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

You misunderstand me: I am not concerned about being kind to transwomen (at least no more than I am concerned about being kind to any human or other sentient creature).
I am just interested in theories of the source of women's (alleged) anger at men who appropriate femininity and feminine clothes in particular.

Yes, the TRA / MRA movement is enraging.
But I do think that some women find men dressing in women's clothes in and of itself enraging, quite aside from the political dimension.

At this point my ideas are not fixed, but I am thinking that @Helleofabore 's pinpointing of anger at non-consensual participation in fetish could be the root of it. Partly because there is not the same anger at feminine gay men who make no claims to be women.

Considering all it takes is for some men to think that just wearing female undies makes them a female person or is them living out their sexual fetish, perhaps the discussion is going to be circular.

Didn’t Hayton tell us that his mode of dress was his ideal sexualised image of being a woman? I seem to remember him dressed in cardigans and necklaces. And marigold gloves …

The issue for transwomen is that adopting stereotypical femininity (whether overtly sexualised or not) is all they have. Apart from the drugs and the surgeries, all they can cling to to assert their womanhood is this 'femininity', dressed up in mystical language of innate identity etc.
Femininity is the be-all and end-all of expressing their trans identity.
So yes, they assert that if you don't achieve the ideal of 'feminine', you are less of a woman than they are.
But the sticking point is that expression of femininity does not make them a female, and deep down they must know this, no matter how much they assert otherwise.

This is old ground.

The new question that arose for me was about women's angry reaction to men who express femininity.
It may be, as you say, that it is a reaction to being non-consensually exposed to a man's fetish, rather than a reaction against taboo breaking or a conservative boundary-keeping of femininity for females only.

It is very valid indeed to question whether the transwoman who turns up to the office in a knee-length skirt, frilly blouse and pearls is any less of a fetishist than the one who turns up dressed as if for sex-work, and therefore is the former any less objectionable than the latter.
If the frills and pearls on a transwoman are still an offensive fetish, where does that leave liberal ideas of the acceptability of 'gender-bending' dress?
Is the difference purely whether he vocalises that he is a transwoman and expects to be treated as a woman, rather than just being a hip trendy rule breaker?

With respect, isn't this a red herring? Twisting ourselves into knots wondering whether women are being unkind to male fetishists and others?
Our fury at powerful transactivists should be nothing to do with the tedious nonsense about jealousy parroted by Northernwhotsit upthread.

It's what the OP said at 12.47

"...What did the trans lobby via Stonewall do to acquire public acceptance?
Instigated no debate.
Turned every discussion on gender into circular definitions.
Canvassed for outcomes that no sane person could agree to, teen medicalization, male bodies in female toilets, sport, prisons.
Championed outré kinks like male lactation, teaching sexualised queer theory to 7 year olds.
Forefront of Orwellian language rules "chest feeding" "her penis" "female rapists"
Revelled in cancel culture..."

That's why women are enraged - it's the oppressive tactics that are associated with trans activism. Both the active bullies and the silent ones who never challenge the #nodebate lot.

.

The issue for transwomen is that adopting stereotypical femininity (whether overtly sexualised or not) is all they have. Apart from the drugs and the surgeries, all they can cling to to assert their womanhood is this 'femininity', dressed up in mystical language of innate identity etc.
Femininity is the be-all and end-all of expressing their trans identity.
So yes, they assert that if you don't achieve the ideal of 'feminine', you are less of a woman than they are.
But the sticking point is that expression of femininity does not make them a female, and deep down they must know this, no matter how much they assert otherwise.

This is old ground.

The new question that arose for me was about women's angry reaction to men who express femininity.
It may be, as you say, that it is a reaction to being non-consensually exposed to a man's fetish, rather than a reaction against taboo breaking or a conservative boundary-keeping of femininity for females only.

