They don't refer to it by name in your article, but the opinions you quoted are easily recognizable as Double Consciousness Theory. I don't believe in it.
I think you're way off base. The article isn't referencing any sort of philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's referencing fairly well studied psychological phenomenon.
I picked out the bits that highlighted the conclusions drawn, and their relation to this topic. The article itself contains plenty of references to psychological studies and research. It's not a particularly long article - I suggest you read it before you dismiss it by erroneously assuming it's philosophical in nature.
And I also don't trust any organization, such as WoLF, that aligns itself with the Heritage Foundation. I included that article so you wouldn't dismiss that connection as idle speculation.
This is a problem that seems to come up repeatedly - presumed guilt by association. You're not bothering to evaluate whether WoLF is reliable or not, you're just tossing it out because it has a relationship with a group you've decided you don't like.
This ends up being a problem with this topic over and over. At the moment, there is a strangle-hold on the narrative, with some very powerful interests driving ideological capture - and creating a situation in which heterodox views are treated as heretical and punished as "bigoted" - poisoning the well and effectively persecuting those who challenge the orthodox dogma.
Trans-activists organizations do "research" that confirms their bias and supports their narrative. They outright REFUSE to look at the consequences of their proposed policies, in particular the impact it has one women. Time and again, we see a misleading framing of information from polls undertaken by trans-rights groups. This gets into survey statistics and psychology, and several of them are very poorly designed. They include vague language, where the respondent's understanding of the topic is very limited... then they present the findings as if they are support for a different meaning.
One of the best examples of this is one that SuburbanTurkey has referenced repeatedly. ST references it over and over again as "most women and most people support trans rights - it says so in this survey!".
Where does the British public stand on transgender rights?
The survey he references was originally run by Pink News - which has a very clear bias. That's the very first question in the survey in the linked article. The question was "A person should be able to self-identify as a gender different to the one they were born in". To most people, this is a matter of gender presentation and how one chooses to behave. And yes - the majority of people are quite supportive of that perspective. All of us in this thread are supportive of that idea, where "gender" is the social construct that covers expression, mode of dress, behavior, presentation, etc.
Pink News, however, spun that response as being majority support for legal self-identification. Which is an entirely different topic. We've seen this conflation in this thread over and over again - the difference between a person being allowed to call themselves whatever they want, dress and act however they want... and gaining legal recognition that grants sex-specific rights and protections on the basis of their declaration alone. Those aren't the same things at all. But they get conflated frequently.
The survey in the linked article dug deeper. It went into policy positions, as well as some of the public's pre-existing assumptions about transgender people that happen to be incorrect.
As you can see, the public (and women) are generally very accepting of people presenting however they want - most people support dismantling gender roles and expectations, and this aligns with that objective. But as it moves into policy, that support drops off drastically.
The most telling element of that survey is the contrast between the "Access" section, and the bottom section. These contain the same questions... but in the "Access" section, the respondents are responding on their relatively vague notion of what "transgender" means in the real world. In the bottom section, it has been specified that the transgender persons in question have NOT had gender reassignment surgery. Note how dramatically the responses change from above.
One of the most important conclusions from this study is something that several of us have previously mentioned:
the game has changed.
Prior to the last decade, there have been transsexual women in women's spaces, and women have not objected. Much of the time, it's obvious that they are male, but we engage in the polite fiction that they are women, because we believed that they had been diagnosed with a very traumatic mental health disorder, and that transitioning to live as the opposite sex was the only remaining treatment available for them, that they were suffering under extreme dysphoria...
and that they had all had gender reassignment surgery. Because of those assumptions, we were willing to accept them and help protect them.
In the last decade - and especially the last five years - we've become aware of a bait and switch endeavor. We've become aware than a very, very large portion of the transgender people that we had empathy for have NOT had GRS, they are physically male with functional male genitalia. Furthermore, we're being told - quite forcible - that we are OBLIGATED to accept into our spaces and refuges ANY male person who declares themselves to be a woman... without any diagnosis, no medical treatment, and without even having dysphoria of any kind at all. Furthermore, we're being told that WE HAVE NO CHOICE and that if we don't comply, we're bigots and transphobes.
Why do I bring up this somewhat long sidebar? Because the institutional and ideological capture has created an environment where women are being silenced for questioning the transgender narrative. Women are banned from social media platforms for accurately saying that sex is binary and that males cannot become female. Women and women's groups are being de-platformed for challenging the propagandistic slogan that "Transwomen are Women". Women are being told - quite literally - that they are not allowed to bring forth discussions and policies in politics that address women's rights. Women are being told that wanting to specify the biological sex of their medical practitioner for intimate services (including rape exams) is transphobic and "literal violence" against transgender people.
The only groups who are willing to do research into the actual effect on women, and the actual real views of women and the public... are groups devoted to women's rights who are willing to stand up against the harassment and vilification that targets them: Fair Play for Women, Women are Human, Women's Place UK, 4W, etc.
But because those are women's organizations... they also get dismissed out of had by SuburbanTurkey, Archie Gemmil Goal, London John... and now you.
This is confirmation bias of the most obvious and blatant type. The only information that you will consider are those that confirm your pre-existing belief. Information coming from sources that challenge that belief are deemed to be unreliable on the surface, and are dismissed and given no consideration at all.
Frankly, that's utter ********.
