#dogwhistle/strawman

[ebenelephant]

so like, in case anyone was wondering, the fact that andrew tate 'supported mens mental health' and encouraged dudes to go to the gym and have better self esteem and such is not actually good enough reason to defend his online presence (seperate to the literal human trafficking)

even if you think that you didn't take in his political messages, I would bet money that you did, because the guy who myself and a friend got into an hour long debate about this with in our english class referred to someone female-presenting as 'dominatable' and 'like a weak animal' this morning – just the tip of the iceberg of the increasingly concerning misogynist rhetoric he's been developing over the past months, perhaps the past years.

obviously this isn't an exclusively andrew tate related thing; toxic mens rights 'activists' are a dime a dozen and often vile. this is just the situation that I find myself privy to, and I felt like it was important that people were aware.

[patricia-taxxon]

ok, honestly, the take of mine that makes me sound the most like the strawman leftoid in a political cartoon, this shit is a racist dogwhistle

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

So, the DfE have released their non-statutory guidance for schools on "gender questioning children". I know much has been made of the idea of outing trans children to their parents, but I think the guidance actually has far more concerning sections. And by concerning I mean "deeply transphobic and fucked up".

I know some people are happy it's non statutory, but let's be explicit, this document is transphobic, it's dogwhistle politics, and it's existence will directly harm trans people.

Ironically, the DfE's own lawyers have advised that this guidance is likely illegal and contravenes the equality act.

I think the idea that there are lots of students who are fully transitioned in school but not out at all at home is a bit of a strawman from both sides. In my experience (and I've mentioned this on tumblr before), a school would not normally encourage this if a student was genuinely at risk at home if outed, because even if all the teachers knew not to out the students, you can't control the behaviour of other students/parents etc. I think it's a bit of a right wing scare tactic "Schools are transitioning your kids without your consent". It's a fascist dog whistle.

In my experience as a teacher, the vast majority of trans kids I've taught were transitioning socially at home and school. Some did only use their chosen name/pronouns in school, but parents were aware.

But this straw man has been used to build a document which is deeply transphobic and wide reaching and will defacto exclude some trans kids from school, or from school sports, or from attending a school where they feel comfortable.

Trans kids exist. Kids can know they are trans from a young age, and there is no harm to anyone from allowing social transition at a young age. Some kids transition back to their assigned gender at birth. That doesn't mean anyone was harmed. But this guidance explicitly presents the idea of transition as both harmful to the person transitioning and those around them. Which is fucked up.

The new guidance has some really concerning bits in it which will seriously negatively impact all trans students. Here are some quotes below, with my comments in italics. Please note I'm quoting directly from a document that uses transphobic language:

-Primary school aged children should not have different pronouns to their sex-based pronouns used about them. (This is fucked, I cannot stress how fucked this is. These kids exist and simply pretending they don't is awful in the extreme. The idea that children can't socially transition at primary school is really messed up. )

-schools and colleges should only agree to a change of pronouns if they are confident that the benefit to the individual child outweighs the impact on the school community. It is expected that there will be very few occasions in which a school or college will be able to agree to a change of pronouns. On these rare occasions, no teacher or pupil should be compelled to use these preferred pronouns. (How does a child using pronouns of choice impact the school community? It doesn't? In my experience, teens are much more accepting of trans classmates than some adults. Also giving teachers explicit permission to misgender kids is fucking dangerous).

-schools and colleges should exhaust all other options, such as using firstnames, to avoid requiring other individuals having to use preferred pronouns. (My initial response to this was "why the fuck" but a trans friend commented that the purpose is to make trans people's lives as difficult and as miserable as possible, and they're going after the most vulnerable trans people- trans kids)

-If a child does not want to use the toilet designated for their biological sex, and the school or college has considered all the relevant factors outlined above, they may wish to consider whether they can provide or offer the use of an alternative toilet facility. (this is weird because I'm pretty sure it contravenes the equality act, I'm pretty sure there is a legal duty on schools, and certainly colleges where over 18s attend to provide gender neutral toilet facilities if required. Also, not having an appropriate toilet defacto excludes children from school).

-Schools may have different uniform requirements for girls and boys. Some specify which uniform items are for girls and which are for boys, and similarly some schools have hairstyle rules which differ by sex. A child who is gender questioning should, in general, be held to the same uniform standards as other children of their sex at their school and schools may set clear rules to this effect. (So some schools could, for example, force a trans boy or non binary student to wear a skirt. Which is unfair and messed up. To be honest, I think sex segregated uniforms belong in the dark ages anyway, but this is just ridiculous.).

