Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

378 replies

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 13:17

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:51

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:44

Since when were trousers purely male apparel. And male people have also worn apparel that would be categorised as dresses for ever.

However, the point remains. Trousers have been worn by female people over recorded history. Maybe what you are ignoring is that it was usually those women and girls who were working and needed the warmth or protection that trousers provided who wore them along with the male people.

You really do seem to be stuck on this issue of femininity though.

There really is no hypocrisy in my post.

Oh yeah, there's literally no difference between women's & men's wear consumerist choices. Keep digging bro.

KnottyAuty · 24/09/2026 09:49

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:37

Thanks for the mansplaining

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:48

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:32

Mate. You really seem obsessed with femininity and the definition of it.

I understand that to you, it is the pretty much the sole entry point for a male person to be able to claim to be female. But ‘femininity’ is a concept that simply is not valid as a categorisation tool.

And no, language cannot simply be repurposed away from its established meaning. Material reality prevails and even if it is a passing fashionable repurposing of language to mean the opposite, the original meaning will still abide and as with many trends, will outlive that attempted forced change.

”The weird thing is by virtue of using 'trans' is distinguishing males from females.”

Adding ‘trans’ doesn’t take away the fact that male people have attempted to repurpose the reference words female people need. It could be considered an act of misogyny that they continue to do so.

Adding ‘trans’ doesn’t remove the reference to female. Trans women are not any type of female person. The attempt renders the words woman and girl meaningless. The fact that a majority of a population sample when asked were confused and thought the meanings were opposite is a very clear indication that the language being used in meaningless.

Mate. You really seem obsessed with femininity and the definition of it.

Maaate, don't shoot the messenger.

I understand that to you, it is the pretty much the sole entry point for a male person to be able to claim to be female. But ‘femininity’ is a concept that simply is not valid as a categorisation tool.

The context is self identification which means its upto the individual to decide who they are not wowser rubber necked onlookers.

And no, language cannot simply be repurposed away from its established meaning. Material reality prevails and even if it is a passing fashionable repurposing of language to mean the opposite, the original meaning will still abide and as with many trends, will outlive that attempted forced change.

Psychological traits are material reality.

Adding ‘trans’ doesn’t take away the fact that male people have attempted to repurpose the reference words female people need. It could be considered an act of misogyny that they continue to do so.

The idea that we can longer distinguish males from females because trans people exist is frankly el bizzarro land. Here's a tip, if you want to maintain a modicum of credibility this kind of off the charts hysterical catastrophising nonsense won't help.

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Since when were trousers purely male apparel. And male people have also worn apparel that would be categorised as dresses for ever.

However, the point remains. Trousers have been worn by female people over recorded history. Maybe what you are ignoring is that it was usually those women and girls who were working and needed the warmth or protection that trousers provided who wore them along with the male people.

You really do seem to be stuck on this issue of femininity though.

There really is no hypocrisy in my post.

TRAspotter · 24/09/2026 09:42

TRAs know how to copy (badly). And that's it.

BlueLegume · 24/09/2026 09:42

I also dislike drag @Northernlightsss. Because that definitely ’mocks’ women. Does that make me a bigot?

Honestly, women are fighting back after this nonsense became part of our everyday world and we are told to ‘be kind’.

How on earth are we expected to trust a male doctor if he presents as a woman and expects us to use she/her pronouns. If they lie about that why would I believe anything else they said. They cannot relate to my menopause symptoms in the same way I as a woman cannot relate to their male pattern balding or prostate issues.

Reality matters.

Rollingpinofdoom · 24/09/2026 09:41

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 08:55

Try 'man facing' with a butch lesbian. I dare you.

Hypocrite.

Huh? Are you on glue? Why would anyone “manface” a butch lesbian whatever the hell that means? A lesbian is by very definition female, and only bigoted, sexist gender ideologues would suggest a woman dressing in male coded clothes was not a women….

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:37

KnottyAuty · 24/09/2026 09:31

Based on childhood memories of watching blackface actors on Tv and in film, i don’t recall any mockery. I have fond memories of the Blavk & White Minstrel show, even if I now understand why it was problematic

OMG.

https://theconversation.com/why-blackface-111404

Why blackface?

The public was shocked by the blackface image on Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page. But if blackface is now taboo, there was a time when it played a big role in American culture.

https://theconversation.com/why-blackface-111404

BirdLandedonmyHead · 24/09/2026 09:36

Would anyone like to tell heavy metal fans that skirts are only for women, and wearing one make you a woman?