It is very valid indeed to question whether the transwoman who turns up to the office in a knee-length skirt, frilly blouse and pearls is any less of a fetishist than the one who turns up dressed as if for sex-work, and therefore is the former any less objectionable than the latter.
If the frills and pearls on a transwoman are still an offensive fetish, where does that leave liberal ideas of the acceptability of 'gender-bending' dress?
Is the difference purely whether he vocalises that he is a transwoman and expects to be treated as a woman, rather than just being a hip trendy rule breaker?

The issue for transwomen is that adopting stereotypical femininity (whether overtly sexualised or not) is all they have. Apart from the drugs and the surgeries, all they can cling to to assert their womanhood is this 'femininity', dressed up in mystical language of innate identity etc.
Femininity is the be-all and end-all of expressing their trans identity.
So yes, they assert that if you don't achieve the ideal of 'feminine', you are less of a woman than they are.
But the sticking point is that expression of femininity does not make them a female, and deep down they must know this, no matter how much they assert otherwise.

This is old ground.

The new question that arose for me was about women's angry reaction to men who express femininity.
It may be, as you say, that it is a reaction to being non-consensually exposed to a man's fetish, rather than a reaction against taboo breaking or a conservative boundary-keeping of femininity for females only.

It is very valid indeed to question whether the transwoman who turns up to the office in a knee-length skirt, frilly blouse and pearls is any less of a fetishist than the one who turns up dressed as if for sex-work, and therefore is the former any less objectionable than the latter.
If the frills and pearls on a transwoman are still an offensive fetish, where does that leave liberal ideas of the acceptability of 'gender-bending' dress?
Is the difference purely whether he vocalises that he is a transwoman and expects to be treated as a woman, rather than just being a hip trendy rule breaker?

Perhaps part of the issue is firstly separating out whether it is ‘femininity’ that is an issue. Perhaps that also depends on what value someone puts on that term as any kind of meaningful description.

I find the term oppressive in many ways. If I don’t achieve someone’s ideal of feminine, where does that leave me as female person? Less ‘female’? No. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. I don’t judge how feminine a person is because I find it a meaningless if it is used as a stereotype and can be instantly changed at whim when it comes to attire etc. ‘Feminine’ to me means to be female, that is it.

Therefore, I and I suspect others, are not reacting to someone being judged as being ‘feminine’ when the term is used for stereotypes with jealousy.

I do find it offensive that any male person claims to be female.

I also wonder how many female people react to what they understand as a male person who has fetishised being seen as a female person. Ie. Being a non-consensual witness to a fetish. I can certainly understand people reacting to that.

The question is, how do we as humans identify what is a fetish that we are being non-consensually exposed to vs what is not?

No. It isn’t obvious to me.

Isn’t what you just described something like a tv show stereotype ? Do people believe that is ‘feminine’?

Isn't it obvious? All the usual things that our society considers to be feminine, i.e. not masculine and not neutral.

I am talking mostly about clothes and appearance in the context of this thread, as that is the main visible signal that transwomen adopt, but it can also be hobbies, speech patterns, anything and everything.

One stereotype of a feminine woman is that she bakes cupcakes and puts them in a tin with a fancy floral pattern, then watches a 'chick-flick' on TV.
I am sure you know what I mean. I don't need to spell it out. The word has a common usage.

The interuptaron seemed (as far as I could make sense of the post) that the problem was that femininity was only associated with females, and that women are enraged by feminine-presenting men, or something like that. He hasn't returned to the thread.

I am not against the discussion.

My point is just as written. If someone considers a female person wearing trousers as being ‘masculine’ the discussion goes nowhere.

The same if someone considers wearing make up as being feminine. As Arabella points out, that is also not an issue for many people.

So what is it that you, personally, consider ‘feminine’?

'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.'

I can discuss that, StandingDeskDisco.

I'm entirely ambivalent about men wearing women's clothes. Gender non conformity is grand. Fine. Go for it.

What is NOT tickety boo is transvestic fetishism. For one, these men are misogynists, often getting kicks from the non consensual participation of others. For two, their kicks rely on a pornified, damaging, and insulting caricature of 'femininity' that contributes to rape culture.

