Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

382 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 · Today 06:52

Helleofabore · Today 03:44

No You have never made that point work in any way.

For the point to work, it requires the language to be understood by the general public. It isn’t, as has been tested in polls and the UK census. Adding ‘trans’ to female reference language leaves many people believing that those male people that you use the term transwomen for, are actually female people with transgender identities.

That makes the language inaccessible to the majority (as per the polling and the UK census) of the UK population. Any use of female language for male people renders those words meaningless.

You repeating this point doesn’t change your own inaccurate assertion. The group attempting to force the change may not like the truth but their terminology is not understood which also means it is meaningless.

”the prefix 'trans' distinguishes natal females from trans women” is just another empty mantra.

It is also misogynistic for any male person to use the reference term for any female people to describe themselves. Female people are biologically distinct and are not reference objects for male people to describe themselves with.

The general public doesn't know the difference between a trans woman & woman? You really are out doing yourself with this championship level of denial…& that's really saying something for you.

An no, its not misogynistic to state a fact that gender is a socially constructed set of norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.

ArabellaScott · Today 07:10

All comes down to words and power, I suppose.

As exploitation and abuse have become more restricted by moral frameworks, international & humanitarian law, norms, regulations and agreements, humans, being some of them venal, abusive, and base, have sought ways to subvert.

We used words to create laws to control human behaviour, and then we used yet more words to undermine and moderate and 'queer' social contracts and norms and legislation.

So we can construct linguistic cases for absurd assertions, like humans changing sex, and turn fundamentally cruel concepts, like surrogacy/baby trafficking, into linguistically asserted positive moral acts, and turn abusive acts of prostitution into 'sex positive' narratives.

It all ends up looking like a giant exercise in narc wheedling, in the end.

ArabellaScott · Today 07:12

Northernlightsss · Today 06:52

The general public doesn't know the difference between a trans woman & woman? You really are out doing yourself with this championship level of denial…& that's really saying something for you.

An no, its not misogynistic to state a fact that gender is a socially constructed set of norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.

When you say 'trans female', a big chunk of the population think you mean a woman pretending to be a man.

Polling survey showed around a third of the UK populace thought 'trans woman' meant 'female'.

Shedmistress · Today 07:13

Rollingpinofdoom · Today 01:13

Nooooo gender has nothing to do with DNA. That’s sex. Gender is a load of sexist, outdated bollocks that now the genderborg try to use to prove men can be women. You seem a bit confused.
Aren’t we always told sex and gender are different?

I’ll just leave this here as it kind of sums up the position…

Sexism = the women should do the
dishes.
Feminism = men or women can do
the dishes.
Gender ideology = whoever is doing
the dishes is a woman.

May I add...

Fetishism - the man in the doorway wearing the rubber gloves

Rollingpinofdoom · Today 07:32

Shedmistress · Today 07:13

May I add...

Fetishism - the man in the doorway wearing the rubber gloves

DH? I understood that reference. 🤣🤣🤣. Somehow these women feelings never include insane urged to do housework, childcare or take on any of the mental load wives and mothers often carry. My friend is married to a TIM for her sins. She does all the childcare, housework and admin SS he’s too busy ‘finding his true self” by shopping, watching YouTube videos and attending LGBT events. My TIM ex said he couldn’t do cooking or housework as it was ‘triggering”. Apparently doing those things just reminded him he was not a woman 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

BackToLurk · Today 07:33

Northernlightsss · Today 01:08

As example of the incoherence of gender critical ideology when it comes to inherent common gendered behaviours, they will acknowledge only those of convenience like male violence but in the same breath deny the existence of any others as 'social constructs'.

You can't have it both ways.

Are you doing that thing again where you don’t understand the difference between ‘most violent criminals are male’ and ‘most males are violent criminals’, and now also taking it to mean ‘if you are violent you are male’?

iwishitwouldstartraining · Today 07:35

Northernlightsss · Today 00:59

We were doing a great job of dismantling them and making them irrelevant until the genderborg decided that they were actually what defined a woman or a man.

That wasn't the 'genderborg'. That already existed & will continue to exist as long as males & females exist because long standing social categorisations rely on continuing patterns that in this case are inherent to the human condition.

The idea that you can wish inherent patterns away is another example of the deluded grandiosity of the GC movement. For humans to become genderless they would have to change their DNA but good luck with the GC movement ever comprehending this fact because their whole ideology relies on gendered behaviour being a social construct. Ironically, they can't or won't accept the biological influences that underpin gendered categorisations .

Yes folks, biology is real.

I can’t work out whether you are more upset that crime statistics reveal that men commit most violent crimes, or more upset that society doesn’t group people according to behavioural traits like in YA fiction.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page