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.

Do you really think that's at the core of this, though?

We are aware on here that some is a backlash against women seeking equality. That isn't news. I just think it's not the main thrust.

Of course feminists were going to face a backlash. The media, lead by their male, pale, stale overlords were very good at painting feminists as boring, man hating fun sponges. That was almost a given from the outset.

Some men swallowed that rhetoric and saw the erosion of their entitlement to women's bodies and sexuality and were bothered by it - sure.

But I have a higher opinion of most men than that. I still have faith that most can see women as equal human beings.

Do you really think that's where this is all coming from? Just women hatred? Nothing more?

What also doesn't add up about that is that, as I said earlier, the younger generation were born in the midst of the third wave and haven't seen the form of feminism you rejected. Yet they are all on board with this. It can't be from the same root.

There will be people all over the threads who are male. You wouldn't know it from their user names, only if you were a regular. Some of those posters were around and commenting for years before mentioning when relevant to a thread that they were male, their contributions have been there at face value, not on a sexed basis. Which makes me think obviously about why and what happens when someone states their sex.

I am saying that this conversation is illustrating again the interaction and beliefs that are the root of much of the problem that women have: that in themselves they are not enough, do not understand, need leadership. It's never on a basis of equality, and as I've explained in two posts, always comes down to males only becoming interested in what affects women when it directly affects them too. And then the tendency is often to wish women to address and focus on the aspect the male person has identified as a problem because that's the bit that impacts on them. That is antagonistic. It's a steady daily experience, over years and years, whether it's male people with TQ+ identity choices identifying that it's now a problem that rape victims be allowed a space of their own to talk in, or whether it's a nice male like Hayton listening patiently to women to then explain kindly that their decision is that in their view a bit of harm and self exclusion to women is worth it because it makes Hayton's life better.

I'm afraid I'm several years past being able to be nice and properly female socialised about this.

I think there genuinely has been a misstep around the messaging on "toxic masculinity".

I think a large number of TWs are males with a genuine dislike of masculinity and feel they have a "female brain".

I think there's a lot of simple consumer choice being exercised...blue hair, Sam Smith CDs, female identity, thank you, right now please.

I think there's a lot of male superiority on display.

I think despite the internet, there's even less awareness of the past, the nuances of Marc Bolan, Adam Ant, Boy George, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, are glossed over for this new consumerism.

I think older autogynephiles, yes Suzy, I mean you, are driving the debate, fuelling the younger Anime toxic scum behind them.

If you look at the trans flag it is reminiscent of going into a toy shop or a clothes shop for children in the noughties. Shelves of baby blue to one side, shelves of baby pink to the other. There had been a backlach against the gender-neutrality of the 7Os/80s into retro-sexism in the 90s on to almost gender apartheid in the 00s.

We had such a fight on our hands to just let kids do what they please. Feminist campaigns to end sex stereotyping again got traction in the late 00s.

This warping out phenomena of sexist stereotyping into androgyny into gender-bending and back to sexism again, continues to bend and flex.

I think there genuinely has been a misstep around the messaging on "toxic masculinity".

Something I’ve noticed about the label ‘toxic masculinity’/‘fragile masculinity’ is how male competitiveness can play into it. Blokes ‘calling out’ themselves for it, proving that they ‘get it’ better than the next bloke. These men are usually the most pro-trans too - the kind who will be an absolute c#@£ to a woman, in a way that really flies in the face of social norms, in the defence of transgenderism.

Men will compete over anything. And set the rules. Don't like it, women? Get over it.

I agree.

Trans identifying men

• try to outdo women and each other as ‘the best woman’.
• try to outdo each other by breaching the most closely guarded female-only spaces.

Male trans allies

• try to outdo each other on how ‘accepting’ they are, how well they ‘get it’ by performatively abusing feminists.

Men can get a huge amount of sport out of hounding women. The possibilities are almost limitless.

I think where they screw up is by also breaching the ‘fair play’ understanding between men.

