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

Yeah. Religious or political beliefs also make poor sex categorisation tools for human sex categories.

Luckily there is a very accurate way to categorise sex categories in humans and it is not psychological or behaviorial traits. Religious and political segregation outcomes are not really relevant or comparable to sex categorisation of humans. Particularly since religious and political belief can change whereas sex categories in humans cannot.

You could say exactly the same about any other beliefs as in religious or political ones that society has deemed worthy of rights.

And again.

Inclinations and behavioural traits are not valid sex category tools in anyway. There is a overlap that makes both of those not meaningful to use to define sex categories in humans.

You were the one so insistent in bringing in butch women as some
kind of gotcha.

Men are the sex class that continually tries to reduce women to sex objects and exploit them on that basis.

Members of that sex class performing overtly sexualised representations of femaleness is therefore arguably in poor taste, at the very least.

Claiming that their male sexualised representation of femaleness is actually real womanhood is a whole other level of obnoxious.

Good grief.

Since men can't become women, it's hugely insulting to women for such deluded individuals to take on the appearance of women while saying they are, have become, women.

You speak for all woman do you? I'm a natal female & I'm not insulted as many aren't. Why be insulted by facts? And those facts are certain traits, behaviours and aesthetics ARE more associated with women. 'Woman' like any other socially constructed category requires associations of which include both common reproductive & behavioural traits.

I don't see the majority of women, incl GC ones, have any issue with gender non conformiity.

Then you would be wilfully blind if you had spent any time on this forum given the routine mocking of feminine expression by natal males.

impersonating.

Don't look now but you are doing 'the thing' as in mocking natal males expression of their feminine inclinations you just said doesn't happen.

WELL DONE!

'enraged' by men with gender identities..... er, no. And certainly not about what they're wearing. Yes, it's frequently sexist, reductive and a visual representation of what turns out to be unpleasant and sexist attitudes towards women being enacted, but whatever.

It's the total lack of capacity to permit women single sex spaces or equality that is the issue. Not the costume.

thats exactly how it works. Explains most political party conferences, for one thing.

'Snookie' is simply a security blanket. And in the case of gender critical women that's categorising femininity as a sexual stereotype.

‘female coded’ apparel ? Female people have worn trousers throughout the ages. an inconvenient fact to be sure for your argument. However, it is true. Just as male people have worn what some people call ‘dresses’.

Last time I shopped for leggings at my favourite Lululemon store I was 'appalled' to notice there were none in the mens section of the store. See where this is going? Stop digging.

The key difference is, neither of the groups of people wearing that apparel claimed to be the opposite sex in general. A rare few female people did claim to be male to escape negative sexist discrimination to enable them to achieve careers they were blocked from entering. Otherwise, the selection of apparel did not change the sex category of the personal choosing that clothing.

As already stated that doesn't explain the necessity to mock the expression of femininity in natal males.

Just like behavioural traits, clothing choices are a very poor categorisation tool for defining sex categories.

The point you are missing is its the common inclinations not the clothes that matter. No one is saying female coded clothing makes a woman rather is its the inclinations towards them provide an association. Men in drag aren't trans women for this reason.

I think this thread shows perfectly how it got embedded.

Normal people are just flooded with so much utter nonsense they just walk away and leave the nonsense to itself. There's only so many times you can explain the bleeding obvious.

Unfortunately by that point the nonsense people end up being the ones left in the meeting rooms, and who then voted for their own nonsense to be made into policy.

It is vastly off topic for this thread, but it has drifted too far to be recovered now (sorry ), but would you care to expand upon what you are saying here?

In fact its right on topic to discuss how gendered behaviours influence trans identification thus 'embedding the trans movement'.

Is it something about how women feel that only women should be allowed to have a feminine presentation? Or that women are angry at feminine men for some reason?

Not women in general but specifically gender critical women seem to resent any feminine presentation in trans women.

The overt reason that women are so enraged by transwomen, and are not bothered by transmen, is that males are inherently dangerous to women (some few males, but we can't tell which ones until it is too late), so transwomen invading female-only spaces is a genuine cause of fear (not necessarily fear of any particular transwoman in front of us in the moment, but fear of the dismantling of safeguarding for women across the board).

Again, if its the potential danger or use of female coded language (as perviously asserted) that trans women present then why the necessity to frame such grievances in mocking demeaning language such as 'woman face' 'men in dresses' 'cross dressers' & 'AGP' or as any other sexual deviancy? Why, the deliberate mocking of attempts at feminine expression of natal males?

However it is worth discussing whether there are, as you propose, other deeper psychological factors at work behind this rage.
One snippet of evidence is the way that society widely accepts the adoption of what used to be coded 'masculine' clothes by women, whereas there is still a common taboo against men ordinarily wearing 'feminine' coded clothes. Some taboos for women still remain: we can wear tailored trouser suits to the office, but don't ordinarily wear ties. The taboos for men are wider and deeper.

Nail on head. And the reason? INTERNALISED MISOGYNY. The demeaning of feminine expression AKA femmephobia has a long history rooted in the systemic devaluation of traits, behaviours and aesthetics associated with women and femininity. Historically, patriarchal structures have positioned masculinity as the universal human standard leaving femininity to be viewed as inferior, superficial, or manipulative.

