Is this a woman lead movement?

Now, I'm not saying I think that's likely, because she's pretty much a walking sunk cost fallacy example, and I'm not even saying we need to lionize women who walk back from the TWAW extremism.

But I do think that some women stay there because they're terrified of the social oppobrium if they commit the heresy of saying sex matters, and I think that if feminism is for all women - and it is - it's for the women who have dug themselves into the mire of misogyny and can't see a way out.

@FloralBunting

I apologise, obviously no offence intended. As far as I am concerned we are both women. It's just relatively common parlance and within the context of trans allies, was included for clarity and ease of reading.

Miskirsky, you could start by not calling us 'cis' as though we are a subset of our own sex, ta. (It's also against guidelines and could get you deleted)

So full disclosure - I am a middle-aged trans woman and a parent, I joined this site today scouting around for unrelated advice, but this thread made me make an account to delve into the debate. I would consider myself as having been a feminist all my life, but I'm sorry to see this narrative displayed and I'm hoping that my perspective will offer an alternative view that otherwise might not be considered.

I'm genuinely interested in why there is a sense that trans people are subjugating cis women? From my perspective we are talking about a relatively tiny portion of the population who have suffered terrible institutional and social discrimination, and who dont really have any voice or representation in the mainstream media. Society's recent push for trans equality seeks to address those issues, which clearly has far wider public support given the proportion of the population directly impacted. Cis women are a huge part of that acceptance, and I'm grateful every day for my sisters that seek to lift me up with them. I dont see how my existence, or my desire to have equal rights and respect, could be spun as an attempted subjugation of anyone.

x

Sadly due to various factors loads of women and girls do support
what men want.

Women suffer more as a result of gender ideology, but I don’t see that it's in the interests of men as a class. It’s not in the interests of most men to have an explosion in transgender medicine or the destruction of women’s sports for example. Things like any man being able to walk into women’s facilities go against typical male views about women, whether you consider those views driven by protectiveness or possessiveness. Lots of men will be disturbed by the idea of females in their own changing areas through embarrassment, or because it makes them vulnerable to accusations of assault.

I see this as more about money. This ideology is about extreme autonomy for the individual and the commodification of the body which can then be exploited not only through medicine, but also “sex work”, surrogacy etc.

The beneficiaries of this will often be companies, e.g. pharmaceuticals and tech firms. The biggest losers will be those who end up being exploited through their supposed “free choices”: women at the bottom of the heap who end up as the “gestational carriers” or trafficked “sex workers”, the detransitioners. And there's collateral damage for example to women in prisons.

I think I can see why the ideology might be appealing superficially to younger women. On the one hand, it seems to allow them to escape their own biology altogether, or else to define themselves by something other than their biology (a more idealistic/spiritual concept of “woman”, even if we know that ends up being a stereotype). On the other, it also gives them permission to exploit their own biological assets/femininity without shame, either indirectly or though turning it into cold hard cash through “sex work”. Of course, that’s probably more attractive if you’re considering making a bit extra through Only Fans, than for someone who has to walk the streets.

I don't think it's that complicated tbh.

Arguably not, no. The complicated thing would be knowing how to counter the dynamic...

They act as enforcers to show they are on the side of men and therefore will gain their approval.

I don't think it's that complicated tbh.

This is not confined to this particular issue at all.

It is male led.

Loads of women are doing what they often do.

I'm a bit, nothing to see here tbh.

'Women seem more vulnerable to the Woke religion. I think because it hijacks the "mama bear" circuits. Is there any psychological intervention or an evolutionary perspective that could be used to at least curtail this?

That led to a lot of interesting stuff from both Heying (evolutionary biologist) and Peterson (psychologist) about why women get caught up in this, and act as enforcers against other women.'

There have always been people in oppressed groups who collaborated with their oppressors, I've read s little about it.

With men and women it's a very unusual dynamic because of heterosexual attraction, wanting a partner, children, living together in a household etc. So it's even more complicated.

