts that are assigned by society at birth. Male and female are ideas, essences, consisting of society’s ideas of what male and female are in terms of personality, likes, dislikes, activities, clothes, and so on., that are imposed on newborns.
But not everyone fits this according to their sex. You don’t have to have a “male” body to be male or a “female” body to be truly female inside. You can be a male with a vagina, a female with a penis. Male and female are merely inner feelings, identities, that we will call “gender identity”. Someone with a “male” gender identity will tend to have “male” traits and interests, for example, they are dominant, aggressive, scientifically-minded, someone with a “female” gender identity will be more soft and submissive and be interested in traditionally female things, like homemaking and clothes.
Your body has nothing to do with this, and you will be treated in life as the “gender” you appear to be, except by transphobes, who are evil, rightwing bigoted people who believe in stopping you being who you truly are. Now, most people, who we will call “cis” (‘on the same side of’) happily fulfil the social roles that society sets for their sex. Thus, MOST women are comfortable with “femininity” and are naturally submissive, and MOST men with “masculinity” and are naturally dominant.
If you don’t fit with your “assignment at birth” you are what we call “non-binary” (you don’t fit into the binary of sex) or you may well be trans, where you have the wrongly sexed brain for your body, and should be affirmed as the opposite sex, your “true self” for vital health reasons, ideally medicalised so you can be in the “correct” body. If you aren’t, you’re likely to commit suicide.
There are clues to whether you’re the wrong sex for your body in terms of your personalities, likes, dislikes, the toys and activities you chose as children. “Cis” women are some of the most privileged people in our society, and are privileged over trans women, whose womanhood they try to police. Trans men are also privileged over trans women. Misogyny is about hating one gender over the other, prioritising masculine people over feminine ones, and trans women are some of the most oppressed people in our society. “Cis” women who do not include trans women in their feminism or do not agree that they are women, are hateful bigots, misogynists, pro-patriarchy, and enacting a kind of apartheid with their “single sex spaces” and so on. They are akin to white supremacists. Trans women are often more “woman” than they are."
When Does An Ideological Or Theoretical Framework Become, Or Start Behaving, More Like A Religion?
Everyone who strongly believes in anything can become “religious” about it in terms of how they behave. I mean, if you believe strongly in something and become convinced of its truth, why wouldn’t you stand up for it and fight for it? We all have belief frameworks, sets of values, that are often positive. And some religions, for instance, when not taken to extremes, can be positive and bring great comfort to their believers. But there are particular behavioural signs that an ideology has become fundamentalist and religious in nature.
Faith and belief in and adherence to its tenets and “rules” become more important than any facts that might back them up. The demonstration of faith in the ideology itself becomes a central measurement of your moral purity.
Your loyalty to the “faith” or “team” becomes blind and based on it merely being your “side” rather than whether or not what your “side” believes or is saying is actually factual, truthful or ethical. (In religions, how strongly you can retain your faith is often THE crucial thing.) We see this in current polarised political discourse, where your “goodness” is judged on whether or not you’re a Remainer or a Brexiteer (by both sides), whether something is considered “left” or “right wing” based solely on the “team” who currently seems to mainly support it, even if that may have been different in the past, whether you were for Yes or No in the Scottish Referendum.
You start to believe those who don’t share your beliefs exactly or question them are “lesser” or perhaps '“unchosen” people. You may extrapolate from that that these are people who deserve fewer rights than others, deserve punishment, or are not even fully to be counted as human. This is where ideologies can begin to be extremely problematic with regard to diversity (the genuine kind, not just the word), inclusion in society, equality laws in widely diverse societies, and the fundamental human rights of all citizens, particularly the freedoms of belief (which includes the right NOT to believe) and expression without punishment.
Your belief framework develops catechisms and slogans that have to be repeated by members, often to show allegiance.
When Do Followers Or The Tenets Of Any Ideology Or Religion Start Behaving In Ways Which Could Be Described As “Cultlike”?
When they become authoritarian and controlling. #NoDebate is an authoritarian stance. The demands that everyone repeat mantras (“Trans women are women, Trans men are men, non-binary identities or valid”) enforce pronouns, or be punished for instance, or the manipulative faux wide-eyed “checking” technique we often see “Of course, you’ll be including trans women in that, won’t you?” Thought policing, “checking thinking”, going through people’s tweets for signs of “impure” thought and even non-approved “likes” is authoritarian, abusive and controlling behaviour, and fundamentally opposed to the human right of freedom of belief. Reporting people to authorities for being deemed to have (perfectly legal, rational) “wrongthink” or being in a group that does. Witness the above example this week, a sign from the Institute of Contemporary Music in London. Scary stuff. Many genderists, despite ICMP taking it down for being “clunky” after complaints, seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable if not righteous approach. No it isn't. It’s totalitarian. It’s cultlike. (It’s also factually wrong).
