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.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Women aren't plotting against trans women. They are necessarily excluded because they are male.

It's not the same argument.

I haven't even accused men of plotting against women. I was talking about men doing business deals where women are excluded. That's not plotting against women, it is just excluding them from places where important conversations happen.

I knew a woman about 15 years ago who had been an investment banker in the 90s. It was a highly male environment and she thrived. She was one of the first women to end up in a very high position in her company. She was also, incidentally, a pretty mean golfer.

So what happened when her colleagues at the same level went off to the male only golf club? They did deals. They talked business. She, as their equal, was excluded.

Why was that right?

What's your rationale for some days only for men?

When MRAs realised their support of transactivism backfired and became ‘gender critical’. 😂

I'm just trying to relate some of the backstory to what I believe is part of this toxic kickback to women's rights.

The main driver is poisonous expectancy of porn addled TRAs and this left field mutation of feminism ie Transmaidens.

A secondary or tertiary strain is those same men wanting payback for that period I've highlighted.

Ironically the Sex Positive Transmaidens like Ash Sarkar have no issue with lap dancing joints etc, her beef is with the Second Wave Julie Bindels of this world.

But my views on men only spaces seems to have piqued most interest on this thread.

Ironically I wouldn't even have gone to 100% male spaces, like Groucho, I won't join a club that'll have me as a member.

About to turn 59, you tell me!

I'm not saying it is right. I'm not overly defending single sex spaces. I'm just saying I can see the argument for them.

Okay, fair enough. Everyone was talking about you like you were a 20 something, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed nipper, about to get married…

Oh yes, 100%. You've done nothing in your posts to change my generalized view. Lots of "clever" arguments and devil's advocating. To me it comes across as someone who's more interested in debate than actually has skin in the game. No offense meant, you did ask. Of course you are absolutely free to express your opinions on here and debate etc. But you clearly fall into the generalisation I made, rather than being the exception.

Oh, the pendulum is swinging back ok. It's whether it smacks Starmer in his fundamentals painfully enough that is one important Q.

Because some men want the company only of other men.

Ditto women of other women.

What's your rationale for womens-only business clubs?

What type of event is this?

Pride or Stonewall with the contract for F1 "girls"?

FFS!

That's so weird. No, my narrative on my "previous" life wasn't from 48 hours ago.

You and me, and MN, know they're not women.

But Starmer et all days they are. And there's the rub.

Men wanting women out to plot against them.

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

I know you were playing devil's advocate but this doesn't work at all.

Men not including women in golf club chats because they don't see women as equals, and men hold the power. So that is keeping women from the power-holders, whether deliberately or because they see us as undeserving.

Women generally want to keep male people out (where appropriate) for safety, and women as a group rarely hold the same sort of power. Male people have every access to it. Usually if there is a women's group (rape survivors etc) there is a men's equivalent, and if there isn't, that's not a reason to make the women's one mixed-sex.

I'm with you. I don't subscribe to my view from 20 years ago.

But it's shortsighted to deny that men need men-only spaces for a variety of reasons, many of those reasons are not anti-women.

Might be old and misremembered, but I thought the boys were found to be better off in mixed-sex schools whereas girls were better off in female- only schools.

I do think it's a massive generalisation though, I couldn't say whether I'd have been better off at a girls' school, but I had some nice funny lads in my class who I had some gentle competition with. Also some dickheads though...

@RealityFan Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist but I actually don't think the support for (or acceptance of) men in women's spaces as payback for the decline in men only spaces was entirely organic. Coming at this from the other angle there was (and still is) definitely an attempt to frame trans rights as the next big civil rights/social justice movement and to position those against it as being Christian far right, the patriarchy blah blah blah. Lots of people fell for it. I did till I argued with people on mumsnet thought about it more critically.

