Men who affirm TW

They see transwomen as a separate category to men, one which is persecuted by society. They think they can lower the rates of violence and suicide by transwomen by accepting them socially. Women are oppressed but not nearly as oppressed as trans people according to them.

If men are at risk from other men, why would anyone decide that's women's problem to solve?

If trans identifying people need separate accommodation, fine, do that. But what right thinking person would consider it appropriate to hand over women's accommodation to them, without women's consent?

Taking care of one group should never undermine the provision made for a different group or make them less safe.

What you're describing here is just deep rooted, thoughtless misogyny.

This is really all that needs to be said.

Until TRAs can explain why there can't be a word for [the sex class that used to be called women] as well as a word for [the gender class that wants to be called women], one can only conclude that all their fluffy words are juat a smokescreen for old fashioned sexism, misogyny and society's desire to define and control [the people who have been defined by and controlled because of their biological sex since forever].

Women have single sex spaces for their own safety and dignity. On what grounds would we let ANY group of men into them?

I feel like you are not reading anything I have written as I have already explained this point. They see transwomen as a separate category to men, one which is persecuted by society. They think they can lower the rates of violence and suicide by transwomen by accepting them socially. Women are oppressed but not nearly as oppressed as trans people according to them.

If men were prioritising the suicide rates, wouldnt they be dating TW? Not have the 'except for relationships' clause?

Men by and large dont care about trans issues. Only the social justice warriors and activists care.

If men were prioritising the suicide rates, wouldnt they be dating TW? Not have the 'except for relationships' clause?

Why would the suicide rates of these men be more pressing than the suicide rates of any man?

I agree that there is a group of people who think that they should treat one person’s constructed and subjected reality as if it is material because they arrive at that support via philosophical theories such as queer theory and postmodernism. I think they believe it is an intellectual argument in that way.

They also believe that it is like neurodiversity in approach. (Not that it IS neurodiversity, if you know what I mean). That to these people, their belief is material reality therefore the identity is materially real.

Of course, there is not even any logic to support their arguments and it is all emotional reasoning and manipulation.

Exactly. The "arguments" only make sense if you consider the trans person the only actual unique person, with "women" as a sort of dull background of womanly sameness that trans identifying men can identify into.

"Feels like a woman" as if all women feel the same 🙄

"Presents as a woman" as if all women present the same.

As soon as ypu think about it properly it's nowt but sexist bollocks. Which is why they never, never, never think about it properly.

I disagree.

The premise is completely flawed from the start.

Women have single sex spaces for their own safety and dignity. On what grounds would we let ANY group of men into them?

The biggest way to fight the pro-trans argument is to show that medical transition and social acceptance does not lead to lower rates of suicide and violence within the trans community. That is the strongest argument they have for allowing transwomen into women's spaces.

Where is the belief that men who have a trans identity are are higher risk of violence than women coming from?

Stats on Brazilian sex workers?

Self declaration surveys in which hurty words are literal violence?

But again, that's just more lazy thinking. There are some deeply troubled individuals who identify as trans. Lumping them together with cross dressing middle aged men just shows that you aren't prepared to give this issue any thought.

Just to be clear, I think that the initial response (from all of us, not just men) is to show support to those who appear to be struggling.

However, as soon as it became clear that that 'support' was supposed to mean giving the green light to men in women's rape crisis centre, prisons and domestic violence shelters ... anyone with a brain and a conscoe
ce should have backed up that truck immediately.

What would make middle aged men who like to dress in women's clothes shoot right up to the top of the list of most oppressed?

Difference of values. They would argue because the trans community experience more violence, suicide etc than women do then that is evidence that they are more persecuted/more in need of help. That transition and social acceptance will help to lower those numbers.

I'm not the one making this argument, i'm simply explaining how they view the situation.

If women en masse start to threaten suicide unless we are listened to and our wishes made paramount would the 'safety' of the trans community still be the top trump? I suspect it would and we would just be silly hysterical women.

If they don't care about women who are locked in prisons with men who feel female, or women who face male bodied opponents in contact sports or the presence of males in female rape counseling groups all of which endanger women why would they give a toss about female suicides?

Right. Personally I don't think succumbing to emotional manipulation is an expression of good values. I think it's a by product of lazy and cowardly thinking

They think men can become women?

I don't think anyone truly believes this. But they think that in pretending they are they can reduce the harm to the trans community (mostly in terms of high rates of violence and suicide). It is emotional manipulation.

But it's not just a difference in values, it's a completely flawed premise.

What would make middle aged men who like to dress in women's clothes shoot right up to the top of the list of most oppressed?

A mixture of things.

In general we tend to have a bias towards people who are the same sex as us.

I genuinely think that a lot of gay men have been duped by TRAs. There is a huge over-representation of same-sex attracted males with an odd mixture of internalised homophobia and externalised misogyny which I think resonates with a lot of them. There is also the narrative of "finally being who you are" which makes sense for closeted men, but is the complete opposite of what people with gender dysphoria, transvestitism or AGP actually want. I think the TRAs have userped the emmotive message and taken advantage of this vulnerability and has convinced them that the women that say no are the enemies.

I think that most straight men by far are not supportive of "trans rights" but are very wary of saying that publically. They might be at risk at coming across homophobic or sexist and they will also be wary of the aggession from trans people who are on the spectrum/NPD.

I also think there is an element of backlash from the MeToo movement. Being shown that you are the villan in someone elses story would have fucked up a lot of those emmotionally immature men who were reading and wanking off too comics. It also would have scared a few of the normal men who have certainly witnessed shitty behaviour even if they didn't participate.

Another "deny trans existence" post I see.

I would like to know what is meant by the term "deny trans existence", instead of the typical drive-by post, and like to see evidence of where this happens.

I have not seen anyone deny that cross-dressing individuals exist.

In the hierarchy, a man is not oppressed but a transgender man is because he experiences transphobia. Fundamentally, they put transwomen and men in different categories, which most of us on here obviously don't. Again that is the difference in values that lead to different conclusions.

I'm not sure why it has to be explained to people in 2026 that threatening suicide to get your own way is emotional manipulation.

For example if you care most about preserving life then you might side with the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women).

Surely a deep thinker would conclude from this that they need better mental health support, not access to women's changing rooms.

A lot of deep thinķers are pro trans

What does that mean though?

They think men can become women?

They think women should have to give up their single sex spaces to men who want them?

If this is 'deep thinking' you'd have to concede it's either shaky on the science or extraordinarily misogynistic.

The hierarchy of men oppressing women, and women oppressing 'trans women' makes no sense.

Women and men are different sexes, and we need to acknowledge this for a variety of reasons. Including saftey and medically, as well as men being the dominating class. Men have prioritised male needs that have disadvantaged women.

The oppression trans women have is the acknowledgement that these sex difference are real.

So the assumed hierarchy fails. Men are oppressing women because they are male and we are female, yet women are oppressing men because we acknowledge that they are male?

the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women

Probably because thinking they were in the wrong body had been, all along, a deflection from something else deeply upsetting in their lives. So being ‘trans’ had not been the answer they’d been looking for after all.

I don't know if it is necessarily true that they haven't thought about it. A lot of deep thinķers are pro trans. It is possible for two people to have the all the facts but still come to different conclusions (usually due to a difference in values). For example if you care most about preserving life then you might side with the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women).

Just assuming everyone who disagrees with is automatically stupid/misinformed rather than simply having different values is lazy thinķing.