what is the difference between trans ideology and male supremacy?

[VelvetChairGirl]

I googled male supremacy today

the core of it is strict adherence to gender roles.

belief that women use feminism to oppress men.

male supremacists reduce women to their reproductive function.

male supremacist groups propagate conspiracies that build a narrative of victimhood at the hands of movements for equality.

belief that men are entitled to a place in society that is superior to women, who are biologically and intellectually inferior.

Honestly after reading all that I see no difference, am I mad not to see a difference? or are we really in 1984?

Swirly skirts, that's it.

Oh and head tilts, the hand on the chin to cover the Adam's apple.

I'm sure there's more but not many

The difference? My guess would be that you don't tend to see feminists lining up to defend male supremacy.

Male supremacists don't tend to gave blue hair or dress like a porn-originated idea of a woman.

Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day to this poster:

"trans ideology doesn't promote strict adherence to gender roles."

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Stonewall played a blinder in tacking TQ onto the end of LGB. It was done to mislead people into believing trans ideology is just another harmless and justifiable kind of sexual orientation. And it has worked. Gender identity is now accepted, from governments down, as a human rights movement.

In reality, as its actions reveal, it is a facet of the male supremacist 'men's rights' movement. The sheer violence of its abusive rhetoric and its attacks on women's boundaries, safety and livelihoods are proof of that. No wonder most people are afraid to challenge it.

But as long as it is linked with the friendly rainbow flag, those who don't want to join the dots can pretend to believe it is harmless.

I think this hits the nail on the head.

All the teenagers I know have accepted without question the idea that TQ+ is rightfully part of the same community as LGB. In their eyes questioning TRA ideology is the same as homophobia. GC people (men and women, none of them in any way bigoted) that I know in real life don't feel able to openly challenge this for fear of repercussions including consequences at work.

@DoubleYouOhEmAyEn

Male supremacists don't tend to gave blue hair or dress like a porn-originated idea of a woman.

But personal styling aside?

@mamamia1234 trans ideology doesn't promote strict adherence to gender roles.

''In the case of gender, cis- describes the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.''
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

@Childrenofthestones

The difference? My guess would be that you don't tend to see feminists lining up to defend male supremacy.

and thats the thing that confuses me the most

VelvetChairGIrl, feminists line up to defend the trans form of male supremacy for two reasons (other than the need to be seen as kind):

1. They misunderstand and misuse the concept of intersectionality so that it is no longer about understanding, e.g., how the different axes of oppression intersect when one of them is the sex-based axis, but about how many different types of oppression a person might simultaneously experience, even if that person is not of the female sex. Other types of social justice obviously matter, but I don't think it is a particularly feminist task to, say, fix the problems a poor gay man experiences. I can fully support and fund those who do attend to his problems, but if fixing them becomes the job for feminists, then feminism cannot achieve anything because it will be spread so thinly.

1. They use (whether knowingly or not) the concept of Oppression Olympics, where certain types of oppression are rated higher than others and always deserve to be given priority. This is the case even when the 'winning' oppression has nothing to do with the oppression of women.

Thus, very very few feminists dared to write about the mass harassment of women in Cologne a few years ago, because the victims were largely white and the harassers mostly came from North Africa. The reluctance was due to race/religion being rated above sex in the Oppression Olympics. The most some feminists stated was that mass sexual harassment in a public open space is nothing new in Europe and that European men have sexually harassed women for centuries. The latter is true, the former is absolutely untrue.

Trans women are now seen as the winner in the Oppression Olympics over women who never transitioned, sometimes even when the former are, say, white and the latter black. Not being transphobe is then regarded as being more important than not being sexist and misogynist.

Incidentally, trans women are certainly harassed and mistreated, but not by gender critical feminists or feminists of any sort. But the transgender rates of being victims of homicide are, in fact, lower than the rates at which men, in general, are killed outside South America.

Yet we are repeatedly told that this is not the case, but that such homicides are common and become more common unless trans women are allowed to win the Oppression Olympics.

2. They use (whether knowingly or not) the concept of Oppression Olympics, where certain types of oppression are rated higher than others and always deserve to be given priority. This is the case even when the 'winning' oppression has nothing to do with the oppression of women.

I dont understand the oppression olympics because at the heart of it they know they are supporting males, normally heterosexual white males, it must take a massive cognitive dissonance toll to refer to straight white males as the most oppressed in society because they choose to wear a dress.

I mean bloody hell there are countries in the world where a woman would be stoned to death if she dared wear trousers.

VelvetChairGirl, the responses I have received from young lib fems always refer to the high trans homicide rate and high suicide risk.

Those are the stated reasons for placing them first. Actually, women in my own life use those, too.

That's why I pointed out how the high homicide rates are not applicable to transgender people in the UK or the US. A US study by a transgender researcher found that the rate at which the so-called cis people were murdered between 2010 and 2014 were actually higher than the rate at which trans people were murdered during the same time period.

Some places have written about the suicide question. The original data came from a very small non-representative study, and there is a dearth of studies which would look at suicide rates over longer periods, to see if medical transitioning reduces them or not.