-There is no general duty to allow a child to ‘social transition’. (Firstly, there legally is. Secondly, why would a school not want to? This just gives licence to transphobic heads to say "oh, no, we won't allow you to transition", which is illegal, but the whole thing is just such a fucking mess. And again, why? Why would you not allow a child to transition socially? Unless you want to pretend that trans children don't exist?)

If you want to read the full guidance, it's available here, but trigger warnings etc do apply: https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf

Yes, the guidance is non-statutory, so in theory schools could ignore it, but in reality, OFSTED etc can use non-statutory guidance as a stick to beat schools with. At this stage, I think we all know the OFSTED don't give a fuck about anyone's mental health or wellbeing.

Interestingly, even the DfE's own lawyers have admitted the advice could open schools up to a legal challenge. This SchoolsWeek article on the topic is super interesting: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/trans-guidance-dfe-lawyers-said-schools-face-high-risk-of-being-sued/

Anyway, whilst the fact it's non statutory is something, this is not the victory some people are making it out to be, and the fact a document encouraging misgendering children has been published at all is fucked. This document could very much be used to prevent children from transitioning, and will likely prevent some children who have transitioned from attending school.

[milf--adjacent]

So pony girl gets one suicide bait from an obviously unkind and unstable person (who she continues to goad instead of blocking) and then all the TMEs who love a good pick me tranny line up to say shit like "Oh my GOD why are ALL of these TRANS WOMEN attacking and SUI BAITING my favorite doodler!? It's "support trans women" until one has a bad option, huh? Why does no one talk about the transfem to terf pipeline? Touch grass etc etc" like it's making trans women who recognize recycled dogwhistles look bad for these guys to act like a single bad faith actor (that is statistically inevitable after you hit a certian follower count) is a genuine representative of transfems broad opinions because *checks notes* a few dozen trans women have told pony girl that using a transmisogynistic strawman for clout isn't a good or nice thing.

I'm just a man-hating *irrational* tranny for identifying transmisogyny and speaking up about it, but these transmascs calling transfems "tar pits" and "baddels" and "hatefilled" and "radfems" and more based on the actions of a third party and an inability to comprehend basic intersectional theory (because it would mean they aren't good and pure simply based on the merit of queerness) has nothing to do with their or society's views of trans women. Right. Okay.

[pixieprincedragonqueen]

Just saw someone call the word "infighting" a dogwhistle, and then proceed to build up a strawman as though anyone who uses the word just hates transfeminine people and wants them dead

I'm really worried for this community and the reading comprehension on this website

[olderthannetfic]

What's this situation called: I noticed someone accusing that "White people are the only ones giving this book 1-2 stars" but when I went to check the book, most of the 1-2 stars were from pocs, especially compared to white people's ratings which seemed to on average be higher. Is that dogwhistle? Strawman? I noticed this a few times now, and wondering if the people making those claims are betting on you not double checking.

--

The word you want is "lying".

[stil-lindigo]

if you can't understand why women would be apprehensive of someone born and raised male gaining access to spaces that are supposed to be free of them, you're the one who lacks empathy, plain and simple. you speak like you think radfems are just angry at trans-identified males who "are too ugly to be women", when it's just basic awareness that changing your pronouns won't undo years if not decades of misogynistic socialization and physical disparity. you're arguing against an imaginary strawman.

sure, logically I can understand people being apprehensive of male presence in female spaces, but the jump to the assumption that every trans woman is a malicious rapist in disguise is completely insane. The idea that any cis man would willingly subject himself to the relentless abuse and societal ostracisation that trans people undergo just to gain access to female spaces is laughable and your use of language like 'trans-identified males' is so clearly flippant of the entire identity that I really don't know what else to say. I never said that terfs are just "angry at men too ugly to be women" but hey, transvestigators do that job for me by attacking cis women for being too tall, having too broad shoulders, too sharp of a jaw and, of all things, for the shape of their fucking vulvas. I hope that as well as a so-called feminist, you also call yourself a loud and proud bigot against the entire queer community since it's just a fact that without trans women, we wouldn't have rights as a whole. we owe so much to people like marsha p. johnson and if you can't recognise how much of a red flag it is that terfs have literal neo nazis sieg-heiling alongside them and alt-right politicians rushing out anti-trans legislation like it's a fucking race then I think you're just unreachable.

and just for good measure - a post on nazi dogwhistles that are a core part of terf ideology.

[as-tro-nauts]

I want you to know it’s okay to be hurt by someone making a caricature of you, a strawman. Assuming you’re the worst kind of person due to falling to bigotry. I want you to know that hurtful hiveminds feed off of “independent thinkers” very often. You are not out of line, you are not overreacting. He is using dogwhistles.