FlirtsWithRhinos · 24/09/2026 09:35

We know an argument hits them hard when they take it and try to use it for themselves. That's why I love to see Howse is now trying to make this "argument" work:

Gender critical 'feminists' misguidedly believe that if they can kill the language they can kill the idea but the idea is actually part of the human condition of what we are .…so good luck with that.

Only one side is trying to "kill" the social, legal and cultural existence of half the human race by taking away its language, its history, its right to say for itself what it is and what it is not. Only one side is trying to deny the reality of sex and the consequences it brings by taking our name and claiming it now means some sort of nebulous overlapping social commonalities (and isn't it interesting what apparently falls into that bucket abd what falls outside, and how that does or does not align with the actual reality of being female in this society?)

Female people exist. Being female has significant consequences.

A movement that wants to create in addition to these facts a separate grouping with a separate name for anyone of either sex who feels aligned to the nebulous social commonalities that have historically coalesced around the female body - great, go for it! A wonderful complement to Feminism. One throwing the social constructs out of "woman" where they only limit us, the other giving them somewhere else to sit that is constructive and expansive. I love it!

But a movement that seeks to replace the existence of the female half of humanity socially, legally and culturally with a definition based on whatever anyone happens to project onto our bodies? No. That can never be justified.

So simply flipping our arguments can never make the case Howse wants because the truth is not in the words but in the reality they label.

Shedmistress · 24/09/2026 09:34

I believe the reason it embedded so fast is that the TRAs are significantly more scarey than any police officer is allowed to be to 'under-represented groups' which for some reason seems to mainly be white men in their middle ages who discover a certain brand of highly visualised pornography.

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:33

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:20

How are women who wear trousers and presumably have short hair cuts which is basically everyday wear for many female people in the world in anyway comparable to a male person’s decision to wear female apparel and claim to be female?

The two situations are not comparable at all. Even if a female person describes her style as ‘butch’, it is a style of dressing and it is not her claiming to be a male person. Many female people achieve the exact same look at those labelling it ‘butch’ and they are just wearing one of the classic universal clothing and hair choices of women across the world.

This attempt to leverage ‘butch’ as some kind of comparator has not worked before and it will not magically be a strong comparator now either. No matter how many times a poster plonks it down as a gotcha. It didn’t work last year. It doesn’t work today.

Oh I get it now, pretending traditional female coded clothing isn't the norm but some sort of fringe manufactured stereotypical patriarchal enforcement is what we are going with for a snookie now? Makes sense.

BackToLurk · 24/09/2026 09:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

How is "men in dresses" a mocking phrase - your claim - rather than a description?

It has been explained several times that very few people (and probably even fewer here) have an issue with men wearing dresses. Or anything else. You, and other TRAs, are the ones gendering clothing by implying that dress = woman. As long as everyone is clear that dress does not equal woman, and what we see are either 'women in dresses' or 'men in dresses' (the latter is apparently mocking in your gendered world) then no one has an issue.

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:32

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:14

Sorry to burst your ownership bubble but females don't 'own' language. Social usage does. Again, the grandiosity is off the charts.

The weird thing is by virtue of using 'trans' is distinguishing males from females. But that's not enough because the real problem is & has always been the association of femininity with women particularly one of the sexual kind. And that's why gender critical 'feminists' only reserve their viciously mocking rage for trans women not trans men.

I strongly suspect that at the very bottom of this pot is a deep resentment that's directed at trans women as a proxy for feminine expression. They can't direct it at women in general because that's not gonna fly support wise so the whipping boy it is.

Mate. You really seem obsessed with femininity and the definition of it.

I understand that to you, it is the pretty much the sole entry point for a male person to be able to claim to be female. But ‘femininity’ is a concept that simply is not valid as a categorisation tool.

And no, language cannot simply be repurposed away from its established meaning. Material reality prevails and even if it is a passing fashionable repurposing of language to mean the opposite, the original meaning will still abide and as with many trends, will outlive that attempted forced change.

”The weird thing is by virtue of using 'trans' is distinguishing males from females.”

Adding ‘trans’ doesn’t take away the fact that male people have attempted to repurpose the reference words female people need. It could be considered an act of misogyny that they continue to do so.

Adding ‘trans’ doesn’t remove the reference to female. Trans women are not any type of female person. The attempt renders the words woman and girl meaningless. The fact that a majority of a population sample when asked were confused and thought the meanings were opposite is a very clear indication that the language being used in meaningless.

