PART ONE: Use of the word “cult.”



What is a cult?

“Cult” is a loaded term, and it means different things to different people. It’s easy to label any dissenting political group, religious sect that appears “extreme”, or radical movement as a cult. But cults aren’t defined only by radical beliefs, strange appearance, strict practice, or simply because they are very well-organized.

I would argue that the term “cult” can fairly be used for:

An organization or movement that uses intensive indoctrination techniques to amass and control “insiders” into following a totalist ideology.

This means that a cult does not have to be religious or even necessarily have one central leader. A few examples of secular cults are:

Amway and other “multi-level-marketing” commercial/financial groups,

the LaRouche Youth Movement,

Lifespring/Re-evaluation Counseling and other “therapeutic”/”human potential”/”actualization” groups.

As the transgender movement is so eager to insist, the “trans umbrella” covers a lot of people. So no, my claim is not that there is one cohesive “trans cult” any more than there is one cohesive trans movement. The needs and motivations of an impoverished, extremely effeminate and gender-non-conforming male differ greatly from those of the late-transitioning straight autogynephile, which differ greatly from those of a 15 year old female csa survivor who feels extreme disassociation and dysphoria due to untreated PTSD. However, I will argue that the current state of trans/gender activism, the loudest voices and lobbyists, the creators of the trans narrative at large, absolutely does operate within the framework not of mere radicalism but of ideological totalism. I will offer here examples and maintain that the label of “cult” is entirely appropriate.

PART TWO: What is ideological totalism and why are people drawn to these types of groups?

What is ideological totalism?

The word “totalism” was coined by Robert J. Lifton in his seminal book on coercive techniques titled “Thought Reform.” Totalism is a term for the characteristics of movements and organizations that aim toward total control over human behavior and thought. (Unlike the word “totalitarianism”, it can be applied to groups that don’t wield governmental power.) Ideological totalism eventually fails, so groups employing it either evolve beyond it or crumble. In the meantime, however, these groups follow a common pattern and do deep psychological damage to individuals and societies.



Lifton reminds us that tendencies toward totalism are a matter of degree, and that the potential for all-or-nothing emotional alignment exists within us all. Any ideology, even those with healthy and liberating aims, may be carried by adherents in a totalistic direction. And where totalism is nurtured and flourishes, a religion, political movement, or even scientific organization can be transformed/reduced into what is, for all purposes, a cult.

Why are people drawn to these types of groups?

Totalism is a widespread phenomenon. A desire for solidarity, an early lack of trust, severe crises of identity, and/or a poor early home life can lead to a desire for a group/ideology that seems to answer all questions and resolve all issues. An early sense of confusion and insecurity can cause an intolerable emotional burden, especially on a young adult. Likewise, the adolescent/young adult, who is forming their sense of identity and emotional/moral/intellectual direction, may be especially drawn to the all-or-nothing polarities of totalism.

Nearly everyone experiences these things to some degree, and totalist ideology probably appeals to nearly everyone on some level at some point in their lives! The question is how intense is the need, and how lacking is the person in other, healthier resources at the most fragile states of development.



Therefore, we see that people who are drawn into totalist ideology are not weak, stupid, or bad. The following list includes things that many of us grapple with. However, a person attempting to cope with a high intensity level of multiple articles from the following list may be particularly predisposed to cult conversion, especially if they are A. in a vulnerable demographic and B. have little access to alternate support structures.



- One who is under extreme stress, possibly has recently suffered a traumatic experience. Alternately: the ramifications and effects of past trauma are beginning to surface, and the person is finding it unbearable to grapple with and difficult to move forward in life.



- A person suffering intense tension caused by a discrepancy between “who I am” and “who I want to be.” There doesn’t even have to be a very clear idea of who one wants to be- it may be a nebulous concept, only identifiable as “safe” or “not me” or “not here” or “not someone who feels this way” or “not someone who (event) happened to” or “not part of a vulnerable demographic.”



- Similarly, a person who is either at an actual turning point, or who wishes to be. The focus here is not an actual positive change but on the turning point itself: making some step, any step, toward upheaval and change, because the current situation or self-image is unbearable. However, consideration of the actual method is beside the point, and whether or not it is effective at all in the long run (or even harmful in the long run) becomes irrelevant.