Loads of women have always enforced all sorts of patriarchal rules. From FGM to 'honour' killings, to at the very other end of the spectrum. Encouraging girls to wear makeup, feminine clothes, etc etc. And the mainstream media- loads of films TV etc also push the message that women and girls need and want a man, children, marriage, that attractiveness/ being sexually attractive is very important. That boys will be boys and 'trivial' things like Street harrassment / flashing etc are s fact of life so don't make s fuss forget about it etc etc

There was a great discussion the other day on Triggernometry with Heather Heying and Jordan Peterson, and one of the viewer questions was relevant to this thread:

Women seem more vulnerable to the Woke religion. I think because it hijacks the "mama bear" circuits. Is there any psychological intervention or an evolutionary perspective that could be used to at least curtail this?

That led to a lot of interesting stuff from both Heying (evolutionary biologist) and Peterson (psychologist) about why women get caught up in this, and act as enforcers against other women.

Arguably if "toxic masculinity" is a thing, then to some extent this can be "toxic femininity". Both sexes have certain sex-typical behaviour which can be pathological, and social shunning is a female one.

Analysis of neo-religious movements and groups helps here. I can't use the four letter word beginning with C because it gets deleted, or it used to.

But basically the dynamic of any group which seeks to exploit women (or indeed any class, tbh, on a wider scale) will need to have women in positions of authority as enforcers. They will serve to keep the other women in line.
This can be acheived by bestowing material benefits, but it can also be done by bestowing status and approval. When you have women who are primed to enforce compliance, you very effectively undercut many women's ability to organize to fight back, because how can this be anti-woman when women support it, and indeed, some benefit?
This is why FWR has been a powerful platform, and why it is so heavily targeted - because if women can collectively gather and discuss openly their oppression, and the methods with which dissent is being suppressed, the system will be in danger.

The reason the female enforcers are quite so vicious in trying to stamp the dissent out is both because they know they will lose their position, and they also know exactly what awaits those women who do dissent, because they themselves have enacted it on other women.

I have been confused about why so many women are on board with this movement. It makes no sense. Perhaps if you have a child who considers themselves trans? I really don't understand why women are advocating for this. I don't understand why gay men and women are either, its obvious the end result will push actual homosexuals back in the closet.

It was a woman who made a strong and emotional appeal for the trans position in the House of Lords, wasn't it? Women's positions in economic hierarchies are always more precarious than men, and they tend to be rather more conscious of status and its' symbols.

Ooh, now this is an interesting one. It's a male-led movement in origin, as was PIE in the 70s - it is always to men's benefit to push sexual boundaries and delegitimise those of women. But there's definitely a lot of women involved in pushing this.

I see it as partly an intersection with class politics, and partly the natural result of the uncertain economics of our times. The women I know pushing it are, like the men involved, from the established middle classes and well-off backgrounds. I've known a few teachers involved, and curiously enough, some of them at least know damned well that what they are pushing is a lie. Some at least are desperate to maintain their elitism, which is why I think economics are involved too.

Apart from the queer theory adherents, most women who are supportive of trans inclusive policies are under the illusion that transwomen are a delicate, fragile minority that have had genital surgery etc. Trans activists deliberately don't correct this public perception because they know their policies will only gain acceptance if this illusion is maintained.

Yes, Arty Morty's cuckoo analogy holds up very well. Women acting like female cuckoos, looking after this rather odd looking bird in their nest, believing it to be one of their own. And we all know where that ends.

There are various angles and layers to the 'trans movement'. Some parts are certainly spearheaded by women or enabled due to the support from women.

The ideological frameworks in academic feminism have given legitimacy to many of the arguments put forward by queer theory, gender studies etc. I don't think feminism is unique in thinking that sex differences magically only take place below the neck, or that evolutionary impacts on human behaviour can be ignored. It seems like many sociology fields have similar approaches and think much or all of human behaviour is socialised or socially constructed.

Universities and academic institutions churn out a certain uniformity of thought and people who have been trained in this type of mindset then go on to various public sector roles that influence policies and practices.

I think it's easier for people to believe there are no differences between women and men or that any physical differences don't matter if you are in fairly white collar, office based jobs - there's a reason why mainstream feminism seems to always campaign for more women CEOs rather than more women oil rig workers.