[cmdrburton]

people brainrotted by their fandom echo chamber: at this point [reasonable take based in canon] is practically a dogwhistle for [strawman I and my friends just made up and are totally convinced is real]

please touch grass, this is embarrassing

[a-treatise-on-velociraptors]

"AI 'art' isn't art" isn't some goddamn fascist anti-art dogwhistle it's an extremely *pro-art* statement. Art requires a creator to be art. AI is not a creator, it's a predictive text generator that operates on theft with the express purpose of replacing real creators.

Duchamp's urinal is art. It's not art I *like* but it is *art*, it was put together with human intent.

Hell, *PISS CHRIST* is art. It's art that I fucking despise but it's still *art* because it was put together with human intent.

The human intent can be disgusting. It can be morally reprehensible (sun yuan and peng yu's art made of child corpses and actively dying animals comes to mind. That kind of art I do think should be banned or at least shunned, I think there's a line to be drawn there). It can be the fucking worst. It can be made by complete shitheads. But it was made by people.

AI is made from the most statistically probable common denominator. It creates shiny pieces of digital glitter that corporations eat up because it's safe and cheap and an easy button for corpos wanting an easy shortcut to cut humans out of the equation. A world where "art" is created by computers in order to sell us products, that cuts out real humans in order to get us to consume more more more, and puts the nature of mainstream "art" solely in the hands of the companies that run the AI, is more fascist than any goddamn strawman y'all have created.

[shamebats]

How to spot a fascist:

A. State of Emergency

A fascist will magnify the importance of a seemingly minor thing. For example, a drag show will be presented as a fundamental threat to Western life. A state of emergency allows a fascist to justify unspeakable actions. When people are panicking, they are more likely to permit more extreme and violent measures.

B. Concern Trolling

A fascist will never state their core belief that something is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy white people. They will repeatedly state that something shouldn't happen until people have had a chance to "voice their concerns". Fascists will never say what those concerns are because their concern is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy white people by promoting "degeneracy". They will repeatedly obstruct and prevent potentially life-saving laws by saying there are unheard "concerns".

C. Common Dogwhistles

A fascist's biggest fear is being revealed as a fascist. Smart fascists don't go around ranting about Jews destroying white people. They use dogwhistles. Common fascist dogwhistles include:

- Protecting Western Civilization/Values - This just means white supremacy.

- Protecting family values. This does 3 things at once. It asserts that our family values are in danger. It asserts a root cause for everything wrong in society. It is a rallying call to militarise because you can't defend something without fighting someone. The natural question for a brainwashed person is - Who is attacking the family values which must be defended? The answer is - The people who control the media and pull the strings i.e. Jews.

D. Strawman Oppressor

Fascists will always try to usurp the narrative by creating a strawman who is oppressing people. They will say things like - You can't even say X without a crazy Y giving you a lecture about Z. They will paint someone's existence and requests for basic human decency as wildly disruptive to normal life. This creates a narrative of oppression where it doesn't exist. This is a recruitment tool to push gullible center-right people towards the far right.

- Taken from this comment by a reddit user on a great post about why fascists are targeting drag performers.

[starrbar]

Isn't it funny how when rad-antis do their cute little "PSA" thing, and their target tries to defend/explain themself, the ones doing the callouts take common, true, scientifically-backed statements and call them "red flags"?

I've seen so many posts going "Oh god guys, we'd better watch out for this dangerous person. 😨" and their evidence is just a screenshot of the "Fiction doesn't equal reality" bullet on their profile/Carrd, or a similar statement in a rebuttal against claims that they're a Literal Child Rapist™ because of their Pixiv bookmarks.

Like, "how DARE you say the most obvious response to the garbage I'm spewing that's been debunked time and time again?" Next, they'll be saying that citing doctors and professionals to back up their points is a "red flag". xD (I don't remember the exact wordings, but I 99% sure I've actually seen one of them say something like that.)

And okay... to play devil's advocate, this makes sense when you consider, for example, how phrases like "free speech" and "anti censorship" mean very different things coming from a Conservative vs. a Progressive, and those are also simple concepts that I think should be supported for their true meanings, but it still looks quite ridiculous when you start saying that phrases like "anti-harassment" and "fiction ≠ reality 1:1" are "proship dogwhistles", as if there is no context in which those statements have any merit.