- A person who sees themselves as rejected, and outsider, misunderstood, and alone. Therefore the transformation into a “radical” or “seeker” frames the alienation in a more positive way.



-A person with troubles being assertive/with tendencies toward dependency.



- A person who is idealistic and disillusioned with the world/culture, but wants simple answers to the complex questions and problems this poses.



- A person who is unaware of how the mind/body can affect one another.



- A person with underdeveloped critical thinking skills, or someone who finds them too painful to use at the current time (especially in relation to dealing with past trauma.)



- Someone with a lack of awareness of deception methods, or how groups can manipulate people. This leads the person to believe that this group is offering a new way of thinking, that it is the first to have the key and the answers, and obscures the fact that the group is following a predictable pattern of behavior.



-Someone with an unfulfilled need to belong combined with a weak sense of identity. This can create the ultimate convert, someone who will go the extra mile beyond a “verbal” convert into a “total” convert.

So, let us move on to the specific features of the ideological totalist cult, with specific examples from genderist/trans ideology provided.

PART THREE: Submission, Commitment, and “Sacred Science”

As stated in part one, a group practicing extreme ideological totalism, or, “cult”, need not have a religious basis or even a central leader. A single, conspiratorial group is not necessary. The totalist system of thought can thrive via linked cells and readily identifiable in-group social signals/networks.

Lifton wrote of ideological totalism and thought reform in the 60’s. The subsequent development of the internet surely gives the totalism of these “linked cells” and “social networks” more of a chance to spread and thrive.

Submission and Commitment

A totalist system without centralized leadership will still have “stars” and people who are rewarded for espousing and demonstrating the doctrine without question. Even further in-group rewards are meted for those who are fully integrated within the totalist system. Some of the more obvious social rewards are praise, popularity, additional responsibilities/roles, and increasing importance of the person within the group. These stars/heroes/role models serve the function of “leader” in smaller cells, and help faciliate members giving themselves over psychologically to someone elses guidance and care. In order to climb in the social ranks of totalist ideology, there must be complete, zealous, practically unquestioning trust in the doctrine. And the status quo will often remain quite intact, even in a group that claims to be radically overthrowing it. We see this in the trans milieu as females (”dfabs”) are vilified, lesbians identity is erased and co-opted, rape culture is nurtured as lesbians are encouraged to have an “open mind” about sexual contact with males, and males (transwomen) dominate the conversation.

One of the more immediately effective ways of showing ones-self to be a “true believer” is to encourage and exact the public punishment and shunning of anyone questioning the doctrine. Examples of this, as well as further commentary on this necessary submission, will be explored in depth in a later section. But first, a bit about what the doctrine of a totalist group tends to look like, and why it’s different from other radical organizations.

“Sacred Science”

A totalist group, or cult, will operate under an ideology that is held to be true for all people at all times. This doctrine, or dogma really, is held as the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. It appears to be both inspired and scientific all at once. Psychiatrist Robert Lifton calls this a “sacred science.”

Whether or not the cult is religious or uses terms like “sacred” is irrelevant. The dogma is shown to be sacred in other ways- such as the forbidding of questioning the basic tenets. A cult does not need a central leader or a central God, because the ideas can be a kind of God. In the blending of transcendent ideas (the essence of womanhood, gender is a feeling, my gender is innate, etc.) and exaggerated claims of logic and scientific precision, it becomes not only a moral vision but an ultimate science. Therefore, anyone who would get in the way of this perfect scientific and moral system is a threat and must be silenced. Anyone who would question it, or even harbor alternative ideas, becomes both immoral and unscientific. An ideology may not overtly state as much, but it will show in totalist practice.

This “sacred science” appeals to the individual member because it offers a totally enclosed worldview, and this feels safe and secure. In the unification of mystical and logical thinking and experience, there is room for systematic pseudo-scientific arguments (brain sex theory, gender as innate) as well as sweeping statements made on a personal level (everything will be better in my life once I start HRT, “cis people” are different than me because they are comfortable with their gender, etc.) In blending “scientific truth” and mystical/personal experience, there is the opportunity of transcending both and entering into an intense feeling of having finally found the key, the truth, the fix.