At the same time, I think there was also a move to frame it to other people (the men you are talking about I think) as a payback for feminism, and to frame the people objecting being a stereotype of the sour faced feminazi types/the worst type of SJW. "TERF" is actually a very clever slur. On the one hand its exclusionary (so a bad sign if you are a bit of a lefty SJW be kind type), on the other hand its radical feminist . Many of the people that get called TERF wouldn't position themselves as radical feminists (though there's nothing wrong with those who do) but I think it was designed to conjure up an image to people on the other side that was instantly off-putting.

I could be overthinking it. But the way this movement grew so fast just felt so convenient.

Really good points. The vicious toxic nature, somehow given a pass by the left, has turbo charged it.

My points on historical perspective are just to say that part of the phenomenon is decades-old gripes.

What is fascinating is how a so called "gender bending" movement is so frozen within traditional gender stereotypes.

Males have always been brutal to women, and continue to this day, in the fake guise of dissolving barriers.

And the left that has always been built on patriarchy and misogyny and status, has co-opted transactivism seamlessly.

Quite where the Ash Sarkars, and Lisa Nandys, and Nicola Sturgeons managed to divorce their minds from all of this, I really don't know.

Many people have covered that this trans movement is an artificial movement. What’s the phrase, astroturfing?

I am curious why so many people have supported it still; from leftie real feminists to incels.

So what has been discussed thus far on the thread is not revolutionary New insights, but I for one appreciate being able to mull things over many times AND to write clumsy posts while trying to sort my own thoughts out.

Nowt wrong with that?

I don't think 'want" is a good enough reason tbh. Women only spaces are to protect women from assault and marginalisation. It's not just 'I fancy it'. For that, you have to make do with choosing who you invite to a social event.

I don't think 'want" is a good enough reason tbh. Women only spaces are to protect women from assault and marginalisation. It's not just 'I fancy it'. For that, you have to make do with choosing who you invite to a social event.

Oh also I agree. I had completely forgotten until @SpicyMoth said that I can vaguely remember a bit of fuss about men only spaces and it going to far in the late 90s/early 20s too. It was mostly my mum complaining though (she was very conservative, leaning quite anti capital F Feminism) whilst my dad didn't care that much. It didn't really seem to go anywhere at the time though - someone would write an article in a magazine and then the Daily Mail would do a reactionary article kicking of. It felt like fluffy magazine feminism at the time.

Ironically I think (though might be misremembering) that the reason a lot of male only spaces were lost were for completely different reasons. e.g. the scouts (lack of men/boys to volunteer/attend plus as massive CSA scandal); men only working men's clubs (the smoking ban etc.). Ironically, the thing that feminists of old actually had a point about - the old school tie networks, are probably still in place because the fancy men's clubs still exist (no smoking ban for them) and besides you can't really break down soft networks like that. Also Eton and the fancy private schools are still single sex (not saying they shouldn't be. But its interesting that the "elitist" grammar schools were replaced but the truly elitist institutions remained untouched).

@namitynamechange,

I think that is a really important point that is overlooked in this whole debate.

Where are the campaigners for allowing trans men into the Masons, or allowing them to inherit titles?

Nowhere.

Because it's a Men's Rights Movement and the women - even those who think they are men - are not important.

The only exception is Gay men beginning to get upset about female people on their dating apps and in their gay spaces. Funny how it goes, isn't it? Women are worried about their very existence in law and the mutilation and sterilisation of children and the only thing that any men are seemingly fussed about is people disturbing their sex lives...

But whether they are explicitly.anti women or not, they can still have the effect of continuing to exclude women. I think what you're missing is the impact of disproportionate power and influence. If women has much more power than men then an old girls club where business decisions were made and alliances formed would be damaging to men even if not having excluding men as the actual aim.

I have my thoughts on that, less from a male perspective. More from an overview of herd mentality, purity spirals, and my reappraisal of what the left has always represented and does now, and the significance of the "trans child" within elites/polite society.

I've done a lot of thought, and I think my conclusions are valid, let me collect them together and post later.

I don't think you'll like what I have to say. For me, it's freed me from the moral conundrum of hating the Tories after four decades voting, but now despising Labour.