Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

410 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
IwantToRetire · 22/09/2026 18:57

Helleofabore · 22/09/2026 18:48

This letter from Angela Douglas back in 1977 is something to remember.
(The tweet linking it also has an article from Germaine Greer which is also a very good reminder.)

https://x.com/hennieinglis/status/2031067162975117536?s=46

Dear Sister,

In regards to the Sandy Stone controversy: genetic women- Gennys-have never had to suffer the discrimination, self-hatred or fear that a transsexual must endure and survive in their lives. Genetic women are not ridiculed as severely, killed, tortured and arrested simply because they are
transsexual, as are transsexuals.

Genetic women have many rights, in comparison to transsexuals, who have
none.

Genetic women cannot possess the very special courage, brilliance, sensitivity and compassion-and overview-that derives from the transsexual experience. Free from the chains of menstruation and child- bearing. transsexual women are obviously far superior to Gennys in
many ways.

As some of you have discovered. because of the severity of the genocidal attitudes we must deal with all of our lives, many transsexuals have learned how to fight without giving any quarter or showing any mercy.

Genetic women are becoming quite obsolete, which is obvious, and the
future belongs to transsexual women. We know this, and perhaps some of you

suspect it. All you have left is your “ability" to bear children, and in a world which will groan to feed 6 billion by the year 2000, that's a negative asset.

Transsexual and veryproud,
Angela Douglas
Berkeley
Reprinted from Sister August-September, 1977

... because of the severity of the genocidal attitudes we must deal with all of our lives, many transsexuals have learned how to fight without giving any quarter or showing any mercy.

Genetic women are becoming quite obsolete, which is obvious, and the future belongs to transsexual women. We know this, and perhaps some of you suspect it. All you have left is your “ability" to bear children, and in a world which will groan to feed 6 billion by the year 2000, that's a negative asset.

Well that's an eye opener, and all too often we are saying TRAs and getting more extreme.

But this quotes shows it was always there!

IwantToRetire · 22/09/2026 18:54

quixote9 · 22/09/2026 18:52

This. Women's rights were getting awfully close to mainstreaming the understanding that women are human beings. Any day men might cease to be the important ones by being born that way.

Then the whole "men can be women" thing mushroomed out of nowhere. The only way to define the two groups then was using stereotypes. Poof, just like that, stereotypes were back. The patriarchy was safe if you just believed hard enough.

Not that anybody except pesky gender criticals articulated that. That would destroy the spell.

But people could feel in their bones that it meant the system was safe. No need to rethink everything. Men could go on being bestest and importantest.

(I get the feeling they're fighting in the last ditch. It's such obvious BS. But who knows. I never imagined that redefining women out of existence could be even a week long solution to feminism, but here we are, twenty years later.)

In fact I was saying exactly the opposite.

Thanks to trans authoritarianism dating back getting on for 80 years is still in the ascendancy.

And as such is pushing feminism off the political agenda.

Angry
quixote9 · 22/09/2026 18:52

IwantToRetire · 22/09/2026 17:59

There have been many threads about this, and in and ideal world FWR would have some indexing system that would allow you and others to read through them.

Yes it goes back years.

eg when queer politics got women's studies kicked of University's syllabuses and had them replaced with Gender Studies (and the poison from this back in the 1970/80s then fed into news papers and other media as the graduates of this queering got top jobs)

The The Yogyakarta Principles 2006

The GRA 2004

The EA that tinkered with Sex as a protected characteristic by allowing "legal women" to impinge on the rights of biological women.

And many more that I am sure others can fill you in on.

But basically what we are seeing now is the effective campaigning to undermine the sex is a biological reality that we all lived by has grown into this international campaign against women's sex based rights.

And in whose interest it was that sex was said not to be fixed.

Maybe something to do with the fact the women as a sex class are oppressed by men as a sex class. ie why Women's Liberation happened.

If men can say sex is not "real" then how can they be accused of discriminating against the sex class of women.

This. Women's rights were getting awfully close to mainstreaming the understanding that women are human beings. Any day men might cease to be the important ones by being born that way.

Then the whole "men can be women" thing mushroomed out of nowhere. The only way to define the two groups then was using stereotypes. Poof, just like that, stereotypes were back. The patriarchy was safe if you just believed hard enough.

Not that anybody except pesky gender criticals articulated that. That would destroy the spell.

But people could feel in their bones that it meant the system was safe. No need to rethink everything. Men could go on being bestest and importantest.

(I get the feeling they're fighting in the last ditch. It's such obvious BS. But who knows. I never imagined that redefining women out of existence could be even a week long solution to feminism, but here we are, twenty years later.)

Helleofabore · 22/09/2026 18:48

This letter from Angela Douglas back in 1977 is something to remember.
(The tweet linking it also has an article from Germaine Greer which is also a very good reminder.)

https://x.com/hennieinglis/status/2031067162975117536?s=46

Dear Sister,

In regards to the Sandy Stone controversy: genetic women- Gennys-have never had to suffer the discrimination, self-hatred or fear that a transsexual must endure and survive in their lives. Genetic women are not ridiculed as severely, killed, tortured and arrested simply because they are
transsexual, as are transsexuals.

