Trans rights activism, a GC male perspective

[RealityFan]

Hallo Mumsnet allies, from recently-joined new comrade in arms. And a male to boot.
I've been deliberating leaving some thoughts on the scarred landscape that is trans activism, from an XY perspective. I'm unsure of how much interest a guy's thoughts are here.
My opinions range from the autogynephile/porn "sharp end" of the phenomenon, through my views as a male non parent on the phenomenon amongst teens, through the threat to free speech/institutional capture area, segueing nicely into the Labour Party's position and what this means post-2024 GE.
I need to be frank in this discussion, and some of what I might say may rub some readers the wrong way, but it's my heartfelt analysis.
I'm seeing very little from GC men online, save for Graham Linehan, Malcolm Clark, Dennis Noel Kavanagh, Simon Edge, Colin Wright, Billboard Chris, Wesley Yang, Jon Pike.
My take is of someone who's really thought a lot about this subject, has really weighed up lots of factors, and has really come down on the GC side, indeed is working hard to reconcile very strong emotions on the subject.
I'll post my thoughts if that's wanted, let me know.

The responses to women speaking out againstt the erosion of their rights is much worse than the responses to men speaking out against these assaults on women's rights though so I'm not sure that's an easy comparison.

I'm not drawing any false equivalence here.

I genuinely thought my perspectives on the porn phenomena on TRA deep psychology would have generated more reaction than me confirming that most men at the very least rolled their eyes during that whole period of "Clare Short campaign against Page 3" feminism.

OP this is the kind of place where it's beneficial to lurk for a bit and get the lie of the land. Your OPs are essential to word right, anticipating the obvious reactions etc, (eg makes much more sense when you explained you'd been asked to start a thread) or you'll get picked apart.

Stick around, develop a thick skin, realise we are not all one homogenous lump of posters and get a feel for the place. It's been a fairly close-knit community for some time, although people come and go, drop in to scold, have long-running bustups, become well-known, etc etc.

Also, often the tone is set by the first few/ most frequent responders rather than being representative of a whole forum. Depends who sees the thread and when (I tend not to bother wading in on a pages-long thread if it's gone way off course from the OP).

Something that sort of amuses me about ‘men’s spaces’…. is that they tend to have naked women, gyrating their tits and fannies in them. They will be called ‘gentleman’s clubs’, ‘for men only’.

This misnomer, calling a place with a significant number of women in it, somewhere for ‘men only’, is a sure sign that they (the proprietor and customers) don’t perceive all the women stripping for them as ‘real’ people - as actual human beings.

Oh, I'm sticking about, I'm not offended at all.
Brefugee seemed to really feel I was all mouth and no trousers...well yes, I have a big mouth but I never post with no trousers on.

There were plenty of golf clubs, cigar lounges, debating societies, mens proto refuges, that would have been men only, not a lap dancer or prostitute in sight.

I don't want to make a big point of this, it's part of the DNA of ongoing aversion to women and the evolution partly of TRAs.

My main contention is that the hyper sexualisation via porn and the societal acceptance of autigynephilia is where the real poison lies...with a side order of vengeance for 90s 00s feminsm.

I wonder if the MRA’s jumping on transactivism as a way to piss off feminists and erode the mechanisms for women and children to safely escape violent men, has actually backfired on them now. It just got way out of hand.

Genevieve Gluck and Dworkin others have done the research on porn and MRAs/ TRAs for years. It's well known.

Very welcome to join the conversation but don't claim to hold all the knowledge!

No, I'll never do that. But I do know one thing. What makes men tick. And some insight into the worst men.

I don't think there's any reasonable argument for a whole golf club to exclude women. Men only groups covering some topics, e.g rape, yes. But expecting to commandeer a whole sports/ leisure facility, especially when it's not possible to offer another for women, no. What rationale would you offer for needing that?

That was never my bag. I don't even like golf, lol. I think a compromise on certain days for men and women. But on balance, general interest pursuits should be unisex.

Men only cigar clubs, debating societies, refuges...yes, on board with that.

My issue as a libertarian was the evolving anti porn anti prostitution anti strip club anti Page 3 anti Loaded ethos that really picked up around the new millennium.

As a red blooded libertarian, that was never gonna sit with me. Now I've done a 180 and become more socially conservative, and hugely aware of erosion of women's rights and hugely allergic to the TRA cause.

But I know PART of the fierce new misogyny, is a certain feed from that period.

Is there an actual demand for men’s refuges?

I agree, @literalviolence.

The question (and I asked if further up thread) is why do you need the space to be men only?