(and then I started ranting)

❝ No, of course, only CHILD PREDATORS think that abusing and bullying people is wrong, because the ONLY time anybody ever gets bullied is when they've done something to DESERVE it, right?? There are no people on this earth who hurt innocents. Justice is always served. Therefore, "anti-harassment" is a pro-abuser stance! ❞ /s

❝ And obviously "fiction ≠ reality" is always code for "I just really like Stonetoss comics and drawing porn of child actors, but those are just pictures, so they don't mean anything!" It's definitely not like many people who make the former statement would immediately recoil in disgust and block anyone who uses it that way. Nah, we're all just secret predators who formed a club where we worship sexual abuse and bigotry. ❞ /sss

See, that, up there, is why I've started specifically referring to "radical antis" because they ACTUALLY embody these extreme stances, and they have repeatedly blown my mind with how exaggerated they can be, but they're 100% serious.

If you're an anti and the above obnoxious strawman doesn't apply to you, you may very well be just fine. But I'm really just tired of essentialist dickheads spear-heading one harassment campaign after another in the name of "reducing harm", and sadly those people take your genuine beliefs and warp them to create those situations.

I'm sorry you have to be associated with them tbh! /gen

I genuinely don't know how things ended up like this, but unfortunately there are people with genuine, valid concerns about fiction's affect on reality who aren't being taken seriously because a bunch of abusers take those concerns and mangle them until they're unrecognizable, probably on purpose so they can justify torturing other people for fun.

Sad day for survivors all across the board, huh? :/

[theholidayslingerlikebadperfume]

i think after sitting with my diagnosis for a while now and really trying to understand myself in a new light, I cannot help but notice how NT social injustice is.

like it heavily relies on dogwhistles which is literally saying 1 thing while meaning another. it relies on assumptions and gaslighting when called out on your behavior. it relies on projecting your own emotions onto the words that other people are saying.

and i cannot help but make the connection to my autistic desire to say the right things whenever i think about my special interest (or hyperfixation idk how to diff between the two personally, ik the definitions but i cannot tell which is which for my brain) in learning social justice policies and watching video essays that discuss these issues. because if u look at politics like a ND vs NT spectrum, the ND are the left and the NT are the right. its an analogy btw not a literal thesis or whatever but idk how else to communicate my thoughts at the moment.

anyways like the left vs the right debates that happen on social media, they can really be boiled down to "the left argues based on facts and evidence whereas the right relies on strawmanning, dogwhistling, and gaslighting when arguing their position." a recent example I can think of is when i said that pretending like the original definition of woman was adult, female human is racist (and sexist but im adding that now lol) and terfs read that as saying the definition "adult female human is racist" which is not what I said but the right relies on assuming that's what I meant, attacking that position, and then gaslighting you when you say I never said that show me where I said that.

like it happens with everything not just trans issues but it's very prevalent on the far right side of the internet and I think for a long time, my autism was driving my desire to believe the right things and say the right things etc. idk its always very interesting whenever i learn a new aspect of my life autism has affected.

[posi-pan]

let’s talk about panphobic dogwhistles

A panphobic dogwhistle is coded/subtle to avoid opposition. These statements aren’t inherently panphobic and not everyone who shares them is panphobic.

“You can identify as pan, if... I support you being pan, but...”

This create hoops for pan people to jump through in order to be supported. But support and respect contingent on us internalizing and regurgitating panphobia isn’t genuine. We don’t trade autonomy for a sliver of pseudo acceptance.

“New labels damage the community. It doesn’t matter if a label is valid, it matters if it’s useful, materially different, and serves a political purpose.” And other anti self-identification/individualism statements.

This targets any label that isn’t The Four. Labels are, and always have been, useful if they help someone understand and communicate their feelings, identity, and experiences. We don’t owe our queerness to anyone, and we don’t have to use our queerness as a calculated strategy for anything.

What damages the community is creating an environment where any kind of difference in identity/language/expression or rebellion against norms/status quo/rules is met with hostility, fostering fear and distrust of the people who are supposed to support and nurture that self-discovery and expression.

“All genders/regardless of gender has always been the definition of bi.”

This often perpetuates the counterfactual ideas that pan “stole” The bi definition and isn’t necessary because “bi already means that”. This is also ahistorical biphobia; there’s never been one “true” definition of bi (this isn’t even the common community one) and it erases bi history/people who don’t relate to it.

Using scare quotes around pan.

Putting pan in quotes when it isn’t necessary is often a way of disrespecting its legitimacy, casting doubt/judgement, especially if pan is the only one in quotes.

“Bi has always included trans/nonbinary people.”

This is often used to falsely claim pan was created because “biphobes thought bi didn’t include trans/nonbinary people, so pan doesn’t need to exist”. (Binary bi texts aren’t universal, but there are plenty that speak to a reality that affected people and contributed to the current more inclusive language.)

“Mspec labels overlap but the distinction matters to some and that’s okay.”