I have a vague recollection of a study or research that showed that as more women employees are hired in a company, the acceptance of minority groups within the company also increases i.e. as more women are hired it reduces overall sexism /sexist practices but also leads to better working environments for gays and lesbians for example. I don't know if the research was widely supported but it was used as evidence to encourage more women being hired in the workplace to balance the stereotypical image of male dominated businesses.
Does this have the inadvertent effect of trans policies being more quickly adopted as it is another minority group that is embraced?

Women are, on average, more agreeable than men and likely to accept or put up with situations and policies even if it might not be good for them. Apart from the queer theory adherents, most women who are supportive of trans inclusive policies are under the illusion that transwomen are a delicate, fragile minority that have had genital surgery etc. Trans activists deliberately don't correct this public perception because they know their policies will only gain acceptance if this illusion is maintained.

There are lots of other influential layers to the trans movement, such as medical/surgical establishments relishing playing god or the pharmaceutical industry with a vested interest in promoting certain ideological narratives.

Women in positions of power and influence are not immune to thinking they can achieve fame for supporting 'the next big thing since gay rights'. I think a lot of women in public roles will eventually end up looking very foolish and silly for their stances. The men who prop up the trans lobby generally prefer to let women be the public face and therefore let women take the inevitable fallout from publicly committing to an ideology. I mean, women like Lisa Nandy and Dawn Butler will continue to be remembered and laughed at for their views of rapists being in women's prisons or humans being born without a sex. The men who have supported gender identity ideas will manage to salvage their careers and keep their reputations intact and get a free pass, while the women will be viewed as incapable of being trusted with public policy.

It's a male led movement.

I'm not sure that fewer men are pushing it than women.

If it were women led it wouldn't have got traction lets be honest.

Political parties are on board- most have more men in the leadership roles than women i think.

Women also aren't the majority in the police army etc etc.

Sadly due to various factors loads of women and girls do support what men want. That's our socialised role.

Who is pushing back? Women. Most men are keeping quiet. If it was woman led then men would be telling us to shut up left right and centre.

So many reasons for this being spearheaded by younger women. Intense socialisation to be kind and put other people first, especially if they appear 'vulnerable'. Strong need to be accepted within the group, especially as girls and women tend to police each other quite forcefully, using the threat of reputational damage to keep people in line. Sheer naivety about men, and what motivates them. Ignorance of paraphilias. The misguided belief that they are equal to men in every way - a belief usually knocked out of them by having children.

I think it's bound to be a cause that women adopt as it's seen
as progressive on the Left and more women are from the Left generally.

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox And many on the Left tend to think you can solve any problem by spending money. So, it's OK to have anyone self-id into a woman's prison, because in a sufficiently well-resourced prison system it's still possible to keep everyone safe. (Probably easier to believe that when you aren't likely to go to prison.) There's no problem about toilets because you just tell businesses they have to build self-contained ones. And so on.

I find this interesting as I feel I know more women actively pushing gender ideology than men.

I have an old friend. Reasonable. Always up for debate. Could see there were issues with prisons, sports etc. Her (adult) child transitioned and now all that matters is her child should be able to use the facilities they want. Her social media is all "puberty blockers are wonderful", "GC feminists are right wing bigots", "here's another great tweet from Jolyon" etc. She's just one example.

I don’t think it’s internalised misogyny, more a big serving of “luxury belief” with a side order of “reverse Voltaire”.

By contrast, men I know tend to be sceptical of gender ideology but feel they should "stay in their lane".

It’s one reason I’m now doubtful about feminism even though I’m a big fan of many feminists. I don’t think always telling men they should butt out has been helpful.

Also think @Xoxoxoxoxoxox makes some great points.

I see it linked to the end of collective action and the decline of any pretence of the old socialist allience of collectivism and class action, new groups are forming and recruiting members and power.
I think it's bound to be a cause that women adopt as it's seen as progressive on the Left and more women are from the Left generally.

Some women who were early adopters have had good careers advocating this in education, academia and the arts and politics.
Women who adopted this early could knock out older competitors for jobs and power, by speaking the new language and using the right pronouns, they sounded more modern and progressive.
Not so much now though as the opposition to it gathers pace.

Gender roles play out like this; men say what they want, and women who are eager to please side with men, virtue signal, and police other women.
It never happens in reverse which is why safeguarding and women's rights are hard won and easily lost.

And I agree, as we get older, we care less about pleasing others.
archive.is/ae3nK