As a student, I volunteered with Amnesty International -- this was several years into the genocide in Darfur -- and I remember we wanted everyone to know and everyone to care what was happening 7,000 miles away. In fact, I'm sure we were quite obnoxious about it!
Seeing @amnesty now endorse campaigns that purposefully avoid public oversight and seek to shut down inquiry is surreal to me. I'll never get over it. This should be a red flag to Amnesty -- why sneak around? Why is it necessary to lie? What are you doing?
At a basic level, we had faith that if people understood what was happening, they would care and take action.

What's happening now is quite different. The public isn't trusted to understand -- in fact, the less that the public understands, the more successful the campaign.
Understanding isn't what's being sought. The entire campaign to enshrine gender ideology in our societies openly defies the possibility of understanding and celebrates the abdication of independent judgment. "They know better than you" about sums it up.
Compliance is what's being pursued here, enforced by social, economic, and legal sanctions if necessary. Gender ideology seeks to destroy the very possibility of good-faith disagreement and public dialogue.
The message to the public boils down to: "Don't look too closely. You're not capable of understanding what you see. Just trust us."

And, indeed, gender ideology is quite difficult for non-believers to make sense of.
If gender is fluid and can change over time, why do we carry out untested and often irreversible medical procedures on kids at younger and younger ages?
Why should women be redefined as a mixed-sex class based on gender identity that privileges the identity claims of male people over the lived experiences of female people?
Why is there so much lying, obscuring, silencing, and manipulating by trans activists to prop up false claims, enforce anti-scientific dogmas, and shut down debate?

It's true -- the claims and demands of gender ideology are hard to understand.
And an ideology that refuses to be understood, refuses to submit to questions and inquiry, is hard to square with liberal societies and liberal institutions. Perhaps that why every state and institution that embraces gender ideology ends up warped beyond recognition.
It's utterly surreal to see @amnesty campaign against basic civil liberties like freedom of speech and conscience. In thrall to gender ideology, orgs like Amnesty International have abandoned their missions.
Oaths of allegiance are taking the place of inquiry in universities, nonprofits, and government commissions. The more preposterous the oath, the greater the demonstration of allegiance.
That applies whether the preposterous oath concerns the crowd size at Trump's inauguration ("This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period") or the favored preposterous oath of the Left ("TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN," often repeated in all caps for effect).
Enforcing 𝑎𝑛𝑦 ideology at the expense of truth-seeking processes and institutions leads us nowhere we want to go. Enshrining ideas and claims that can't withstand scrutiny in the law threatens the very basis of liberal societies.

This open letter circulating in Ireland is a clear example of threat we're up against: "We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs..."…
"These fringe internet accounts stand against affirmative medical care of transgender people, and they stand against the right to self-identification of transgender people in this country."
To be clear, the thoughtcrimes here include
- questioning the medical experiment we're running on kids, many of whom are simply lesbian or gay
- asserting that sex matters, independently of subjective gender identity claims
Whether gender ideologues like it or not, these are pressing questions for democratic societies to consider, in the open, without fear of harassment.

That gender ideologues don't have good answers to these questions does not mean that asking questions is wrong or "bigoted."
It's unfortunate for the gender lobby that the under-the-radar and burn-the-witches approach they've taken so far is starting to fall apart.

Nonetheless, these are questions that need to be asked and a dialogue that needs to take place.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eliza Mondegreen

Eliza Mondegreen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @elizamondegreen

21 Nov
Among much, much else that's wrong with this letter, wasn't Ireland described as a model for avoiding public scrutiny in passing self-id policies that were drafted by lobbyists? "[L]ong and public" process my ass.
"... many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress... In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue." (p. 20)

"The most important lesson from the Irish experience is arguably that trans advocates can possibly be much more strategic by trying to pass legislation “under the radar” by latching trans rights legislation onto more popular legal reforms..."
Read 7 tweets
20 Nov
🧐 Image
OK, in all honesty, is there anybody who doesn't feel substantially WORSE after browsing the New York Times' Your Life at Home section?

"How to pretend you're in Paris tonight" is not helping. ImageImage
If I were in charge of Your Life at Home, let's say I'd take a different approach.

Your Life at Home: Remember black ice? This woman who shattered her elbow does!

Your Life at Home: Remember people clipping their fingernails on the train?
Read 7 tweets
17 Nov
What comes first? An attempt to seek the truth or the desired conclusion to which the ‘facts’ must cleave?

Ideally, this should be a two-step process.
- 1) What's going on here? Be honest.
- 2) What should we do about it?
To free science from politics, these need to be separate steps.

But I’m seeing a lot of activists and researchers working backwards from a desired conclusion, subordinating truth-seeking processes to predetermined outcomes.
This comes up in the debate over gender id again and again.

If the desired outcome is males competing in women's sports, then those males can't have a competitive advantage or pose a risk to women's safety. The facts don't agree with that conclusion—so they've gotta go. Image
Read 23 tweets
17 Nov
Ideally, this should be a two-step process.
- 1) What's going on here? Be honest.
- 2) What do we do about it?

People on the left often collapse these into a single step, subordinating truth-seeking processes to desired outcomes.
This comes up in the debate over gender id again and again. If the desired outcome is males competing in women's sports, then those males can't have a competitive advantage or pose a risk to women's safety. The facts don't agree with that conclusion -- so they've gotta go.
Read 6 tweets
15 Nov
When I have convos with people who insist transwomen are women, I often ask: What does it mean to believe that? In what sense and for what purposes are transwomen women?
I'm genuinely curious. Are these intended as magic words? Statements of truth? Professions of belief? Demonstrations of right-thinking?

So this is quite interesting:…
"You can much more easily believe that it is proper, that it is good and virtuous and beneficial, to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is both perfectly blue and perfectly green. Dennett calls this 'belief in belief.'"
Read 6 tweets
26 Oct
Some thoughts on respect and recognition and social movements...

Respect is rooted in recognition: recognition of what’s shared and recognition of differences, where these differences matter.
The women’s rights movement argued (and argues) that women deserve full and equal participation in society, and that achieving this requires addressing the barriers that have held women back.
For example, in developing countries where menstruation cuts millions of girls off from education, helping girls stay in school may mean helping girls manage their periods and combatting period stigma.…
Read 32 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!