Genetic women have many rights, in comparison to transsexuals, who have
none.

Genetic women cannot possess the very special courage, brilliance, sensitivity and compassion-and overview-that derives from the transsexual experience. Free from the chains of menstruation and child- bearing. transsexual women are obviously far superior to Gennys in
many ways.

As some of you have discovered. because of the severity of the genocidal attitudes we must deal with all of our lives, many transsexuals have learned how to fight without giving any quarter or showing any mercy.

Genetic women are becoming quite obsolete, which is obvious, and the
future belongs to transsexual women. We know this, and perhaps some of you

suspect it. All you have left is your “ability" to bear children, and in a world which will groan to feed 6 billion by the year 2000, that's a negative asset.

Transsexual and veryproud,
Angela Douglas
Berkeley
Reprinted from Sister August-September, 1977

Helleofabore · 22/09/2026 18:46

“Open Door: Transex Liberation Group, BBC Two, Monday 4 June 1973
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4

Clipped version:

https://x.com/jonnywsbell/status/2030798915423887413?s=46

The tweet says

“1973: Transsexuals smugly declare: "we chose to be women, transsexualism is the tip of the iceberg, sex is fluid, and birth certs must change"..
2026: They played the long game and won, biology is erased, dissent is crushed and women's rights are gutted...mission accomplished...”

This is a good reminder of how far back the move to change identification goes. It is not a recent move. It was a very long term strategy

Here is a link to ‘Genderwang’s’ Substack with the transcript.

https://genderwang.substack.com/p/how-long-has-trans-prompting-of-mps

How Long Has "Trans prompting" of MPs Been Going On?

Open Door: Transex Liberation Group, BBC Two, Monday 4 June 1973

https://genderwang.substack.com/p/how-long-has-trans-prompting-of-mps

BirdLandedonmyHead · 22/09/2026 18:06

In some peoples heads there are two types of people

  1. Men. The important ones.
  2. Not- men. Thats women. Younger children. Those with DSDs that are brought up as women. Transwomen. Transmen. Non binary.

The ones in group 1 dont want to be mistaken for being in group 2. So they stamp down and tteat them with contempt.

PeachyDaisy · 22/09/2026 18:03

I think it has become the new civil rights movement now that gay marriage has been achieved. Do-gooders and social justice warriors always need some "righteous" cause to be fighting for.

IwantToRetire · 22/09/2026 17:59

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 16:56

Agree on all that, but I'm thinking the policy direction goes back decades.
Stonewall off the back of the GRA and gay marriage weaponised the messaging on "social trans" and "the trans child".

There have been many threads about this, and in and ideal world FWR would have some indexing system that would allow you and others to read through them.

Yes it goes back years.

eg when queer politics got women's studies kicked of University's syllabuses and had them replaced with Gender Studies (and the poison from this back in the 1970/80s then fed into news papers and other media as the graduates of this queering got top jobs)

The The Yogyakarta Principles 2006

The GRA 2004

The EA that tinkered with Sex as a protected characteristic by allowing "legal women" to impinge on the rights of biological women.

And many more that I am sure others can fill you in on.

But basically what we are seeing now is the effective campaigning to undermine the sex is a biological reality that we all lived by has grown into this international campaign against women's sex based rights.

And in whose interest it was that sex was said not to be fixed.

Maybe something to do with the fact the women as a sex class are oppressed by men as a sex class. ie why Women's Liberation happened.

If men can say sex is not "real" then how can they be accused of discriminating against the sex class of women.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 16:56

StandingDeskDisco · 22/09/2026 16:52

imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education,

Interesting, if I understand you correctly, that sport and medicine (specifically public healthcare) were the first areas to embed trans ideology. I did not know this.

Don't forget the wider context and other major factors -

  1. After gay rights were won and done and dusted, Stonewall had to find a new purpose. They could have gone for fighting for gay rights abroad in those countries where it is illegal, but instead went for Trans right instead. They had a huge amount of influence and money, and wanted to keep the gravy train going
  2. More importantly, in the nineties the Left pivoted away from fighting class issues and economic equality, and went instead for social equality, making everything about 'identity'. The mantra to Be Kind comes from this prioritisation of individual feelings, and loss of a vision of collective class struggle.

Agree on all that, but I'm thinking the policy direction goes back decades.
Stonewall off the back of the GRA and gay marriage weaponised the messaging on "social trans" and "the trans child".

OP posts:
StandingDeskDisco · 22/09/2026 16:52

imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education,

Interesting, if I understand you correctly, that sport and medicine (specifically public healthcare) were the first areas to embed trans ideology. I did not know this.

Don't forget the wider context and other major factors -

  1. After gay rights were won and done and dusted, Stonewall had to find a new purpose. They could have gone for fighting for gay rights abroad in those countries where it is illegal, but instead went for Trans right instead. They had a huge amount of influence and money, and wanted to keep the gravy train going
  2. More importantly, in the nineties the Left pivoted away from fighting class issues and economic equality, and went instead for social equality, making everything about 'identity'. The mantra to Be Kind comes from this prioritisation of individual feelings, and loss of a vision of collective class struggle.