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 scammingThe 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.

2 Responses to “So that’s what they mean by “inclusive””