When no dissent, discussion or questioning is permitted at all regarding the belief framework—especially any facts or statistics that conflict with the framework. Active suppression of anyone who questions, suppression or censorship of alternate sources of information. Demonisation of those who may provide it for you, attempts at discreditation of source, “Don’t read anything by this person, she’s problematic,” messages are common, as if moral purity might be sullied by reading or hearing something from an alternative source. Opportunities to see or even engage with alternate viewpoints are actively removed. See #NoDebate, no platforming, protesting against discussions. See the censorship in UK libraries, bookshops and in academic institutions. See, for instance, the furore over Helen Joyce’s appearance at Cambridge. (And if you wish to watch the video of her discussion, which went ahead, notice when the banging and attempts to drown her out by gender extremists intensify. When she is talking about child sterilisation.) Note the number of people on the “genderist side” (including politicians and influencers) who don’t appear to have bothered reading the independent Cass Review. Note the media organisations who have failed to report on it, despite the seriousness of its findings, to ensure the knowledge of it doesn’t cross their readers’ paths.
When there is punishment for dissent or perceived lack of purity. Tenets must be adhered to exactly, or else, and you can be sure there will be adherents obsessively checking your every utterance for purity, going through your tweets, your social media likes and so on for signs of heresy. And punishments can be severe, even violent; social ostracism, loss of employment, violent threats and abuse. This can be for people within and without the “group”. Fear begins to rule. See the ICMP notice above. How safe would you feel if you were a woman with gender atheist views in the above institution? Or when being threatened by crowds of masked men at marches for having a meeting about womens’ rights, or being told you should be “punched”, or should “choke on my big trans cock” or, as per the words of a “genderfuck” identifying PhD student at the LSE’s Gender Studies department in front of his nodding, smiling, superiors, be threatened with a knife against your throat? (the department that was also home to Mermaids paedophile trustee Jacob Breslow, incidentally).
Dissenters are silenced, demonised, dehumanised ridiculed, cut off. Hatred of them is encouraged. They are to be treated as “bad people” and dehumanised and it’s considered not only perfectly acceptable to abuse them, it’s sometimes considered to be righteous, a demonstration of loyalty or adherence to the faith. See reactions to JK Rowling (eg by Pink News)—and reactions to people who’ve stood up for JK Rowling (eg Gillian Philip) or Kathleen Stock, who’ve been effectively cast out and widely defamed because of it, as will anyone who dares to question publicly what has happened to them. See Owen Jones’s public mocking (to his million Twitter followers) of individual gender critical women and, in one case, a teenage girl. See defamatory claims about longstanding gay and lesbian rights activists being “funded by the American evangelical far right”, or the ageist smears about the appearance and age of a number of women who literally (to reclaim that word) got Owen the rights he now enjoys.
Adherents are encouraged to cut off from family or friends or to “watch who they’re talking to” in favour of members of the group. “We are your new family” they'll say. "Join your new glitter family. And don't tell your parents; they're the enemy." Older adults encouraging especially young people and kids to disengage from their families is a Big Red Flag for abusive and cultlike behaviour.
When reality and facts become distorted or denied, history rewritten, when “reality” becomes only the newly created one, divorced from facts, the "truth" of the believers, but not the truth. Now many young people appear to be being taught that "trans people got gay people their rights" that "a trans woman threw the first brick at Stonewall", there’s denial that lesbian and gay rights were ever a "thing" that existed outside the trans identities that were added to the LGB in the UK in 2015. "Trans and nonbinary people have existed for millennia" (no, not using that specific belief framework), "intersex proves that sex isn't binary" (no, DSDs don't do that), nobody ever questioned gender stereotypes before gender identity theory (well, duh! Feminism?!), former gay rights advocates and women's rights activists and feminists either didn't exist or their activism was all a cunning ploy by them along to hate on trans people and they were all upper class white colonialists anyway, so... Yeah, right. You get the idea.
No “leaving” of the group is possible without punishment. Apostates are treated appallingly, shunned. See again how detransitioners are treated, often by old transactivist friends who told them, falsely, that transitioning would solve all their problems. When it didn't, and they were additionally left with irreversible bodily changes that they hated, support disintegrates, they are ignored and their voices silenced, or they are overtly mocked. So much for "being your true self." So much for “Be kind.”