Describing feminine traits, behaviours and aesthetics as purely a 'stereotype' is simply another form of femmephobia. Just because patriarchal & social expectations exist regarding feminine expression doesn't mean that's the only cause of them. In fact gendered traits are considered as both a nature/nurture phenomenon with genes, hormones & evolutionary survival & mating pressures influencing their expression.

The idea modern women in the west are haplessly slaves to social expectations with zero individual autonomy not only infantilises them but is a deeply sexist trope that your average MRA spouts ad infinitum. In fact they will only be too happy to shout from the roof tops how feminism was a 'learned' indoctrinated phenomena & what women want is just to stay home & have babies. See the parallels of denying personal authenticity?

And now for how gendered traits, behaviours and aesthetics are relevant to the OP's question. Given these are biologically influenced & long standing evolutionary strategies that are shared by the sexes they implicate the psychological & cognitive interchangeability of men & women. In other words, trans people are here to stay because shared gendered traits are part of the human condition.

Such a curious individual, this poster.

In fairness though, we are frequently told this has always been a thing everywhere.

Those things are just stereotypically feminine.

This!!

OK, but in the context of this debate, we are talking about modern western civilisation, as that is where and when the issue of 'trans' is taking place.

Cultural norms as to what constitutes 'femininity' changes in time and place.

It can only mean 'what the female sex do'. If a man is swishing his hair and giggling in frilly florals in an Amazon society for example where 'femininity' is performed by hunting and weaponry skills, and women don't do the swishiness, how is he then performing femininity?

All a man can do is perform his perception of the stereotypes (always negative, reductive and insulting) he perceives the sex of women to do in his current time or place. And it's normally an out of date pantomime - do any of us really know many women anywhere in workplace or family who swish, giggle and live in frilly florals as the main post of their identity?

To call men feminine who show particular gentleness, sensitivity or 'campness' in ways that particular society of the time don't regard as fitting stereotypes of masculinity regarded as appropriate to their sex is another act of sexism and policing said masculinity. (In the 18th century some of the top masculine guys in British society were swishing around with the best, swords, frills and all.)

Whatever a woman does is womanly. Whatever a woman does is 'feminine'.
[...] Nothing a man does can be inherently 'feminine', by definition.

This is logical.
But if you define the word feminine in this way, you lose the handy and useful meaning of "all things relating to the sexist stereotypes, like floral prints, frills, giggles, and swooshy long hair".
I think that effeminate gay man can be described as feminine.
Equally some women most definitely go out of their way not to be feminine, so if everything they do is feminine by definition, they are scuppered.

You make a good point about the power dynamics of punching up vs punching down. A transwoman is punching down, no matter how 'kind and lovely' that individual is.
Being 'punched-down-at' is enraging, so that is another possible source of the anger.

I think the whole thing rests on whether the person claims to be female or not.

I have always thought, and I believe that Greer pointed it out a very long time before, that it was misogyny for any male person to claim that they were in any way female. Because the only thing they ever were, was a version of male that they personally rejected as being ‘male’ by description. For whatever reason. That is the material reality of the situation. All the philosophical theory in the world cannot change that material reality.

And they did that usually by adopting sexist stereotypes to make their claim. Or even just to illustrate their claim.

So, even if it is not a sexual fetish, there is the constant reminder of the misogyny that is inherent in any claim that a male person is female.

Yes, excellent distinction! I am still deeply comfortable around the foppish, dandyish and fabulous. It’s the “I’m a girl, isn’t it obvious?” males who raise my well-earned caution.

The new question that arose for me was about women's angry reaction to men who express femininity.

Whatever a woman does is womanly. Whatever a woman does is 'feminine'.

Maybe it comes down to intent.

The offensive bit is a man performing something and claiming it is feminine. Nothing a man does can be inherently 'feminine', by definition.

A man growing his hair long or wearing certain pieces of clothing doesn't make him 'feminine' in any way, so I suppose by claiming that he is actually aping women and saying 'I am you', is the presumptuous, and possibly offensive bit. We know that he isn't and can't actually be nor grasp what it is to be a woman.

A punk wears pink eyeshadow but doesn't label it 'feminine'. He may have labelled it rebellion or subversion. He was perhaps poking fun at masculinity or society itself. I guess that's 'punching up'.

It's maybe similar to irritation at 'appropriation' - those who have more power taking things from those who have less power, including a narrative, identity, etc.

Men claiming to be women suggests that women's experience as women is meaningless, our lived, embodied experience can be dismissed, and that a man can just choose to 'put on' womanhood with some fripperies and accessories.

I don't necessarily hold these views, fwiw, just playing with some ideas.

Your point about whether the clothing is adjusted to fit the body or vice-versa is a good one (I have not read it before, no offence).

A hip trendy rule-breaking gender-bender will make every effort to ensure the clothes fit and look good.
A transwoman will make every effort to ensure the clothes look womanly.

You can't see a person's intentions from the outside, but after a while you can observe their attitude and actions, and listen to what they say. This also is key to making the distinction.