Greer described how 'the female eunuch' (an embodiment of 'femininity') was a third entity, not in fact even distantly related to women, but sharing some of the same characteristics as a child. We can see that in some of the gross costumes these men wear. Paraphilias are damaging to individuals and society.

Femininity and masculinity are basically the same thing as sexist stereotypical tropes. But that doesn't make them any less worthy of discussion and analysis.

Is there something in the idea that (some) women's rage against transwomen is not just for logical and practical reasons, and not just because 'womanface' is misogynistic mocking women, but that it is to do with men transgressing the boundaries of stereotypical femininity in a socially-unacceptable taboo busting way?

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

Hypocrite.

The interuptaron talked about women who had this reaction, not men.
I understand men's transphobia / homophobia toward other men. I had not considered women's homophobia towards feminine-presenting men, because why would I or any other woman care? They have nothing to do with me.
Has women's transphobia / homophobia got different roots to men's? Is it about 'reserving femininity for women' ? Or something else?

(Apart from the already-much-discussed need to protect women's spaces, lesbian rights, misogynistic womanface, public decency re fetishists, etc.)

Of course it is not on this board, but it is out there among women in wider society.

The main thrust of my thread before it became a bigger free for all with the contributions of the anti-GC faction, was how there is so much cross over with the race aspect.
Whether we're talking about the IOC and FIFA outlawing gender testing and bending testosterone rules to primarily favour African DSD male athletes in the female category.
Or the HIV industry via activist NGOs push for third genders and TIM sex workers to be brought into the tent by pushing for such individuals to be recategorised as women.
The anti colonial/imperial, anti racist credentials of such policies are absolutely impeccable.
But because rights are not always an ever increasing spectrum where more come on board, noone has to budge up, noone else is co-opted. Because in the area of women's rights, only the diminution of women's rights can result if African DSD males are allowed in female athletics and football, and when the medical needs of a third gender or trans sex worker are somehow considered contiguous with those of women, then we see how the anti racist thing is now embedded into the TRA battle, at the expense of women.
And explains so much why the most recent cries from that side is about white women tone policing black women, and why GC is a continuation of the racist colonial imperial attitudes of the white West.
This frankly bonkers take, that had the West, primarily Britain not colonized so much of the rest of the world, lovely harmonious peoples in India etc that were fully trans-integrated wouldn't have had the MEN/WOMEN binary forced on them.
And thus today, if only those pesky GC hatemongers could stop trying to impose a fake sex binary, we could all welcome Caster and Imane and Prisca as proud sportswomen, and take third genders from the developing world to our hearts as downtrodden women in need of Western women's love and care.

Right. 'Transphobia' as a reaction to men subverting gender norms exists, sure. Rooted in homophobia and macho culture. You'll not find much of that on a feminist board.

See my reply to @ArabellaScott : Bowie is an icon now / was a national treasure, but when he and gender-bending performers like him first appeared, the small-c conservative mainstream were non-plussed, wary, hostile, or downright outraged.

Moral panic manufactured by red-top papers would gain no traction if there was not already an underlying psychological pre-disposition for people to reject transgressors and taboo-breakers.
I am wondering if these same psychological factors are at work in the way some non-liberal women are vehemently anti-transwomen today, because they are trampling all over women's ownership of femininity.

See my reply to @ArabellaScott : Bowie is an icon now / was a national treasure, but when he and gender-bending performers like him first appeared, the small-c conservative mainstream were non-plussed, wary, hostile, or downright outraged.

Moral panic manufactured by red-top papers would gain no traction if there was not already an underlying psychological pre-disposition for people to reject transgressors and taboo-breakers.
I am wondering if these same psychological factors are at work in the way some non-liberal women are vehemently anti-transwomen today, because they are trampling all over women's ownership of femininity.

Some men find 'transwomen' sexually exciting. I understand this perfectly well.

Feminists would be more than delighted if the men who are attracted to transwomen would go off and have fun with the transwomen who are attracted to men and leave us all the fuck alone, I promise you.