no amount of logical reasoning and facts will cause them to change that.
Hence linking feminism (and really liberalism, but ya'll ain't ready for that conversation) to trannies is useful. While there are also logical arguments against trannies, they are repulsive on a visceral level. You don't need much logic and reason to motivate people against it.
I worked in academia for nearly a decade.
oof
We can mitigate future damage by working to remove intersectional feminism from schools and colleges but the damage that is done to women who already have been brainwashed is near impossible to fix.
Indeed it's much more difficult to change people's minds than it is to prevent them from becoming convinced of the wrong things in the first place. Still, leveraging troons against feminism can make it unappealing from the get go.
I don't regret my years in academia for one reason: it opened my eyes to how deep and pervasive the globalhomo neomarxist rot is in all of our major institutions.
You won't blindly believe "the science tm" when you see your own "esteemed colleagues" engage in p-hacking, making data points fit their own apriori hypotheses and all other nefarious forms of data manipulation to fit their sponsor's agenda.
Once you see how the sausage is made, you won't want to eat it.
Since you are interested, I can elaborate a bit more here.
The process of how research is really done in America is something kept hidden to the public. A lot of people won't "trust the science" if they see how the process actually works.
I cannot say what field of study I was working in because it will likely increase the risks of me being doxxed substantially.
I will say that data manipulation to fit the political agendas of sources of funding is sadly widespread.
Remember that you need adequate funding to conduct any research. A lot of the sources of funding like research grants make it clear that they do want certain results in advance and that they definitely don't want other results.
In many cases it is sadly not about finding answers to a problem but rather about finding a predetermined answer to a question so it can be used to advance a certain agenda of the one funding the research.
The research process is often corrupted by the start of the process which is acquiring funding to conduct research.
You see a lot of people engage in data manipulation in how they present their results and in how they use statistical tests to craft a certain narrative.
Look at the book How to lie with statistics for a good basic intro into all of the ways one can manipulate statistics to fit your desired narrative.
By the time, you are finished writing up your results and get ready to publish, you are faced with another political hurdle.
Your research needs to pass peer review at a major journal.
Peer review has sadly became a twisted joke nowadays and is now one of the biggest hinderances to transparency, truthfulness and replication.
Any research that goes against the current narrative of globalhomo just won't be published in any "reputable journal".
This matters a lot because where you get published sadly matters a lot more than what you get published.
You HAVE to get publications in so called "reputable journals" to even have a hope of progressing in your career.
Thus the way one gains tenure is completely set up in a way to further globalhomo interests.
Ultimately, it is not just a problem of individual bad actors but a flawed and corrupt system at the core.
Many good people are eventually worn down by the system and become corrupted morally in order to have a "successful" career in academia.
I left academia when I realized I have no good opportunities to "successfully advance" in my field.
I was not willing to play along with any of this previously mentioned bullshit to advance.
Hence linking feminism (and really liberalism, but ya'll ain't ready for that conversation) to trannies is useful. While there are also logical arguments against trannies, they are repulsive on a visceral level. You don't need much logic and reason to motivate people against it.
oof
Indeed it's much more difficult to change people's minds than it is to prevent them from becoming convinced of the wrong things in the first place. Still, leveraging troons against feminism can make it unappealing from the get go.
I don't regret my years in academia for one reason: it opened my eyes to how deep and pervasive the globalhomo neomarxist rot is in all of our major institutions.
You won't blindly believe "the science tm" when you see your own "esteemed colleagues" engage in p-hacking, making data points fit their own apriori hypotheses and all other nefarious forms of data manipulation to fit their sponsor's agenda.
Once you see how the sausage is made, you won't want to eat it.
Since you are interested, I can elaborate a bit more here.
The process of how research is really done in America is something kept hidden to the public. A lot of people won't "trust the science" if they see how the process actually works.
I cannot say what field of study I was working in because it will likely increase the risks of me being doxxed substantially.
I will say that data manipulation to fit the political agendas of sources of funding is sadly widespread.
Remember that you need adequate funding to conduct any research. A lot of the sources of funding like research grants make it clear that they do want certain results in advance and that they definitely don't want other results.
In many cases it is sadly not about finding answers to a problem but rather about finding a predetermined answer to a question so it can be used to advance a certain agenda of the one funding the research.
The research process is often corrupted by the start of the process which is acquiring funding to conduct research.
You see a lot of people engage in data manipulation in how they present their results and in how they use statistical tests to craft a certain narrative.
Look at the book How to lie with statistics for a good basic intro into all of the ways one can manipulate statistics to fit your desired narrative.
By the time, you are finished writing up your results and get ready to publish, you are faced with another political hurdle.
Your research needs to pass peer review at a major journal.
Peer review has sadly became a twisted joke nowadays and is now one of the biggest hinderances to transparency, truthfulness and replication.
Any research that goes against the current narrative of globalhomo just won't be published in any "reputable journal".
This matters a lot because where you get published sadly matters a lot more than what you get published.
You HAVE to get publications in so called "reputable journals" to even have a hope of progressing in your career.
Thus the way one gains tenure is completely set up in a way to further globalhomo interests.
Ultimately, it is not just a problem of individual bad actors but a flawed and corrupt system at the core.
Many good people are eventually worn down by the system and become corrupted morally in order to have a "successful" career in academia.
I left academia when I realized I have no good opportunities to "successfully advance" in my field.
I was not willing to play along with any of this previously mentioned bullshit to advance.
I hope you found atleast some of this useful.