The problem is that this feeling is totally unsustainable in the long run. Human beings seek to grapple with knowledge, they seek experience and self-expression and creative development. The cult’s system of totalist ideology forbids this, so harboring or being confronted with ideas that contradict or ignore the sacred science can bring a great deal of distress, fear, and guilt. Since there is virtually no escape from the totalist demands of the ideology, the subject is forbidden from engaging in a truly receptive search for truth.

And so, caught between this place of the ideological system eventually evaporating and having nothing to replace it with, the member must dig their heels in. One way to do so is to begin a negative loop of fighting with anyone else who would question the ideology. The threat of an ultimate enemy is convenient for this purpose (and we will explore othering and the persecution complex in a later section.) Dehumanizing and engaging with the spectre of “TERFS” is the perfect foil for this process. One can also double down in a prolonged process of entering deeper into the cult. This is seen most clearly in people who start off as “non-dysphoric, non-transitioning” and then enter into the system of physical transition. Thus, the member can now push back against family and friends, lament gatekeeping in the process of getting letters from a doctor, get started on hormones, raise money for surgeries, schedule and go through with them, and so on. Every step of the way they are “love bombed” and rewarded by the cult, and these methods prolong the trip to that inevitable event horizon when they will run out of means of reaching that transcendent state. The knowledge that this worldview will not hold is further suppressed, as is realizing that real life is not as absolute as the “sacred science” has made it out to be.

PART FOUR: Silencing the Inner Voice through Milieu Control

“Milieu control” refers to the controlling of communications- both with others and with our own “inner voice.” As individual autonomy is a threat to the totalist group structure, so milieu control must be maintained through continuous psychological pressure.This may seem absurd or impossible to the outsider, but it is one of the most important means of control under totalist ideology and develops quite insidiously and completely again and again in these groups. I will illustrate the process, and in doing so, the appeal.

One way in which totalist cults dictate how members should think is through the language they can use (we’ll focus on “loading the language” in a later section, because it is a BIG ONE in genderist ideology), whether or not they should get married, how to raise children (example: transing kids because they like the “wrong” kinds of toys or clothes), sexual mores (example: lesbians are pressured to have sex with males), and control of bodies, and more. Culture at large deals with all of these questions, but totalist groups seek to control them in the extreme, and to break down the possibility of a member’s critical thinking in approaching these kinds of decisions.

When a person in a fragile state and with a particular vulnerability for cult conversion (as covered in part two) is exposed to prolonged milieu control, the result is a disruption of the balance between the self and the outside world. The group member is pressured to blur or dissolve the internal and external information; effectively, to destroy or at least shut off any filter or “inner voice”/”instinct” that questions incoming information from the group. A group member at this point may desire very strongly to assimilate and gain acceptance in the group, and assimilation comes more easily when personal autonomy is discarded, when information from outside of the group is accepted as forbidden, and when inner reflection is seen as betrayal to the ideologies and thus self-regulated. If one goes very far into this process, they may experience a kind of inner, personal closure which will feel quite satisfying and comforting in the beginning. This is because the person is now to an extent cut off from the human condition: what Lifton calls the “incessant struggle with the elusive subtleties of truth.” This may feel very empowering (now I see everything clearly, now I know how things really work) or it may lead the person to feel further victimized (why doesn’t everyone get it, they just don’t understand us, they’re trying to stop us) but in either case it is seductive because they now have the key and are accepted.

This process prevents the person from seeking what is healthy, good, relevant, helpful, and true to themselves and within themselves. Everything in the world, inside and outside of the cult member, now reflects one of two things: Reality (the prevailing cult ideology) and Falsehoods (everything else.) We see evidence of this in the incredibly frustrating derailing of even the most innocuous conversations: suddenly everything is an issue of pronouns, perceived cissexism, and so on. When even the most radical political groups fighting against misogyny and racism will draw attention to their particular issues in conversation, they make demands insisting on an expansive and intersectional view that may even prioritize their needs but will do it in an integrative sense: they live in the world, so their voices must be heard. (Even the voices of a radical separatist movement will operate on this level- they’re making their needs and demands known in the context of living in reality and wanting to create a new situation, away from the oppressive structure and/or wanting to learn and grow with persons from their own oppressed class.) Totalist ideology and the cult of gender, on the other hand, contract the world instead of expanding it, make derailing demands, and insist that the focus be completely taken off whatever the issue is at hand and be centered completely around not even necessarily their particular social needs but around forcing others to conform to their totalism: that other voices be silenced. One perfect example of this are the multiple instances in which “transwomen” will interrupt a conversation about female genital mutilation in order to center it around their perception of the word “female” as being “cissexist.”

