Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Incredibly diverse and incredibly intersectional.

AR – what I am putting to you is that it is reasonable for you to hold that trans women are women and for LGBA to say that they are not.

PR – they are transphobic and focus on trans phobic activities.

AR – gender critical views are transphobic views?

PR – yes.

AR – you don’t think that anyone that has gender critical views should be running a charity in the LGBT sector.

PR – I don’t believe that any charity that is campaigning to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives safely and fully, should be allowed to exist.

AR – despite the fact that gender critical views are protected under the Equality Act.

PR – I’m not an expert.

BOOM!.. as he runs at full speed into the Forestater decision.

I think the crux of the matter is going to be the need to demonstrate how not including trans in LGBA is somehow “campaigning to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives safely and fully.” How does simply not including trans issues in their remit harm trans people? If being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is completely different from being trans, then there is no reason that trans “inclusion” should be a requirement. Even if it was not completely different, is it not permitted for lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have organizations of their own? Trans activists seem to to think that they are a conjoined twin of the LGB “community”, and that somehow “excluding” them from everything that LGB people do is inherently unjust, cruel, and hurtful. Does that mean that each and every charity, whatever the cause, is “harming” trans people if they do not specifically include trans people in their mission statements? They’re going to be suing a lot of charities.

Trans activists aren’t very good at explaining their position at all. They’re more accustomed to compelling obedience than justifying their actions, and they are taken aback when they have to support their own position. Like all the online activists unable to quote instances of JKR’s “obvious” transphobia, when put to the test in situations they can’t avoid, the weakness and illogicality of the genderist position is painfully obvious. A skilled lawyer can get them to lay bare the inconsistencies and incoherence of trans claims for them. One might almost feel sorry for them as you read the transcripts, the pointed questions zeroing in on the empty ideas defended by empty rhetoric.

The initial success of the “NO DEBATE” strategy allowed for the swift capture of key institutions and organizations, but left them ill-prepared to defend their conquests once people woke up to what had happened. Having not needed to argue their case, they are now unable to do so. Like hormone blockers, “NO DEBATE” stunted the movement’s reasoning and argumentation, leaving it with nothing but bullying and intimidation with which to respond. Combine this with the forced teaming with LGB, and you get the effects of both authoritarian inflexibility and intransigence, along with a dependency which has prevented them from arguing their corner and growing the fuck up to stand on their own.