"Call out"culture and chastened individuals being encouraged to atone for their sins - see “hostage videos” a la Rose McGowan, who atoned and promised to "do better" when she had been publicly yelled at for talking about her rape experiences... by a transwoman who turned out to be a sex offender. This “public atoning” demand (“Do better”) is the kind of thing that cults do.
Those interested in common “cult” behaviours may like to take a look at (former cult member and cult expert) Stephen Hassan’s BITE model, as well as the famous Robert Jay Lifton’s Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, which highlights the following indicators. I’m not sure genderists have Mystical Manipulation, quite, but otherwise, it’s pretty much everything ticked here. Especially the “sacred science which must not be questioned even though it’s not factual” and “dispensing of existence” which, not only is used in a DARVO-esque way constantly, means nobody who has different lived experiences are considered to “exist” or matter at all.
Milieu Control.
Mystical Manipulation.
Demand for Purity.
Confession.
Sacred Science
Loading the Language.
Doctrine over person.
Dispensing of existence.
“What About You Though? GCs Are A Cult!”
Oh, blah. I’m sure we’ve all seen plenty of attempts by genderists to claim this. But in general, in terms of behaviour from your average “GC” person, even on hellholes like Twitter—no, there is little evidence of that. Especially as “GC” is actually the position of the majority of the population if you dig down into the specifics of what GCs actually believe. (Lying about this is yet another cult feature of the gender fundamentalist movement).
Of course, within any political grouping made up of numerous diverse people, you may find examples of extremists who behave in similar controlling or “purity-policing” ways you see above, but there are numerous ways in which the vast majority of “The GCs”, feminists (or any other group of people with similar ideological frameworks and belief system) are quite obviously NOT displaying cult-like behaviours at all. That’s like saying “People who believe in gay rights are a cult” or “People who vote Labour are a cult” or “People who vote Conservative are a cult”or “People who don’t believe in God are a cult.” It’s about the behaviour.
Despite accusations that we are “policing womanhood” and “behaving like white supremacists and creating apartheid” when we try to maintain the boundaries against male people in circumstances that we had to have against male people in certain circumstances because of the fact that sexual offenders are over 98% male, regardless of identity, the fact that “trans women” statistically show the same crime types and rates as other males, and 80% of victims are biological females, “GCs” tend not to take an authoritarian stance. Boundaries in intimate situations aren’t authoritarian. Women saying no isn’t authoritarian. Nobody is saying those who identify as transwomen shouldn’t be free to dress how they like, believe what they want, live freely, live free from abuse, be treated with respect, have the same human rights as everyone else. They just don’t get to dismantle ours, or demand to be centred in a demographic they don’t belong to, all differences denied, and push us and our needs aside .because they’re, literally, not the same sex as us. Facts, even uncomfortable ones or ones that disagree with you, aren’t “authoritarianism.” Other people having rights and needs too isn’t “authoritarianism.”
Generally, you’ll see “The GCs” will openly discuss with those who disagree, are largely happy to and have on numerous occasions called for public and OPEN debate. We are virtually always refused on “No debate” grounds, opponents will pull out at the last minute from invited or planned discussions (eg Katie Montgomerie, Grace Lavery), refuse to be interviewed in the same space as a GC person (eg Mermaids, Paris Lees) or make spurious claims that merely being exposed to discussion of the issues at all will make the genderist opponent “unsafe” (usually framed as “a genocidal discussion about my existence” while completely ignoring that those wicked GC women may feel exactly the same, but given they’re only women, nobody gives a damn about their feelings or right to existence, or is expected to care).
“The GCs” regardless of political persuasion, tend to champion the human right to freedom of belief and expression, Articles 9 & 10 of the Human Rights Act. There have been several court cases already on the GC side which have focused on this very issue; Miller vs the College of Policing, and Forstater vs CGD Europe, for instance. Again, the many invitations to genderist opponents to public debates and discussions also refute any claim that this tactic goes both ways. Contrast this with the approach that only THEIR views must be expressed and every other view on sex and gender, despite its factual and evidenced nature, is “bigoted” and must be suppressed as a sort of moral imperative. Also see the tactics I explained in my last post about the Strategy we’re seeing used against us. I don’t think removing rights from over half the population, many unwitting, behind closed doors without ANY discussion, scrutiny or consent, and demonising and lying about anyone who complains shows respect for the fundamentals of human rights in any way. Moral? Ethical? I don’t think so.