I know why women need some facilities to themselves. It is because we are at risk of violence and objectification - and also, in some cases, because of religious or cultural factors. I'm talking about things like women only gyms, swimming pools...etc.

Why do men need them? It is a genuine question and was ignored earlier.

Men are covered in the same way under the Equality Act, so they have the right to single sex spaces where there is a legitimate aim. What is the legitimate aim for a men's only social club? How do men behave in men's only spaces that differs if women are present.

Obviously, the aim for single sex toilets, refuges, counselling services...etc is the same and there should always be men only options for these.

Only a man can answer that, so I hope OP has a think and gets back to me this time.

Sorry, OP. Cross posted.

OP - weren’t you giving us the impression you are a young man earlier?

Also, OP, someone asked earlier and I'm not sure that you answered...

Women were objectified and treated as lesser humans through things like strip clubs and page 3 - and many women were, rightly, upset by the culture they encouraged. You were aware that feminists had a view on this, but dismissed it as annoying at the time.

Have you seen either of the documentaries on the happenings at Woodstock 99? There is a Netflix one, which is ok, but another one which better describes the landscape for women at the time. It is shocking to look back on the way women were encouraged to see objectification as empowerment and the way some men took full advantage of that in the most degrading of ways. It's worth a look if you're interested.

But this is the issue that has caused the 180. Why this? It isn't about libertarianism now, because you would, surely, be arguing that everyone must do as they please and men should be free to become women if they want to.

Was it a more general move to conservatism in your outlook, or was it just this?

The thing is, it is not equivalent between women and men, because of the differences in societal positions of power that men and women hold, and our differences in physical vulnerability. Basically, one group is able to dominate the other on an individual as well as a group level.

Mixed sex spaces tend to become male dominated spaces and that is why women and girls need our single sex spaces - it is for temporary respite from male domination. Women and girls can find and even reach our potential in the absence of men and boys, as well as to live free of fear.

No, there is no "need" for seperate spaces. My supposition is that there is some benefit to be had for "safe spaces" from each other.

There was a mistaken belief in 90s that men wanting to maintain 100% male spaces meant we were gonna plot Andrew Tate-style against women. That the strippers would be in, men would slap each other on the back recounting tales of DV, that locker room banter would run rife.

Yes, maybe some male spaces...Loaded awards ceremony, The Sopranos clubs etc.

Actually most male spaces would have been full of boring chat on business deals, golf tips, tales of irritating teens.

And indeed hearts to hearts on emotional issues.

It's important for men to have emotional safe spaces as well. Especially older men, who are uncomfortable around women, and have deep need to bond, with other men, women not present.

But I do recall feminism at the time said NO MORE to lap dancing clubs...AND benign male business clubs.

And isn't it somewhat hypocritical that even today women want women-only social clubs in Central London?

Not to plot against men (well, maybe TRA men, lol), but to feel free to talk about emotional and bonding stuff that would totally be negated with men present.

I'd even extend this to single sex schools. How many girls would thrive without useless boys around? How many boys would thrive without distraction of girls around?

@EndlessTea

I know. I agree. I'm just saying that there is some justification for a limited number of men's only spaces for the reasons of dignity and privacy more than safety. It's the safety issue that is more relevant to women.

I was trying to make the argument that women only spaces tend to meet the definition of 'legitimate' more than men's do, but that men can still have some spaces. That's what the Equality Act does.

I'm trying to find out why the OP thinks that some men's social spaces are legitimate. Would they meet the threshold and why? What do men do in those spaces that would mean women need to be excluded?

See my post just before your one.

Are women not disadvantaged by being excluded from boring chat on business deals, golf tips?

So many businesses deal are actually struck in these informal circumstances.

I know, OP. We were posting at the same time. Thank you.

I agree with things like men's sheds - some have been set up for men to talk to other men about emotional problems and I totally support that. I think that would meet the standard of a 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim'

Your example of business deals on golf courses is exactly what feminists were concerned about, though. How can women have equality of opportunity in business and politics when men are doing deals and having those discussions in spaces women are prohibited from entering?

I doubt you'll find many arguing against single sex schools either.

Girls thrive in female only environments. The research has been done and girls in single sex schools tend to achieve more - particularly in STEM subjects. It is more evidence that equality hasn't been reached yet. Boys dominate from a young age - whether through nature or nurture is unclear. I think probably both.

Oddly, there seems to be no perceivable difference for boys in boy's schools.

And how can trans women be excluded from women's clubs, meets, groups?

You see how it goes?

I'm just being Satan's Barrister here, but the (il)logic approach is the same.

Men wanting women out to plot against them.

Women wanting trans women out to, uh, plot against them.

Mmmmm 🧐