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?

There was a great discussion the other day on Triggernometry with Heather Heying and Jordan Peterson, and one of the viewer questions was relevant to this thread:

Women seem more vulnerable to the Woke religion. I think because it hijacks the "mama bear" circuits. Is there any psychological intervention or an evolutionary perspective that could be used to at least curtail this?

That led to a lot of interesting stuff from both Heying (evolutionary biologist) and Peterson (psychologist) about why women get caught up in this, and act as enforcers against other women.

Arguably if "toxic masculinity" is a thing, then to some extent this can be "toxic femininity". Both sexes have certain sex-typical behaviour which can be pathological, and social shunning is a female one.

'Women seem more vulnerable to the Woke religion. I think because it hijacks the "mama bear" circuits. Is there any psychological intervention or an evolutionary perspective that could be used to at least curtail this?

That led to a lot of interesting stuff from both Heying (evolutionary biologist) and Peterson (psychologist) about why women get caught up in this, and act as enforcers against other women.'

There have always been people in oppressed groups who collaborated with their oppressors, I've read s little about it.

With men and women it's a very unusual dynamic because of heterosexual attraction, wanting a partner, children, living together in a household etc. So it's even more complicated.

Loads of women have always enforced all sorts of patriarchal rules. From FGM to 'honour' killings, to at the very other end of the spectrum. Encouraging girls to wear makeup, feminine clothes, etc etc. And the mainstream media- loads of films TV etc also push the message that women and girls need and want a man, children, marriage, that attractiveness/ being sexually attractive is very important. That boys will be boys and 'trivial' things like Street harrassment / flashing etc are s fact of life so don't make s fuss forget about it etc etc

This is not confined to this particular issue at all.

It is male led.

Loads of women are doing what they often do.

I'm a bit, nothing to see here tbh.

They act as enforcers to show they are on the side of men and therefore will gain their approval.

I don't think it's that complicated tbh.

I don't think it's that complicated tbh.

Arguably not, no. The complicated thing would be knowing how to counter the dynamic...

Sadly due to various factors loads of women and girls do support
what men want.

Women suffer more as a result of gender ideology, but I don’t see that it's in the interests of men as a class. It’s not in the interests of most men to have an explosion in transgender medicine or the destruction of women’s sports for example. Things like any man being able to walk into women’s facilities go against typical male views about women, whether you consider those views driven by protectiveness or possessiveness. Lots of men will be disturbed by the idea of females in their own changing areas through embarrassment, or because it makes them vulnerable to accusations of assault.

I see this as more about money. This ideology is about extreme autonomy for the individual and the commodification of the body which can then be exploited not only through medicine, but also “sex work”, surrogacy etc.

The beneficiaries of this will often be companies, e.g. pharmaceuticals and tech firms. The biggest losers will be those who end up being exploited through their supposed “free choices”: women at the bottom of the heap who end up as the “gestational carriers” or trafficked “sex workers”, the detransitioners. And there's collateral damage for example to women in prisons.

I think I can see why the ideology might be appealing superficially to younger women. On the one hand, it seems to allow them to escape their own biology altogether, or else to define themselves by something other than their biology (a more idealistic/spiritual concept of “woman”, even if we know that ends up being a stereotype). On the other, it also gives them permission to exploit their own biological assets/femininity without shame, either indirectly or though turning it into cold hard cash through “sex work”. Of course, that’s probably more attractive if you’re considering making a bit extra through Only Fans, than for someone who has to walk the streets.

So full disclosure - I am a middle-aged trans woman and a parent, I joined this site today scouting around for unrelated advice, but this thread made me make an account to delve into the debate. I would consider myself as having been a feminist all my life, but I'm sorry to see this narrative displayed and I'm hoping that my perspective will offer an alternative view that otherwise might not be considered.

I'm genuinely interested in why there is a sense that trans people are subjugating cis women? From my perspective we are talking about a relatively tiny portion of the population who have suffered terrible institutional and social discrimination, and who dont really have any voice or representation in the mainstream media. Society's recent push for trans equality seeks to address those issues, which clearly has far wider public support given the proportion of the population directly impacted. Cis women are a huge part of that acceptance, and I'm grateful every day for my sisters that seek to lift me up with them. I dont see how my existence, or my desire to have equal rights and respect, could be spun as an attempted subjugation of anyone.

x

Miskirsky, you could start by not calling us 'cis' as though we are a subset of our own sex, ta. (It's also against guidelines and could get you deleted)

@FloralBunting

I apologise, obviously no offence intended. As far as I am concerned we are both women. It's just relatively common parlance and within the context of trans allies, was included for clarity and ease of reading.

@NecessaryScene

I don't think it's that complicated tbh.

Arguably not, no. The complicated thing would be knowing how to counter the dynamic...

From experience, you're right. My own journey out of it involved a lot of curiosity, conversation and no small amount of practical and emotional support, tbh. Exiting that sort of psychological pressure is really, really challenging. This is why I think we probably need to leave a way back for even the Susie Greens of this world if they need it.

Now, I'm not saying I think that's likely, because she's pretty much a walking sunk cost fallacy example, and I'm not even saying we need to lionize women who walk back from the TWAW extremism.

But I do think that some women stay there because they're terrified of the social oppobrium if they commit the heresy of saying sex matters, and I think that if feminism is for all women - and it is - it's for the women who have dug themselves into the mire of misogyny and can't see a way out.