Although “The GCs” will openly disagree with others who oppose them , there have been NO attempts made by “GCs” to actively silence anyone rather invitations to debate and discuss. Disagreement, even vociferous disagreement, and asking for debate specifically, is not “silencing” or “cancellation”. This, as we know, does NOT happen the other way round where the concerted efforts to officially“deplatform” and punish , demonise, flounce and/or report anyone who disagrees with them or who is deemed “GC” or a “TERF” are notable, from Germaine Greer, to Julie Bindel to the many concerted, organised campaigns to destroy mainly womens’ livelihoods and attempts to actively punish them and hold them up as “evil” for even expressing views ON THEIR OWN CURRENT LEGAL RIGHTS: Rachel Rooney, Gillian Phillip, Jess de Wahls, Jenny Lindsay, Jo Phoenix, Rosie Kay, Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, JK Rowling et al. Proponents actually appear to think this blatantly misogynist and suppressive activity is “righteous activism” and carry it out with religious zeal.
A notable lack of the kind of language obfuscation or manipulation/goalpost moving which genderists use as a matter of course. Many prominent “GCs” tend to present facts, statistics, analysis, from verifiable and multiple sources. Genderists tend to employ hyperbole, emotional manipulation, and seem rarely able to produce evidence or statistics or understand what makes something verifiable, or to be able to pin down definitions. This is likely why so many genderists refuse to go head to head with “GC” people in public discussion. On the rare occasions when this has happened, they’ve usually embarrassed themselves. For instance, listen to this excruciating interview with genderist Sally Hines, versus Kathleen Stock, all the way back in 2018, and just compare each for clarity.
So-called “GCs” are predominantly gender ideology atheists. Like other religious atheists , our “belief” usually primarily consists of “non-belief” in the tenets or framework of the prevailing ideology.
Non-belief in a religious or any other belief framework is not a “cult”, particularly when that belief has many verifiable facts backing it up. It is not a “cult” not to share the belief that the earth is flat. It is not a “cult” to believe that gravity exists. It is not a “cult” not to believe in the existence of fairies, not to believe there’s a man with a white beard in the sky called God who created the Earth. It is not a “cult” not to believe in Scientology or Thetans. It is not a “cult” to disagree with David Icke that the world is literally populated by lizards in the guise of powerful people. And it is not a “cult” to disagree with the idea that “womanhood” is not a material reality of a sexed body and all that entails, but a set of regressively stereotyped characteristics, and that any man can be a woman just by saying so.
“Gender critical” people base their belief framework on the fact that there are two sexes, and human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. We don’t believe that “gender” is more materially important than sex (historical and global statistics will back this up), and any who are feminists (many of us) will not agree with those following a more patriarchal framework, even in opposition to genderists, that sex is innately connected to stereotypes of “gendered” pink/blue behaviours. Thus, feminist GCs will be horrified at the thought that being female is supposed to mean you are naturally submissive, or that if you don’t want to wear dresses and makeup, if you don’t do “girly”, then you must “really” be male inside. It’s an approach many have fought against all their lives.
The demand that all GC feminist women have just developed these beliefs to "hate on" trans people, and must abandon all we’ve fought for and many of our lifelong values and beliefs, to just roll over and concede to a belief framework we know is untrue, authoritarian, deeply misogynistic and often homophobic, is an ideological position that many of us are NEVER going to submit to, I’m afraid.
In the long run, cults and ideologies not based on fact will always fail, and genderists, I believe, will ultimately fail, although given the hold on public institutions and discourse currently, I really couldn’t say when. But you simply cannot keep denying truth and fact, the even now mountain of evidence against your claims, and suppressing people for ever; you're only doing that because you KNOW your facts don't stand up. You can't rewrite reality and truth and demand everyone sees the world as you want despite the evidence of their own eyes; the real world doesn't work like that. The backlash is already growing. And in the end the truth, not your ideology, will win.
New YouTube interviews demonstrate the fact that even after "transition" the individual does not believe they are now opposite sex. The constant boosts and affirmations needed to keep them on an even keel demonstrate the cultic characteristics of trans ideology.
Channel: You Must Be Some Kind of Therapist "Post Trans No-Man's Land"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k5IXuh9e4U
Channel: Thoughts on Things and Stuff, Jonathan Streeter interviews detrans Michelle Alleva on the cult characteristics of trans ideology based on other religious cults
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtKoIMwmI40
For soothing mind/body moves to reconnect mind body, Ute Heggen channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHtnneKn-rQ&list=PLOFlPPQm71Ii-l-xoAlBZc5Iy9xZyfbUY&index=5
As a trans widow, I had direct contact with "gender affirming care" which was coercion. Thanks for this blog, Laura!