I’ve seen this said so many times in response to people asking what bi and pan mean and how they relate to and differ from each other. What good is it to tell people the distinction matters while avoiding explaining what that distinction is? Ultimately this statement discourages any dialogue about mspec labels.

“Bi is an umbrella term that includes pan.”

The bi umbrella was once genuine inclusion of all mspec people, and activists/orgs use it, so most people don’t see it as anything else. But when bi only content has “bi+” slapped onto it, it becomes meaningless and performative. Panphobes also use it to argue pan doesn’t need its own, specific visibility.

“When a character ‘just likes people’ or is ‘attracted to all genders or regardless of gender’ they aren’t automatically pan instead of bi.”

I’ve experienced this from panphobes who simply assume pan interpretations of pan definitions/common pan explanations must be because of biphobia. But it’s a big, false, and purposely bad faith leap of logic to fuel the panphobic narrative that pan people are always misrepresenting bi.

“Pan people need to let bi people have something and stop making everything about themselves.”

This might seem like advocating for bi only content/events for the sake of bi visibility/community, but it’s often malicious exclusion of pan people who’ve always been included. We aren’t “invading” or “derailing” anything by being in spaces we’ve always been in, or by sharing a bi post because we relate to it.

“Read the Bi Manifesto.”

A lot of the time, people say this because they think the manifesto states the true definition of bi and proves pan is unnecessary/biphobic. However, the full text explicitly states there isn’t one true definition of bi and the group who published it explicitly supports all mspec people and identities.

“People identify as pan due to internalized biphobia.”

This masks panphobia with concern for internalized biphobia. Pan is being written off as a product of biphobia under the guise of wanting bi people to embrace being bi. Pan people are being equated to bi folks who just haven’t unlearned biphobia enough to embrace being bi, when that isn’t the case.

“All pan people are bi, but not all bi people are pan.”

This appears to be an easy explanation of bi/pan, borrowing from “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”. But queerness isn’t geometry and doesn’t work like that. The only pan people who are bi are the ones who also identify as bi. We can’t box queerness into simple, universal categories.

“Analyze why you’re uncomfortable with being associated with bi people or being called bi.”

Of course, pan and bi are associated, but it’s never mere association these people are referring to. Pan people are vilified and wrongly painted as biphobic for criticizing the erasure and mislabeling of our identity.

“Bi and pan people need to stop fighting each other, both are valid and neither is -phobic.”

This implies the “fighting” is equal. But there are popular bi accounts dedicated to panphobia, “battleaxe bi” was coopted for panphobia, a major bi org spreads panphobia, panphobic bi authors/activists are praised, and researchers subsume pan data into bi data. Biphobia from pan people just is not on the same scale as panphobia from bi people.

This is not to disregard/downplay biphobia from pan people. It’s just important to acknowledge the reality, severity, and disparity of the situation. Erasing that by saying or implying it’s just a silly mutual argument about which word is better is disingenuous at best, and malicious misrepresentation at worst.

“I’ve never seen a definition of pan that isn’t biphobic/transphobic.”

Panphobes involved in bi/pan “discourse” saying this aren’t hoping to learn the actual (read: non bigoted) definitions of pan, they’re saying there aren’t any definitions of pan that aren’t biphobic or transphobic, because they believe pan is inherently biphobic and transphobic.

“Behaviorally/scientifically bi.”

“Behaviorally” and “scientifically” bi are used to categorize people based on so-called innate, universal indicators of being bi. Both say pan people are actually bi, hiding identity policing/erasure behind science. Funnily enough, researchers have said it’s hard to determine who is “actually bi” because “individuals determine this for themselves”. In other words, there aren’t innate or universal indicators, we simply are who we say we are.

So. I’m sure there are plenty more examples I’ve missed, and if you have any please send them my way! (I tried to make this as short as possible, so if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these, let me know and I’ll happily do so!)

But I hope this will encourage you to think a bit deeper about the things people say and the possible intent behind it before sharing, as well as be more invested in supporting pan people and trusting us when we tell you something is being said to spread panphobia.

[saxophonekory]

Has anyone else noticed that the "dogwhistle" argument is literally just an excuse to strawman opponents?

[not-a-pumpkin-farmer]

people who believe radfems are just “women with opinions” and not the sum of their very harmful belief systems are the reason why so many are blind to the nazi dogwhistles entrenched in terf ideology. boiling the issue down to “women with opinions” is a way of calling misogyny where there is none in order to halt all arguments against what they’re truly saying. essentially, it’s a strawman designed to derail a legitimate criticism of their beliefs and the damage those beliefs cause people.