"Two British men become the first to give birth"

Vestal IIRC the comments were saying "These are not children! WTF?" so I think it had that effect. I've just had a quick google for the article and dredged up eleventy million anti-asylum seeker/"children" lying about age articles. So either they randomly published an article that was the complete opposite of everything they stand for, written in a completely different way, or they purposely intended to create a WTF moment. It was the way they kept saying "child" and "children" imo unnecessarily - the article conjured up an image of small children guided to safety, but seeing (apparently) bearded young men jarred with the mental image the words created. It's a sort of fake-supportive "freak show" type thing with trans I think.

Plus, the trans thing undermines the political left so they are likely to go along with it.

Nah, don't worry. It's like when they reported on asylum seeker children being helped and kept using the word "children" alongside photos of especially old looking teens. We're supposed to join the dots and be outraged... (surely?!)

Is the Daily Mail known for such subtlety?

If the Daily Mail is anything like German "newspaper" Bild, then I don't think they would expect such advanced thinking from their readers.

They'd risk their readers to write angry letters after taking everything seriously.

If DM aren't unambiguously frothing about it, then the world's really gone trans-mad.

Nah, don't worry. It's like when they reported on asylum seeker children being helped and kept using the word "children" alongside photos of especially old looking teens. We're supposed to join the dots and be outraged... (surely?!)

It's seeing DM reporting these stories apparent straight faced that makes me completely certain we're now in a weird dystopian mirror world. If DM aren't unambiguously frothing about it, then the world's really gone trans-mad.

I wouldn't have thought the Mail did tongue in cheek! I was impressed that they managed to work 'welfare handouts' into the subject. If anything it came across as 'check out this freak, look at the bearded lady'. However I freely admit I always assume the worst of the mail.

Giving birth is also the one thing that even the most openly sexist dinosaurs acknowledge women are exclusively capable of. We only need male fluids to reproduce, males need the woman in entirety. But claiming men can also give birth nicely wipes that out. We can't have women physically capable of something men can't do, so let's pretend men can.

I agree with Arnold .S being the first

Oh, yes, Schwarzenegger. I remember. It was all over the news, wasn't it?
It was a fictional movie, but considering that those men's maleness is also fictional, where's the difference?

Given the lack of logic over this, I'm going to argue that Arnold Schwartznegger was the first ever pregnant man

Women might start to think men are actually capable of cleaning and cooking!

only might - its not definite though.

There was this thread on AIBU where someone asked how gay men possibly manage to have clean houses and be well dressed and all ... because we all now that "men can't do that".

I think that's one of the reasons openly gay men are a threat. (It is fine as long as they marry a woman and make her feel miserable and unattractive and cheat on her with male prostitutes.)

Women might start to think men are actually capable of cleaning and cooking!

Lesbians could cause other women to get uppity.

I'm smiling but it's true.

Women pairing up to form families, have children and earn a living has been THE nightmare for some for decades. And now it's happening. I can see Lesbians being thought a threat by some.

Lesbians are thought a threat by all antifeminists. Lesbians themselves might think that they just want to live their lives in peace, marry someone they love, have children, like any heterosexual woman.

But such a simple and seemingly harmless desire is a dangerous threat to patriarchy.

Because lesbians won't sit there with all other wives, and nod their heads and say "Oh, you know how it is, I shoulder all the responsibility for our social life and children, and gave up my career and have no financial safety, that's just how things are when you are married."

Lesbians could cause other women to get uppity. And that's why they are a threat, even if they just live their happy little lives and never to any feminist activism.

everything not as much of a threat but maybe a secondary one because the stereotype of the manly lesbian or effeminate gay male are more commonly known rejections of gender roles in the mainstream media.

olennas I don't think that they are either, I was saying it tongue in cheek.

Are feminists mostly lesbian? I suspect most lesbians are feminists, but I don't think it works the other way around as well

Nah, it is just a stereotype. Considering how few lesbians there are (something below 10% of the population, or of women?) it would be rather depressing if you couldn't be a feminist without being a lesbian.

Though I have to admit that most radfem bloggers I know are lesbian. Possibly because they are not so invested in believing that patriarchy is a woeful misunderstanding that just fell from the sky some day and can be fixed by just telling men that it's not nice.

Or because lesbians were the first group to be targeted for annihilation by the trans and thus turned from libfem to radfem.

Can't have it both ways

Thank full for this thread glad it's not just me

Although, I suspect it's all more instinctive and subconscious than an actual "plot".

Feminism I can understand being a target, but is LGB much of a threat to the status quo?

Women pairing up to form families, have children and earn a living has been THE nightmare for some for decades. And now it's happening. I can see Lesbians being thought a threat by some.

Lurked In my more paranoid moments I think the trans movement is a deliberate ploy to bring down feminism and Lgb as a secondary effect with one stone.

Feminism I can understand being a target, but is LGB much of a threat to the status quo? (I realise it appeared to be at one stage in history, but it doesn't seem to have changed much in wider society). Or do you think it's all part and parcel of questioning gender norms?

In my most paranoid moments I think it's part of the new age of "alternative facts", especially with the internet meaning a lot of people can know a lot of bollocks and history can be erased/faked more convincingly (?). Sort of a test to see how much doublethink we will accept.

Or perhaps someone somewhere has placed a bet and it's got out of hand...

I agree re the treatment of lesbians. They aren't as a group of benefit to the trans lobby so they want them gone too.

And probably should have clarified I was thinking of feminism in western countries since the suffragettes, rather than it's full history or world wide.

I'm not always fully convinced it's a deliberate ploy either, but a handy one to seize upon at the least!

Although possibly they miscalculated the feminist/ lesbian part of the equation. Society tells us feminists are mainly lesbian, so I can also imagine it being the case that simply by infiltrating the lgbt community they thought they could get the majority of feminists, i.e lesbians, on side.

If that was the intention, they shouldn't have told lesbians to suck dick. While there's lesbians who obey them, I think most lesbians consider this a reason to resist the transagenda.

I don't think it is a deliberate ploy as a whole. Parts of it probably are, (There's certainly some men who used to identify as MRAs involved because they know they can infiltrate feminism that way) but I think most female trans allies - and most trans allies I have met were female - are just acting on subconscious, internalized misogyny.

The males who invade female spaces by identifying their way in just do what males are socialized to do and intuitively want to do: Walking all over women's boundaries.

But so far nobody has managed to halt feminism or lgb rights, or send them backwards.

I don't think so. What about Afghanistan? Women used to be much less oppressed there than it is the case now.

And I am not an expert on the matter, but some experts claim that during some times of the Middle Ages, women actually had more legal rights than in the early modern times.
(The witch hunts might have been a backlash, I think. There's also some parallels to the terf hunts ...)

The fact that there's a backlash is nothing new. Just how it is done.

I have always warned people about assuming that once progress has been made, it cannot be taken away again. It can, and it is. We probably know much less about it than we could, because history is censored by the winners.