In any case, in order to perpetuate milieu control, standard cults will create an increasingly intense sequence of bonding events- retreats, seminars, rituals, and so on. In totalist gender cults, this group bonding is found in events such as (to name just a very few): hounding “TERFS” and dogpiling on non-believers (even those who intend on supporting the group but can’t keep up with the terminology), the posting and viewing of transition videos on sites like Youtube and Tumblr, encouraging gender non-conforming individuals and those suffering from dysphoria/dysmorphia to view themselves as trans and assimilate as well, and the ultimate in group bonding activities: comparing notes on physical transition.

The phenomenon of physical transition and “passing,’ especially by those who have symptoms so far removed from the historically rare transsexual, is possibly the most thorough form of milieu control ever seen. Genderist cults offer a complete, and I do mean complete, scientific and personal transcendant experience on every possible level: physically, mentally, socially. Genderist ideology utterly directs and controls the narrative. Past cults only wish they had access to this level of transformative experience to prop up their totalist ideals.

Genderist cults are a haven for gender non-conforming youth who have been rejected by the culture at large, their friends and family, and any other available support system. These are people without the proper tools or support to deal with harassment, self-hatred, homophobia, and trauma from rape and sexual abuse. The genderist cult not only offers a soothing feedback loop (as covered in previous sections), it also offers complete physical transformation. Especially in the case of female survivors of rape and sexual abuse who seek to disidentify with womanhood and the inevitable misogyny that comes along with it, total physical and social transformation (or an attempt, anyway) holds intense appeal and a (false) promise of healing on multiple levels.

When one is subsumed into an intense level of milieu control in any kind cult, it can lead to the formation of a second self: a second internal voice, which exists alongside the former self. By the “former self” I don’t only mean the wounded self, the frightened self, or the confused self, but the even deeper core of identity: the self who sought healing in the first place.When milieu control is lifted, this original self can be reasserted, and it can be healed. We see this in people who have survived cults, and we see it in detransitioners.

PART FIVE: Forbidden Knowledge



While we previously covered ideas of “sacred science” and ultimate truth in the totalist cult ideology, there is the other side of the milieu control coin: forbidden knowledge.

Even the most radical, militant, separatist groups know that in order to get the work of political/personal change done, one must lift up the rock of the problems they’re facing and grapple with the fundamentals that lie beneath. In fact, most groups vying for social/political/personal change encourage this kind of truth-seeking so that the foundation of their groups and beliefs moving forward are sound and the changes made are sure and true. If such projects do not engage directly with the forces they seek to reform or overturn, they at least engage with the ideas and effects of those forces in an honest way.

What this means is that there are ideals and beliefs that a person within a group is forbidden from personally holding, but that is different from knowledge itself being forbidden. For example, a practicing Catholic declaring a belief in polytheism is going to run into trouble with their group, but they aren’t forbidden from learning about other religions. They may even be encouraged to in the service of ecumenicism. Similarly, someone who actually, personally believes that white people are inherently, genetically better than other races will probably not fare well as a member of the Black Panthers. But a member of the Black Panthers would be well-served by learning the machinations of white supremacist ideology. Some knowledge may be regarded by a group as useless, offensive, a waste of time, fundamentally incorrect, and discouraged, and the group may have guidelines regarding personal beliefs and what one does with knowledge, but knowledge itself is not forbidden.

One quick way to figure out if you’re in a totalist cult is to ask yourself: is knowledge forbidden? Is anything off-limits? Does the group stop members from reading anything negative about themselves?