KnottyAuty · 24/09/2026 09:31

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:21

False equivalence. Race & gender are two very different concepts including the fact that gender is interchangeable & race is not. And if you knew anything about the use black face you would know it was intended to deliberately mock black people which is certainly not the case for trans people.

Based on childhood memories of watching blackface actors on Tv and in film, i don’t recall any mockery. I have fond memories of the Blavk & White Minstrel show, even if I now understand why it was problematic

BlueLegume · 24/09/2026 09:31

A question @Northernlightsss

Do you believe that TWAW and accordingly TMAM? A simple yes or no is enough.

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BlueLegume · 24/09/2026 09:23

Pretending to be something you are not is not a positive thing. It might be done to try and fit in, as we all do at some point.

Being a charlatan - a person who falsely claims to have a special skill, knowledge, or power that they have changed sex - that is trans. That is what in 2026 we are being told to believe. If we do not we are mocking bigots and all the rest of the hyperbolic language @Northernlightsss keeps throwing at us.

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:21

KnottyAuty · 24/09/2026 09:17

If your logic is sound then you are saying that black people who historically objected to “black face” were mocking white people?

err no - they were objecting to the white people assuming a false identity to “do” blackness which was insulting.

join the dots

False equivalence. Race & gender are two very different concepts including the fact that gender is interchangeable & race is not. And if you knew anything about the use black face you would know it was intended to deliberately mock black people which is certainly not the case for trans people.

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:20

How are women who wear trousers and presumably have short hair cuts which is basically everyday wear for many female people in the world in anyway comparable to a male person’s decision to wear female apparel and claim to be female?

The two situations are not comparable at all. Even if a female person describes her style as ‘butch’, it is a style of dressing and it is not her claiming to be a male person. Many female people achieve the exact same look at those labelling it ‘butch’ and they are just wearing one of the classic universal clothing and hair choices of women across the world.

This attempt to leverage ‘butch’ as some kind of comparator has not worked before and it will not magically be a strong comparator now either. No matter how many times a poster plonks it down as a gotcha. It didn’t work last year. It doesn’t work today.

BackToLurk · 24/09/2026 09:18

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 08:55

Try 'man facing' with a butch lesbian. I dare you.

Hypocrite.

Is she wearing a stick on beard?

KnottyAuty · 24/09/2026 09:17

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 08:18

No, its that they claim to be us.

No it isn't. Why do gender critical 'feminists' routinely mock trans women as 'man face' 'men in dresses' 'cross dressers' & 'AGP' then if the problem is only the use of 'women' (WITH the prefix of trans to distinguish themselves mind you)? If you have no problem with the non conforming gendered expression of males why mock them for it? Because you do.

If your logic is sound then you are saying that black people who historically objected to “black face” were mocking white people?

err no - they were objecting to the white people assuming a false identity to “do” blackness which was insulting.

join the dots

Northernlightsss · 24/09/2026 09:14

Helleofabore · 24/09/2026 09:00

Any term that uses female language for a male person is still someone using female language to reference a male person.

Saying that a prefix somehow makes it ok to reference a male using female language doesn’t make it acceptable. No male person is a type of female person.

A ‘transwoman’ is only ever a type of male person.

Sorry to burst your ownership bubble but females don't 'own' language. Social usage does. Again, the grandiosity is off the charts.

The weird thing is by virtue of using 'trans' is distinguishing males from females. But that's not enough because the real problem is & has always been the association of femininity with women particularly one of the sexual kind. And that's why gender critical 'feminists' only reserve their viciously mocking rage for trans women not trans men.

I strongly suspect that at the very bottom of this pot is a deep resentment that's directed at trans women as a proxy for feminine expression. They can't direct it at women in general because that's not gonna fly support wise so the whipping boy it is.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 24/09/2026 09:12

Northernlightsss · 23/09/2026 23:37

Wow, imagine believing 'if the Government agrees with my views they must be right'.

You can't make this delusional thinking up.

As ever, a complete inability / unwillingness to address how children are exploited by adults selling their belief in gender identity.

Zero insight or care about the systematic gaslighting of the young by adults. Not even a basic understanding of how children and young people can be groomed and influenced by those seeking to exploit and harm them.

All wrapped up in burble about "individual autonomy". Very revealing.

BlueLegume · 24/09/2026 09:09

Mia Hughes has been discussing the over valued belief of trans for some time. Hope this link works

https://music.youtube.com/podcast/TvM7-VP0CkY

Before you continue

https://music.youtube.com/podcast/TvM7-VP0CkY