[quote Miskirsky]@FloralBunting

I apologise, obviously no offence intended. As far as I am concerned we are both women. It's just relatively common parlance and within the context of trans allies, was included for clarity and ease of reading. [/quote]
As far as I'm concerned we are both human, but we are the opposite sex, and there are already terms which suffice to differentiate us. I'm sure no offence was intended, but it will certainly be assumed if you use it of me again. I don't identify as a gender, I consider it a tool of oppression that damages women, primarily. I will stick to the rules of this board, and use the words 'women' and 'transwomen'.

'Women suffer more as a result of gender ideology, but I don’t see that it's in the interests of men as a class. '

I think it does tbh.

Men are really uncomfortable with men who... Not what men should be.

Men in general do not feel totally comfy with men they take as gay or feminine or performing feminity. Especially in toilets or other situations where they feel vulnerable. Getting changed, showering after sport etc.

The casual homophobia about back to the wall etc belies a very real discomfort.

That plus the whole men/ non men thing works for them. Anyone who is not seen as a 'real' man. Who is not-man goes somewhere else. I'm sure loads would be ok with gay men even bi men being just anywhere else when it comes to these situations.

You should also be aware the Trans perspective is by no means unheard here. Some trans people even stay and read and understand women's views. Feel free to read the many threads which go into all the issues. Someone may be along to post the Break It Down For Me thread, which is a useful primer to help you understand.

I'm genuinely interested in why there is a sense that trans people are subjugating cis women?

A judge just decided that the feelings of trans women are more important than the feelings and safety of incarcerated women.
www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html&query=(FDJ

The accepted idea that men are protective of women is just that, an idea. A heavily pushed one.

In practice most men seem to care about their female relatives friends etc. But other women are not seen as real people. Things like men who are super protective of their own daughters ogling schoolgirls on the street is an example.

So the idea that the general man will be outraged at someone male going into the ladies if none of 'his' women are in there seems unlikely. This is seen all the time everywhere. When shit starts even if it's a girl blokes don't generally do anything. Women do. Sometimes no one does :(

And when really bad stuff happens we know that it's always straight to what the woman did wrong, she's making it up etc.

So I genuinely think that the majority of men would be happy to feel more comfy in male spaces, than worry about women -general women as a group.

[quote Thelnebriati]I'm genuinely interested in why there is a sense that trans people are subjugating cis women?

A judge just decided that the feelings of trans women are more important than the feelings and safety of incarcerated women.
www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html&query=(FDJ[/quote]
Remarkable that something of this magnitude to women would have passed someone by, tbh. But I think it answers the question most profoundly.

'I'm genuinely interested in why there is a sense that trans people are subjugating cis women?'

I've never seen this phrase used before. Subjugating is not a word I would use. I also wouldn't group all trans people together like that. I don't think eg non binary teen girls (female) are subjugating anyone!

The issues as I'm sure you know, being a life long feminist. Are this sort of thing-

Historically female only things being opened up on a self ID basis.
The refusal to engage with women and girls on what the consequences could be, why women and girls are worried, are there other solutions etc. Women and girls who ask are called all sorts of things and disregarded.

The removal of the ability to have any word/s to describe women and girls as a group. The new language reducing us to body parts- which due to the nature of the situation are referencing our sex/ reproductive organs. This has many many issues here and around the world.

'trans people' are fighting for what they want, most I'm sure are not actively thinking of ways to subjugate women.

The fact is though that the... Philosophy? Political stance? Is totally inconsistent. With what words mean what and what is transphobic shifting continuously. How can important policies be dependent on words that mean different things to different people?

A lot of what's being pressed for is a gift to MRAs, incel types, and the large minority of men who enjoy upsetting, scaring, unsettling, sexually assaulting etc etc women and girls. And all those who think women need bringing down a peg or 2.

I don't think transgenderism has the same benefits that religion did for women. Obviously religion is not great for us these days but at the least it may promise a life after death. What does supporting this new belief give us?

@elgreco

I don't think transgenderism has the same benefits that religion did for women. Obviously religion is not great for us these days but at the least it may promise a life after death. What does supporting this new belief give us?

Even the religious aspect wasn't based solely on pie in the sky when you die. There is a huge psychological payoff for being one of the women of status in a religious setting. It's exactly the same dynamic for dullards like Sally Hines who without the cache of being able to shit on other women and some family connections, would be no more listened to than Maureen on the checkouts at Tesco.

Maureen probably talks more sense, though.

@elgreco

I don't think transgenderism has the same benefits that religion did for women. Obviously religion is not great for us these days but at the least it may promise a life after death. What does supporting this new belief give us?

The impacts of religion and the things done in its name, for women and girls globally, is horrific. So much injury, death, murder. And so much more.

Women support that.

Loads of them.

Because it's what men decree.

And of course society supports as well.

With this it's seen as like gay rights. Who wouldn't support it?!

( Well religious right wingers in the USA mould types. My cheque from the USA every month is really handy!).

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.

Great post Floral. This aspect of it all makes it so baffling that Margaret Atwood isn’t GC.

Religion also had major benefits as long as the rules were followed. No pre marital sex benefited women when no safe contraception or abortion was available. As did the sin of adultery.....etc.

@elgreco

Religion also had major benefits as long as the rules were followed. No pre marital sex benefited women when no safe contraception or abortion was available. As did the sin of adultery.....etc.

Seriously?

Women were chattel. Property. Still are in many countries whether by law or custom.

Abortion is still banned in many countries leading to massive amounts of death.

In some countries where sex before marriage does not result in prison/ beating/ death. Oh and being raped counts as adultery. Marriage is used to avoid men who have been sexually abusing girls, and got them pregnant, from the attention of the law. Eg some states in USA.

I could go on for hours.

And plenty of women have always wanted to have pre marital sex! So, um.