Since the first place I’m posting this series is on the internet, and specifically on tumblr, readers may have already guessed what direction I’m taking this: toward exploring the phenomenon of the untouchable “TERF.”

For those of you who don’t know: Of all the groups that could be regarded as off-limits, of all the groups that could have lists of their names collected and distributed, of all the people with whom an accidental, tangential contact could soil a person’s reputation within a group, “TERFS” are by FAR the most reviled by the totalist gender cult.

What is a TERF? Is it a name for sexual predators, overwhelmingly males, that take advantage of younger members of the trans community? Is it a term used for violent and often homophobic persons, overwhelmingly males, who enact actual physical violence on gender non-conforming people, trans and otherwise? Is a TERF a predator, a pedophile, or a violent homophobe?

A TERF is none of those things. You’ll find lists of TERFS, but you will rarely find a list of predators, pedophiles, or homophobes circulating within the genderist milieu. Male sexual predators within the community are occasionally called out, but there’s no list circulating (and there are plenty enough for a list) and rarely any public shaming or shunning of people who continue to engage with them on a friendly or neutral level. And group members who are openly homophobic (mostly lesbophobic, specifically) and misogynist are tolerated and even encouraged. In part four I spoke of the status quo being upheld in seemingly radical environments, and here it is in action: Primarily transwomen/”non-binary” males who call lesbians dykes and worse, who refer to women who disagree with their ideology (or don’t want to have sex with them) as bitches and cunts who should be burned, who instruct them to “suck their lady-cocks” and similar insults, males who tell “transmen”/”dfabs” (females) to shut up, that they’re useless, that they don’t suffer misogyny, and that they need to be supporting males or “gtfo.” And this is allowed to go on. Although some in the group may find it distasteful, it doesn’t disrupt the illusion, it doesn’t disrupt milieu control, and it may even help prop it up, so it continues.

So what is a TERF then? A TERF is a “trans exclusionary radical feminist.” (Or more histrionically, a TWERF- “trans woman exterminationist radical feminist.”) In other words, a TERF is a gender critical feminist, and almost certainly a woman.

A TERF is untouchable not because she is dangerous to the physical safety of the group- that claim goes to predatory and/or homophobic males. (Inane and ahistorical claims to the contrary are often made though, which we’ll explore in a moment.) Nor are “TERFS” necessarily the most offensive- I would argue that extreme conservative groups who oppose all gender non-conformity and tend to use ad-hominem attacks and slurs from a position of institutional power would hold that place. In fact, gender totalists will engage freely and frequently with persons holding the above views. Blogs, videos, books, zines, and workshops will (rightly!) focus on issues of homophobia and hatred of gender non-conformity. And those holding workshops and readings may have genuine concern for their brothers and sisters, so they’ll dig deep- they’ll seek knowledge of the opposition, they’ll seek to overturn the structures that are propping up this kind of injustice, they’ll do the hard work.





When it comes to TERFS, however, this kind of examination tends to fall apart. Gender-critical theory cannot be met on it’s own terms, because it will disrupt the very foundation of gender totalism. When genderists appear to honestly approach gender-critical thought and find it cannot fairly be refuted, to put it simply: shit gets made up. Statistics are stretched or just plain falsified (such as the false assertion that 1 in 12 transwomen are murdered or the claim that 41% attempt suicide and that it’s because they don’t have access to the means of transition- which is the cure- right now), fragile conclusions are drawn (such as the far-reaching claim that Janice Raymond had power on an institutional level over whether or not transwomen can get sex-reassignment surgery, and therefore is to blame for subsequent suicides) and emotional manipulation is employed (implicit or explicit threats of self-harm and suicide with insistence that acceptance of the genderist ideology and physical transition is the one and only cure.) Somehow, the violence visited upon trans people, while overwhelmingly perpetuated by violent homophobic males (very often “Johns”) is blamed on women who are critical of gender politics and ideology. Eventually the whole thing devolves into insults and misdirection, and becomes more of a shouting match that can be won or lost based on circular arguments (“transwomen are women because they say they are women!!”), falsified information, and gotcha moments.