So Laurel Hubbard pisses men off. It’s not really winning if any bloke can do it.

And the contest in on multiple levels. When Eddie Izzard can just appropriate his dead GFs name, and so-called allies JG and FG breathlessly coo Suzy back at him, something dies inside womanhood.

Am I the only one hugely triggered by him, and on this particularly?

Lol you are so right 🤣

I am laughing because OP has been doing it all thread. I posted point of view non combatively and non directly and you picked up on it and added collaboratively. OP has ignored and had multiple exchanges since with or against only combative posters, or positive praise posters directly to OP.

Perhaps men only react to direct praise or a challenge for dominance. Perhaps we need to figure out how to reposition this issue so it triggers one of the above.

I fundamentally disagree OP and I think your thinking here is part of the problem women face.

@LemonSwan;Perhaps we need to figure out how to reposition this issue so it triggers one of the above.

Totally agree with you! Honestly I don't understand men, what motivates them. I just know it's different from women.

The gay men are getting pissed off because transmen (women) are ruining the atmosphere of their men-only gay clubs and wanting sex.
So basically an appeal to self-interest.

*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.*

If you can't see that 'benign or boring business chats have very real exclusionary consequences for women then you are very much in need of further development. Of course having an emotional heart to heart with whomever you feel comfortable doing that with. If that needs to be a man, then arrange that, or attend a male only support group. There is absolutely NO justification for that desire requiring the exclusion of females from places where power is used and shared - which is the real impact of what you call 'benign' business clubs. They are far from benign. OP you are loudly displaying male privilege here. I am very glad that you see the misogyny behind 'TWAW' and have developed in the last 20 years but you still have a way to go.

boring chat on business deals just like the boring board room, eh.

There doesn't have to be a reason for men only spaces other than many men, especially older ones, don't feel comfortable with women around them, just want the safe space companionship of other men.

I think there are lots of reasons to do with supporting mental health or even physical health (yoga, etc) where separate men-only and women-only groups are beneficial to all.

This isn't the same as 'men exclude women from one group and women don't have an equivalent'.

I think there genuinely has been a misstep around the messaging on "toxic masculinity".

Yes. I see this. I think most people don't really get what this is about and think it just means 'all men are toxic'. I can see how it has done damage to the self esteem of some young men.

I think a large number of TWs are males with a genuine dislike of masculinity and feel they have a "female brain".

This is where being truly Gender Critical comes in. Masculinity is a social construct and, as someone said earlier, the pink and blue toys and hyper gender normalisation has meant that men are back to not feeling comfortable being non-masculine men.

We need to fix this. Wholesale and from birth. We were getting there at one point and then it all went to shit.

It starts with 'your brain is part of your body and you can be feminine, but not female' shouted loudly and often. Plus men accepting gender non-conformity in other men. This is a man problem.

I think there's a lot of simple consumer choice being exercised...blue hair, Sam Smith CDs, female identity, thank you, right now please.

Also agree this is a factor. We have become incredibly self obsessed and no longer look at the big picture or the consequences of our actions to others. This is what has allowed the trans push, though, not what started it.

I think there's a lot of male superiority on display.

It never went away. We are more aware of this than any man could be.

I think despite the internet, there's even less awareness of the past, the nuances of Marc Bolan, Adam Ant, Boy George, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, are glossed over for this new consumerism.

They are glossed over because they challenge the doctrine. Young people are well aware of them, but choose to ignore them - or worse, retrospectively trans people - in order for their new ideology to work. It's deliberate.

I think older autogynephiles, yes Suzy, I mean you, are driving the debate, fuelling the younger Anime toxic scum behind them.

Also true. Older AGPs are the source of the 'trans child' because it validates them as born in the wrong body.

So - yep. Mostly agree. So where is the new insight that women on here won't much like? I'm not seeing anything different.

I'm not meaning to be goady, but I feel like you've suggested a new perspective and there's nothing new here. Women have got here all by ourselves.

I know you were asked to create this thread, but I think that was because you were trying to insert your 'I have a fresh male perspective' on another thread.

