what is the difference between trans ideology and male supremacy?

The real difference?

One is very shy about acknowledging that it is entirely and wholly based on sex based thinking. The other isn't.

Both are predicated on the view that a male person's wishes and feelings and choices are intrinsically more important than a female person's access, equality and safety. The double standards of what male people are seen as entitled to and what female people are required to just shut up and suck up (reframe your trauma, unlearn your sexuality, NAMALT, yada yada) is also classic.

See also: Lundy Bancroft. His books are also quite eyeopening when he describes the general identifiable characteristics of toxic and abusive relationships. The double standards of entitlement being one of the hallmarks.

The similarities are not so much definitional (though rigid gender norms and roles are central in both) but about likely outcomes if the ideology they refer to came to rule the world.

I think in both the male supremacy case and the trans ideology case the world would be structured as sex-based hierarchies with biological women who have not transitioned as the bottom of the hierarchy.

The case for male supremacy is obvious and of course still practised (Afghanistan).

he case for trans ideology needs a little more thought, but roughly the same outcomes would come about as it replaces biological sex with femininity and masculinity as the determinants of someone's gender class.

Femininity means being submissive, passive, emotional and nurturing, masculinity means being dominant, active, competitive and risk-taking. The latter group would therefore be on top, the former at the bottom of the pyramid. The people in each gender class might not be exactly the same as in the sex-based categorisation, but the matches would be quite good as most people would NOT stop seeing biological women as the feminine class and biological men as the masculine class.

—trans ideology overlooks the intersection of women's rights with those claimed for the ideology

—trans ideology depends upon the conflation of sex and gender to support key aspects of it

I should think there are various parlour games that would allow everyone to rewrite these without ever making progress.

trans people don't believe that feminism oppresses them, only a few forms such as trans exclusionary feminism.

They believe that any feminism which rightly doesn't centre trans issues but does correctly centre the rights and needs of women and girls oppresses them.

If it doesn't centre women and girls, it ain't feminism.

Stonewall played a blinder in tacking TQ onto the end of LGB. It was done to mislead people into believing trans ideology is just another harmless and justifiable kind of sexual orientation. And it has worked. Gender identity is now accepted, from governments down, as a human rights movement.

In reality, as its actions reveal, it is a facet of the male supremacist 'men's rights' movement. The sheer violence of its abusive rhetoric and its attacks on women's boundaries, safety and livelihoods are proof of that. No wonder most people are afraid to challenge it.

But as long as it is linked with the friendly rainbow flag, those who don't want to join the dots can pretend to believe it is harmless.

I honestly don't care any more. I don't give a shiny shit about transwomen.

I used to be an ally, as a bisexual woman and member of the LGBT community. But this recent land-grab has ruined it for me. I'm done. And I'm not the only one.

So that's a nice own-goal, Stonewall. Well played.

The gender movement has revived and enforced outdated gender roles, or sex stereotypes, that feminists thought had been well and truly buried before the 1980s. Trans ideology is the enforcement of gender roles, to the extent that if a man doesn't conform to the behaviour expected by men, he must obviously be a woman. And vice versa.

As for trans people don't believe that feminism oppresses them, only a few forms such as trans exclusionary feminism, this literally doesn't make sense. Feminism centres women. Anything you call feminism that doesn't centre women, can't be feminism. An ideology that allows men to declare themselves women and therefore take women's places is by definition not feminist.

Feminism, by definition, excludes males from women's single-sex spaces and roles. (It doesn't necessarily exclude transmen, since they are female. But females are rarely considered by gender ideologists.) Therefore, as it excludes transwomen, feminism has to be what you'd call 'trans exclusionary', otherwise it wouldn't be feminism.

Why should I care? I'm done with thinking about 'trans this' and 'trans that'. I'm done with thinking anything of men and their opinions. We are living in 1984 and the only way to correct this is to reject anything men do that offends us and stick rigidly to the truth. A bit like training a pet. Behave or be ignored.

Honestly after reading all that I see no difference, am I mad not to see a difference? or are we really in 1984?

There's almost zero difference, but the TRAs have used a cuckoo strategy by colonising the language and infrastructure of feminism and been much more successful that way than the straight up MRAs have.

Notably while TRAs will posture like feminists, as soon as someone brings up the facts of male violence to them, or anything else inconvenient to their narrative, they'll fall straight back on MRA talking points.

I also think they're posturing as feminists less and less frequently compared to a few years ago. They're getting cocky and the mask is slipping.

• trans ideology doesn't promote strict adherence to gender roles.

• trans people don't believe that feminism oppresses them, only a few forms such as trans exclusionary feminism.

• trans people don't believe that sex = gender.

-refer to point 2