As the milieu control of the gender totalists becomes increasingly tenuous, more and more women find themselves branded and shunned as TERFs. It is claimed that “TERFS” want trans women exterminated, that they hate transwomen, that they “violently misgender” them, and, in a hilarious accusation that shows the misogyny of genderist groups, that TERFS want to exclude them from women’s spaces because they’re jealous of the beauty of transwomen. Women who don’t even know what TERF means, who have never heard of radical feminism, and who have no real cohesive criticism of gender ideology are targeted for daring to question the claims of transwomen. If a woman dares to say something like “what if someone wants to come into the women’s changing room but they aren’t really a trans woman? What if men take advantage of changes in laws?” she will likely be shouted off a forum or comment section. “TERFS” are no-platformed from speaking events while active “pick-up artists” who deny the existence of rape culture are invited. And heaven forbid a TERF post a photo of a kitten or write a thoughtful paragraph about knitting on a blog platform and you re-post it- even this interaction, un-related to gender conversation, can get a person “called out,” and if they don’t respond with contrition and removal of the offending post, then god help them when the wrath of the gender totalists comes down on them. They may find themselves on the next TERF list.

Why is this? Why has the spectre of the rabid, hateful “TERF” developed? Why is it that activists and young people in the various stages of transition can engage in thoughtful, spirited, coherant discussion about difficult and important topics but suddenly everybody flies off the handle in a storm of misogyny and false accusations when it comes to gender-critical women? Why do people who can deal with and speak clearly (and freely!) about issues of transphobic violence from the culture at large lose their shit and have panic attacks when confronted with a calm critique of genderist ideals? And why have I seen young trans people (primarily females) report on various online platforms that they’ve “binged” on gender critical readings (like Gendertrender, gender critical tags on tumblr, and so on) until they’ve upset themselves to the point of panic, then retreated back into into the genderist milieu? Why can’t they even explore these writings like they can other opposing views? Why are they forbidden from exploring them, from the cult outside and this feeling of suffocating panic within? What is that deeper inner self trying to tell them? Why is this happening, why is this kind of reaction specific to gender-critical writings when there are objectively bigger, institutional-level threats to their safety? Why is it that when gender cultists do attempt to explore and debunk gender critical thought, it devolves into disingenuous verbiage, circular logic, and false statistics?

From @project-radfem

I know that I’m not the first person to make this point, but I’ve never seen lists made of any of the following: nazis, racists, misogynists, rapists, abusers, pedophilias, homophobes, or any other kind of horrible person who are vocal on tumblr. And even when rapists and abusers are outed on tumblr, they are often supported and believed more than their victims. People will even defend rapists by claiming that if they’re trans women, they couldn’t possibly be a rapist. But all it takes for someone to get blacklisted as a “terf” is for them to show up on a list, have an anonymous message written about them, or be called a terf by a popular blogger. And all of this happens with no proof! Or if proof IS given, it’s usually negligible, like reblogging from a person who’s also been blacklisted as a terf. This just goes to show that terf lists can be and are created because women, especially lesbians, are easy targets. Going after the people and the industries that actually harm trans women, like men and the porn industry, is too much work and the targets aren’t as socially vulnerable. It’s bullshit.



We are talking about a cult system, that’s why. With effective and thorough mileau control (see part four), the cult member continues to self-regulate their own intake of information in order to cling to the safety and security of the totalist system. As they’re policed by their “community” as well as their new, assimilated inner voice, it becomes nearly impossible for a cult member to truly examine and explore gender-critical thought. If you’ve read the previous posts, you know how fragile a person might be when they’ve entered into totalist gender ideology, and what they might be trying to grapple with.

From @radical-feminism :

terf is absolutely a silencing tactic. when i was a libfem I didn’t even know what it stood for - I had never even heard of radical feminism. all i knew was that terf was a bad thing, and if I agreed with them, I was probably being transphobic and needed to reevaluate my stance.people throw around the word terf to silence radical feminists, to make sure no one actually listens to what they’re saying. radicalism makes people uncomfortable, so they’d rather just ignore it and focus on feel-good liberal feminism. being a radical feminist involves being critical of all kinds of things, including yourself. and they don’t want that, they aren’t willing to do that.

