Is this a woman lead movement?

[dyslek]

I have been wondering this for a while.

Is the current 'Trans' movement, and therefore all its, lets say, issues, a woman lead movement?

From the initial inovators to the current youthful enforcers, have and do women play a critical role in our own subjugation?

Is the current 'Trans' movement, and therefore all its, lets say, issues, a woman lead movement?

It's woman enforced - in the same way as women police the decisions by family members (eg, husbands) who cut off children and say that no-one can ever talk to them again. The women are the ones who do the social arrangements and never invite the ostracised person, police any others who contact them etc.

By and large, it looks like women who are reporting each other, policing the signing of pledges, wearing of lanyards, trying to get other women removed from charity trustee positions etc.

No, it is lead by men. It is a Men's Rights Movement with some women as 'Trojan horses'.

I still think its a question worth asking.

Gender Idology, and wokedom in general, do seem to be a powerful reassertion of mens (and class) dominance over society, and the day to day lives of women, children and even working class men to some limited extent. And I do think there are many aspects at play, from different groups in society.

But, to be totally honest, would we not be indulging in the same kind of identity politics fantisy island bs if we dont acknowledge that women play a huge roll in this movement.
I think we need to explore it, even if it looks like women are used as
accaptable visablity for the movement that still means women are coluding in their own suppression and we need to talk about that.

A lot of perfectly sensible women with trade union backgrounds and similar pedigrees of admirable community action support this.

mirandayardley.com/en/the-miranda-yardley-index-on-censorship/

mirandayardley.com/en/unison-and-the-hypocrisy-of-the-british-left/

I can't recall who has a thoughtful piece about it being inadequate to ascribe it to internalised misogyny and dismiss such women supporters as handmaids. I thought the name was Hope Pink or similar?

have and do women play a critical role in our own subjugation?

Unquestionably so. The leading intellectual apologists of Genderism are women. Many women are amongst the most aggressive proponents.

have and do women play a critical role in our own subjugation?

Is it a way to escape the subjugation of the group, by 'identifying with' the subjugators?

Difference between women led and women participating

I see no evidence that women more than men are active in support of generally prioritising gender over sex

This piece by Michael Biggs contains some useful facts and figures on this. Provocative though. I don't agree with his explanation. But in general I respect Biggs.

quillette.com/2019/08/01/how-feminism-paved-the-way-for-transgenderism/

My explanation is simpler than Biggs's - it isn't about blank slatism or exactly that women are socialised to be nice, it is that women, particularly young women, have a greater tendency to put the immediate desire to please people above longer term considerations. You see it in so many places that it is hard to deny it.

However, as we get older I think we mature out of it to a great extent.

Gender roles play out like this; men say what they want, and women who are eager to please side with men, virtue signal, and police other women.
It never happens in reverse which is why safeguarding and women's rights are hard won and easily lost.

And I agree, as we get older, we care less about pleasing others.
archive.is/ae3nK

I see it linked to the end of collective action and the decline of any pretence of the old socialist allience of collectivism and class action, new groups are forming and recruiting members and power.
I think it's bound to be a cause that women adopt as it's seen as progressive on the Left and more women are from the Left generally.

Some women who were early adopters have had good careers advocating this in education, academia and the arts and politics.
Women who adopted this early could knock out older competitors for jobs and power, by speaking the new language and using the right pronouns, they sounded more modern and progressive.
Not so much now though as the opposition to it gathers pace.

'it never happens in reverse'

yes, telling that isen't it.

The Biggs article is interesting, I dont totally agree with him but I think he has a point.
I think one ofthe reasons younger women are more pro 'trans rights' is they are nieve as to the desires and intentions of men, where as actual men are know full well just how men think and feel about women.

'Women have no idea how much men hate them' is very true for alot of young women from good homes.

I find this interesting as I feel I know more women actively pushing gender ideology than men.

I have an old friend. Reasonable. Always up for debate. Could see there were issues with prisons, sports etc. Her (adult) child transitioned and now all that matters is her child should be able to use the facilities they want. Her social media is all "puberty blockers are wonderful", "GC feminists are right wing bigots", "here's another great tweet from Jolyon" etc. She's just one example.

I don’t think it’s internalised misogyny, more a big serving of “luxury belief” with a side order of “reverse Voltaire”.

By contrast, men I know tend to be sceptical of gender ideology but feel they should "stay in their lane".

It’s one reason I’m now doubtful about feminism even though I’m a big fan of many feminists. I don’t think always telling men they should butt out has been helpful.

Also think @Xoxoxoxoxoxox makes some great points.

I think it's bound to be a cause that women adopt as it's seen
as progressive on the Left and more women are from the Left generally.

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox And many on the Left tend to think you can solve any problem by spending money. So, it's OK to have anyone self-id into a woman's prison, because in a sufficiently well-resourced prison system it's still possible to keep everyone safe. (Probably easier to believe that when you aren't likely to go to prison.) There's no problem about toilets because you just tell businesses they have to build self-contained ones. And so on.

So many reasons for this being spearheaded by younger women. Intense socialisation to be kind and put other people first, especially if they appear 'vulnerable'. Strong need to be accepted within the group, especially as girls and women tend to police each other quite forcefully, using the threat of reputational damage to keep people in line. Sheer naivety about men, and what motivates them. Ignorance of paraphilias. The misguided belief that they are equal to men in every way - a belief usually knocked out of them by having children.

It's a male led movement.

I'm not sure that fewer men are pushing it than women.