What is the news?

I'm enjoying the discussion, by the way, I am just waiting for the substance because it would be interesting to hear it.

What aren't we going to like?

Yes, of course men need and often want their own spaces too.....it is just that the public realm of society at large has long been treated as if it is itself a male space, and so women entering into these spaces is seen as an infringement of male boundaries. Women's spaces are 'supposed' to be within the private realm of home and family - not in the public sphere.

I imagine women can be a distraction in that the presence of women might well alter male behaviour in a variety of ways. If it is a private members club then surely that is the choice of the members?

No. The equality act protects against rich men's choice being seen as appropriate justification to exclude women. Arrange a round of golf with just your mates. Sit at a table with just men and engage in your conversations there. You do not need the whole bloody club to yourself.

Golf clubs may have been 'a target' in the past because they symbolised power and wealth - but I don't see, in principle, why men should not have male only clubs. Not any more. Women have women only gyms and spas and so on. I used to go to a women only members club becaue I didn't want the sort of distraction that having men around created.

What distractions are you talking about? What distraction do women cause for men? Do you seriously think that golf clubs are no longer a place where business 'men' go and where business deals might take place?

It wasn't just the space, it was that these men-only clubs were often great hubs of political power that by excluding women kept power in the hands of those men. We still live in a country with very token amounts of women in government and the massive majority who have made it have done by being good girls saying nothing that might be annoying to men.

If men want a men-only rape survivor group, a prostate health support group, a men-only book club, male voice choir, who would be arse enough to say 'well actually this group of men wanting support from other men where they don't feel inhibited by the presence of women, where they can share the unique male experience together - should be all about me and my desire to be in on this and my enjoyment of being the only woman in that space where no other women can go?' Because that's what it is.

The MNetter currently facing court to try and have an accessible rape survivor service she can use did not want to break into the men only one and make it mixed sex for the experience of being the woman who got the special exemption to experience being in a men-only group talking about their men only things for her own personal agenda. She just wanted an additional group that she could access alongside the three that male people could take their choice from if they claimed a TQ+ identity.

It often for women isn't just about 'that men-only group is a way of keeping power and influence away from women'. It isn't about 'we need a group that provides this for women' - we're fantastically good at organising and setting up what we need ourselves, we put action where our mouths are. Women's refuges being one. They've now been commandeered by and for men, with power coming from male led local authorities commanding funding. (These groups having, incidentally, very high numbers of not at all diverse members of particular political belief and background, who have no qualms about using their power to force others to obey their personal values.)

For women it can often be that it isn't men feel shut out and denied by women having that group or space. It isn't that men don't have a space or group of their own to equally meet need, or lack the capacity to set one up. It's that a very small percentage of men want the experience of being with them where no other men get to go, and some of them - not all, but some and the evidence is all over social media- do this to meet a sexual need, which turns the women present into props. Non consenting props in their sexual experience. Men using women's bodies. And often those women not consenting and being powerless to do any more than be angry or walk away is part of the sexual thrill involved to that man. It's important that the political discussions or considering where men feel threatened by women meeting alone do not cover up this basic fact.

It's perfectly ok to go to a golf club and play a round just with other men and go to the bar with your all male group afterwards. No one is saying women must be forced on men in all social situations.

What is not ok is if you want to invite a woman too, because she is a colleague and you want to include her in your business chat, but she can't come because it's a men only club. I'm thinking of my friend here, who faced that exact problem in the 90s. She was accepted as 'one of the boys' and well respected, yet could not be involved in those events because of her sex.

Regardless, this isn't the most important sort of space to focus on. It's the ones where people need privacy and safety.

Trying to push into changing rooms because you don't like women in men's social clubs is a silly over reaction. If, indeed, that is what has happened. I don't think that's what this is about, though.

I agree that it's not the most important, but OP wants to protect those spaces for men only. Meaning there are some men who, despite feeling like they've matured and now understand the issues they were causing, are still struggling to fully understand the damage such exclusion does.