A traumatized, gender non-conforming individual is simply not ready for the jarring disruption of writings that are critical of the fundamentals of their support system. Not only does it threaten their internal sense of security within the group, it threatens their actual position in the group- they’ve seen threats of shunning and being cast out of what may be their only support system at the time for dealing with much larger issues. I’m thinking of gender non-conforming, traumatized females and mostly gay males when I say this. But as for the stars/role models of the decentralized cult clusters, often misogynist, autogynephile males with violent/predatory tendencies, they know on which side their bread is buttered. And so the perfect storm continues, with vulnerable survivors trying to patch together a way of carrying on mixed in with predatory fetishists. No wonder feminists are the ones to be targeted, and pedophiles and rapists don’t end up on a circulated list.

UPDATE: from a response to criticism from a self-identified trans person:

Trans Men are only mentioned once, in passing. Nowhere else, positively or negative. This entire portion of the trans community with their own needs, many of which have influence on trans activism and communities, is completely absent from the conversation.

This is only true if you’re running a “control F” on the essay. If you’re actually reading it and are able to understand that males are not the default “human,” you’ll see that the essay can be read as focusing primarily on females (or “trans men.”) I know, because that’s how I wrote it.

…….This criticism is surprising because I’ve actually been waiting for accusations of focusing too much on females! I really want to make sure that I don’t neglect the experience of gnc males who are victimized by this ideological system, but this essay is primarily based on my own experience as a female…. I do unapologetically prioritize the protection of females, so there ya go….

It gets especially jarring when it talks about “young females given a positive feedback loops” and watching transition videos but like. WHO? If somebody’s looking to transition AWAY from womanhood, they aren’t going to be looking at a trans woman’s transition stories. Whose transition videos are they watching then? Who are these people telling them about binders and testosterone?

As far as transition youtube videos specifically, I believe they are part of an in-group horizontal support system of bolstering the ideology. Nowhere do I blame some evil outsider or imply that transwomen are creating them. Again, you’re reading into this that “male” (or “transwoman”) must be the default if the sex of a subject isn’t specified. That’s your problem, not mine.

Horizontal support and in-group policing is a fact of human societies, sometimes for good and other times not so much. Extreme versions of this are a major part of an effective totalist system, just as much as internal monitoring and the policing of the “inner voice” is.

When the term “transwomen” is specifically used in the essay (so far), it is to point out that they dominate the conversation, interrupt, are defended even when accused of rape, use slurs against lesbians, accuse “cis” women of just being jealous of their looks (misogyny), as well as in links debunking stats and claims specific to transwomen. I have to to address male domination as a result of socialization directly, regardless of how the individual identifies.

I specifically address the upholding of the status quo in this ideology, so it shouldn’t be any mystery as to why I’m pointing these things out. There’s nothing disingenuous or sneaky about it. I’ve pointed out from the start that there is no one cohesive “trans cult” anymore than there is one cohesive trans community, and that people are involved in transition for different reasons. I’ve also pointed out the disturbing reality of vulnerable populations (including males) being blended with predatory populations (almost exclusively male.) I know this is really unpopular right now, but I’m saying that male socialization is a thing and misogyny is a thing and that as a result, violent misogynists dominate the trans milieu. You’re essentially complaining about a female pointing out and objecting to misogynist males and saying we should knock it off- same as it ever was. People clamor for a focus on transwomen in the community- well here you go.

(Next, in part 6: Information Regulation and Thought-Terminating Cliches, or: “A Woman is a Woman if She Says She’s a Woman”)





Sources:

Downhower, Richard L. Rev: Recovery From Cults

Edmonton Society Against Mind Abuse: Warning Signs that You are in a Cult

Fellows, Robert: Easily Fooled

Groenveld, Jan: Totalism in Today’s Cults

Jacobsen, Jeff: A Short Review of Academic Research into Cults

Langone, Michael, Ph.D: Definitional Ambiguity

Langone, Michael, Ph.D: On Using the Term “Cult”

Lifton, Robert J, MD: Cult Formation

Lifton, Robert J, MD: Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

Singer, Margaret T, Dr: Six Conditions for Thought Reform

Slick, Matt: What are Some Signs and Practices of a Cult?