If it were women led it wouldn't have got traction lets be honest.

Political parties are on board- most have more men in the leadership roles than women i think.

Women also aren't the majority in the police army etc etc.

Sadly due to various factors loads of women and girls do support what men want. That's our socialised role.

Who is pushing back? Women. Most men are keeping quiet. If it was woman led then men would be telling us to shut up left right and centre.

There are various angles and layers to the 'trans movement'. Some parts are certainly spearheaded by women or enabled due to the support from women.

The ideological frameworks in academic feminism have given legitimacy to many of the arguments put forward by queer theory, gender studies etc. I don't think feminism is unique in thinking that sex differences magically only take place below the neck, or that evolutionary impacts on human behaviour can be ignored. It seems like many sociology fields have similar approaches and think much or all of human behaviour is socialised or socially constructed.

Universities and academic institutions churn out a certain uniformity of thought and people who have been trained in this type of mindset then go on to various public sector roles that influence policies and practices.

I think it's easier for people to believe there are no differences between women and men or that any physical differences don't matter if you are in fairly white collar, office based jobs - there's a reason why mainstream feminism seems to always campaign for more women CEOs rather than more women oil rig workers.

I have a vague recollection of a study or research that showed that as more women employees are hired in a company, the acceptance of minority groups within the company also increases i.e. as more women are hired it reduces overall sexism /sexist practices but also leads to better working environments for gays and lesbians for example. I don't know if the research was widely supported but it was used as evidence to encourage more women being hired in the workplace to balance the stereotypical image of male dominated businesses.
Does this have the inadvertent effect of trans policies being more quickly adopted as it is another minority group that is embraced?

Women are, on average, more agreeable than men and likely to accept or put up with situations and policies even if it might not be good for them. Apart from the queer theory adherents, most women who are supportive of trans inclusive policies are under the illusion that transwomen are a delicate, fragile minority that have had genital surgery etc. Trans activists deliberately don't correct this public perception because they know their policies will only gain acceptance if this illusion is maintained.

There are lots of other influential layers to the trans movement, such as medical/surgical establishments relishing playing god or the pharmaceutical industry with a vested interest in promoting certain ideological narratives.

Women in positions of power and influence are not immune to thinking they can achieve fame for supporting 'the next big thing since gay rights'. I think a lot of women in public roles will eventually end up looking very foolish and silly for their stances. The men who prop up the trans lobby generally prefer to let women be the public face and therefore let women take the inevitable fallout from publicly committing to an ideology. I mean, women like Lisa Nandy and Dawn Butler will continue to be remembered and laughed at for their views of rapists being in women's prisons or humans being born without a sex. The men who have supported gender identity ideas will manage to salvage their careers and keep their reputations intact and get a free pass, while the women will be viewed as incapable of being trusted with public policy.

Apart from the queer theory adherents, most women who are supportive of trans inclusive policies are under the illusion that transwomen are a delicate, fragile minority that have had genital surgery etc. Trans activists deliberately don't correct this public perception because they know their policies will only gain acceptance if this illusion is maintained.

Yes, Arty Morty's cuckoo analogy holds up very well. Women acting like female cuckoos, looking after this rather odd looking bird in their nest, believing it to be one of their own. And we all know where that ends.

Ooh, now this is an interesting one. It's a male-led movement in origin, as was PIE in the 70s - it is always to men's benefit to push sexual boundaries and delegitimise those of women. But there's definitely a lot of women involved in pushing this.

I see it as partly an intersection with class politics, and partly the natural result of the uncertain economics of our times. The women I know pushing it are, like the men involved, from the established middle classes and well-off backgrounds. I've known a few teachers involved, and curiously enough, some of them at least know damned well that what they are pushing is a lie. Some at least are desperate to maintain their elitism, which is why I think economics are involved too.

It was a woman who made a strong and emotional appeal for the trans position in the House of Lords, wasn't it? Women's positions in economic hierarchies are always more precarious than men, and they tend to be rather more conscious of status and its' symbols.

@PickUpAPepper

It was a woman who made a strong and emotional appeal for the trans position in the House of Lords, wasn't it? Women's positions in economic hierarchies are always more precarious than men, and they tend to be rather more conscious of status and its' symbols.

It was union women who advocated for trans women to be prioritised over the boring sort at the TUC and look at the problems that have flowed from that.

I have been confused about why so many women are on board with this movement. It makes no sense. Perhaps if you have a child who considers themselves trans? I really don't understand why women are advocating for this. I don't understand why gay men and women are either, its obvious the end result will push actual homosexuals back in the closet.

Analysis of neo-religious movements and groups helps here. I can't use the four letter word beginning with C because it gets deleted, or it used to.

But basically the dynamic of any group which seeks to exploit women (or indeed any class, tbh, on a wider scale) will need to have women in positions of authority as enforcers. They will serve to keep the other women in line.
This can be acheived by bestowing material benefits, but it can also be done by bestowing status and approval. When you have women who are primed to enforce compliance, you very effectively undercut many women's ability to organize to fight back, because how can this be anti-woman when women support it, and indeed, some benefit?
This is why FWR has been a powerful platform, and why it is so heavily targeted - because if women can collectively gather and discuss openly their oppression, and the methods with which dissent is being suppressed, the system will be in danger.

The reason the female enforcers are quite so vicious in trying to stamp the dissent out is both because they know they will lose their position, and they also know exactly what awaits those women who do dissent, because they themselves have enacted it on other women.