What studies exist suggest that it does not. The argument often made is still that denying trans women access to every single female space will drive them to suicide.

So individuals with that level of stated despair are prioritised.

nepeta

Yes I quiz them for their stats and tell them the murder rates in the UK, they always just go silent or get angry and start insulting.

Do you find people listen when you offer alternative facts? I find they usually don't want to know, which makes me think the 'facts' are an excuse for their beliefs and behaviour, not a reason.
I dont care if women don't want single sex spaces. I dont think they should have the right to remove them from women that do, and they don't seem to have an answer for that beyond 'you're a bigot'.

Oh, crosspost.

I'm no longer using the term TRA's because they're not, this is an MRA movement.

MRA/TRA/Incel are just different terms for the same woman despising movement.

And has been mentioned many times before, the rights that these MRA's demand are either ones which no other group is entitled to (changing birth certificates for example) or demanding rights which infringe on other group's rights, dignity and safety (demanding access to single sex spaces which they are not entitled to access due to their sex for example).

@Waitwhat23

I'm no longer using the term TRA's because they're not, this is an MRA movement.

MRA/TRA/Incel are just different terms for the same woman despising movement.

And has been mentioned many times before, the rights that these MRA's demand are either ones which no other group is entitled to (changing birth certificates for example) or demanding rights which infringe on other group's rights, dignity and safety (demanding access to single sex spaces which they are not entitled to access due to their sex for example).

I'm just going to call them supremacists from now on

The difference is that TRA has found a way to further male supremacist aims in a way which is so obfuscated, some people actually truly believe they are being progressive. It's much more dangerous as a result.

I've stopped using the term TRA. They are just a subset of MRAs, along with incels and traditional sexist male supremacists; I don't see any practical difference. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

The difference? My guess would be that you don't tend to see feminists lining up to defend male supremacy.

and thats the thing that confuses me the most

It’s like they’ve performed a Jedi mind trick on themselves.

Think of Layla Moran and her “I can see into their souls” or whatever drivel it was she said.

They really have convinced themselves that some male people “are” actually women. And if you accept that first premise, then the rest makes sense, in a horribly nonsensical kind of way.

If you accept that, then yes, it does look like horrible bigoted meanness to “exclude” them from women’s spaces, and I can even see where they’re coming from with their awful racial segregation analogies, because in their befuddled minds we really are treating them as second class “women”, out of nothing but prejudice.

The problem is of course that there is no actual reason in the world to pretend they are actually women, when they’re not. When they are by definition excluded from the category “woman”. But the lib fems just can’t seem to get their heads round this very vital part of the equation. Can’t seem to recognise that the biggest piece of their intersectional puzzle is completely missing.

Even when they have to admit they can’t come up with a single working definition of “woman” that means anything at all, and includes these males, they just resort to Moran style nonsense, and accusations of meanness.

The emotional conviction that they are right, the sanctimonious, holier than thou posturing and virtue signalling, and projecting of every negative quality under the sun onto us - what is this mania? Is it just internalised misogyny gone really, really wrong? Is it denial as defence mechanism against the very real pain of acknowledging how bad misogyny still is? How we are still very much the second sex, the support humans?

I’ve seen it said that when people have a deep emotional investment in believing something, then no amount of reason will dissuade them from it. As long as their need to believe it is greater than their wish to be rational, then it doesn’t matter what arguments we come up with, they’re all just used against us to prove how bad we are.

For example, they say there’s no increased risk in allowing males into women’s spaces. We then provide numerous examples of biologically male people who are, or claim to be, trans being convicted of sexual offences - and it’s just “proof” of our “bigotry”. The fact we are aware of it is a crime in itself, a far greater crime than the ones these males committed, because it shows we went looking for evidence, or we’re “cherry picking”, and only bad people don’t believe that trans people are who they say they are.

Like the ducking stool: damned if we have the stats, damned if we don’t.

Getting one group of women to completely demonise and dehumanise another group of women, and furthermore calling it “feminism”, was an absolute master stroke of MRA activism. If women were all on board with opposing the TRA agenda, it would be a very different picture we’d be looking at now. The age old divide and conquer. This is the patriarchy in action.

Oh I know a joke about this!
The line between MRA and TRA is very thin. And it's drawn with eyeliner.

One of the biggest tells is that the Mumsnet feminism boards have been bereft of the old skool MRAs in recent years. There was a time they'd turn up frequently like clockwork to mansplain and tell us how horrid feminists are.

Where are they all now? It's almost like they've found something else to occupy their time...

Well, male supremacists assert that you only have to be in possession of a penis and testicles to control and dominate all those around you who don't have a penis and testicles. Thus just one person, who has a penis and testicles, in a women's toilet, is all it takes to frighten, crush, traumatise and utterly psychologically destroy all those women. It's wonderful, though, that there are so many women here at Mumsnet who don't hold to that view at all! :)

And as if by magic…

@RoaringtoLangClegintheDark

And as if by magic…

Does this work like Candyman?

Nobody mention B-rl-y...