We need to examine why so many women (including some prominent feminists) pushed the trans movement

[AliasGrace47]

I've seen quite a few posts on here placing the responsibility for gender ideology catching on on a combo of misogynistic & influential autogynephiles, and gay & straight men who backed them up.

I definitely think the core of the TRA movement is misogynistic men. But we also need to try & work out why several feminists promoted this stuff. After all, Butler's Gender Trouble is the Bible of this.

It's notable that supporting gender ideology and supporting paedophilia seem to correlate. Gayle Rubin is a notable influence, as is the now Patrick Califia. Both wrote in the 80s that child-adult 'sexual contact' could be OK.

Because initially they thought they were supporting the underdog which is always seen as very 'right on'. And by the time they saw the light, they were either too invested to backtrack or too cowardly to speak out.

👆this

Because female socialisation was quite successfully used against us.

Cos it was easy just to swallow the propaganda rather than ask difficult questions and rock the boat.

Self interest always comes first. It's an 'im alright jack'ism.

Some women do have a rescue complex

So many women were used as flying monkeys in the trans debate & promoted "be kind" to shut down debate.

Because to start with it latched on to the LGB movement and stonewall/mermaids Pushed it through based on the same discrimination that LGB people have faced.

They not only made it very 'right on' but pushed the 'right side of history' and #nodebate, making it very difficult to say anything against them without being labelled transphobic.

They also manged to get heavily in to academia especially social studies, what was women's studies became Women's and gender studies and forced out various tutors and lecturers. Meaning that anyone that stood against them in any area could loose there job and reputation.

It was also pushed in schools and workplaces under the same inclusion and discrimination areas, and 'bringing your whole self to work/school' (also see Hollywood and actors) and how it would be bad if they weren't allowed to do so. See the suicides rates and "better a live son than a dead daughter' and visa versa.

At which point it unions, politicians etc. joined them as it was seen as a vote winner.

But that's just how I remember it.

Because standing against angry men is dangerous. Male approval is more important to them than women’s rights.

They don’t realise that they are only treated civilly by men because they are agreeing with them. They have never been victims of male violence or sexual assault, or they have and refuse to see it as such because that would make them a victim.

They are consumed with publicly prostrating their privilege in support of so called marginalised groups. But only marginalised groups that have glitter, rainbows parades and protests and massive press coverage. Not the boring non glittery paradeless press free needy.

They feed off being lauded as allies and the right kind of women. Dress up and prance about in groups criticising against the awful old hags that they will NEVER turn into. Shove a bunch of photos on social media to prove how kind and supportive they are.

It’s a new form of I’m not like other girls, I don’t get on with other women, I’m a cool girl who will laugh and shrug off misogyny and harassment.

I still feel sorry for them. They have yet to find out that the men they are fawning over see them as disposable props not people. It’s not if, it’s when.

People who have been very badly treated often over associate with the apparent victim. Women didn't have enough backbone to see past be nice to everyone.

It’s the same as the pick me girls. We are so cool.

We fully support men who like dressing up coming in to our swimming changing rooms with our six year old girls. But we are so cool and modern because we think like this. Urghh intelligent women saw right through it and were called terfs.

I'm not sure my answer will be popular, but that's never stopped me before:

A lot of women seem to put more emphasis on emotional satisfaction even when it's irrational.

Women are rather inclined to exclusive tribalism and a kind of social status seeking through belonging to the right clique, as well as finger wagging and "good works."

Relatedly, women are typically the people in society that enforce norms through social pressure.

Not all women, obviously,

All of these behaviours have social utility but when misplaced become toxic femininity.

I think it was partly because supporting transsexuals in the old fashioned sense of thee term is a very diffferent proposition to opening the door to the other groups that have been swept up under the trans umbrella, transvestites, AGP, fetishists, Genderfuid, Non binary, Gender tourists, etc, etc.

Once, I would have considered myself a trans ally, and it was because the trans friends I have are men who are sexually attracted to men or who are bi and who were on the pathway which led to full male-to-female body modification. They were decent people who were walking a pretty hard road and were doing it without presenting a threat, from what I could see. They didn't claim to actually be women and were grateful for any acceptance they could find.

Then came Stonewall's instance that "Trans" included all of these other groups and we weren't allowed to distinguish between them, and that forced teaming allowed vocal men's rights activists and other TRAs to push the conversation and close women down in all the deeply unpleasant ways we know so well.

I think many trans allies like me went through a process of peaking, the moment of realisation that you're not on board with what was being insisted on and presented as a fait accompli. But some were so entrenched or had been so vocally supportive that backing away from it wasn't an option, so they doubled down and turned on the women who were raising concerns.

To be start with it was academia shifting from Women’s Studies to Gender Studies and all the PoMo bullshit.

Then the linking the T to the LGB, which women have supported more than men - partly socialisation, partly because they are our children.

Then the narrative of Most Vulnerable, suicide ideation, poor little people living in the wrong bodies.

Then, having transed our children because of the scaremongering “dead son, live daughter” narrative OR knowing young confusion and distressed people adopting trans identities, women were either complicit and unable to admit they’d done something damaging to their children or couldn’t separate the cohort from the individual they knew.

I have a suspicion that with some (only some), there is a romantic attraction to violent, transgressive males.
If a woman like that is fairly traditional and apolitical, she goes the route of falling in love and "Aisle, altar, hymn", followed by an abusive marriage.
But if she's a consciously progressive feminist, she can't admit the attraction even to herself, so it has to go roundabout. It emerges as support for the "right sort" of gun-swaggering terrorist, as anti-carceralism even for violent criminals, as accusations against other women of "weaponising" their sexual trauma against men. Also as excuses for the excesses of transactivist males and as a tendency to personally identify as a man, or at least as "not a woman'. There's probably a fair bit of internalised misogyny mixed up in it too.

When I first watched Starship Troopers, I was happy to see the mixed sex showering scene. The girl was treated like everyone else, very equal and often coming out on top in the scene's banter. No one was weird about her body or teased her or shamed her. It felt modern, empowering, equal.

It felt like the kind of equality I wanted - not to be held back by my female body.

Twenty (thirty?) years later, I don't think this is what I want. Men haven't changed and women still need safe, single sex spaces away from them.

I initially supported transgenderism because I thought it was the last social evil to defeat, alongside homophobia, racism and sexism, to bring about a better society. I don't think that anymore.

Personally think the roots of female support for trans ideology lies in the rejection of 'biology as destiny'. That women are not totally conditioned by their sex. That women can merge into the male model and it is only social convention which prevents them from doing so. Women are equal to ( which has tended meaning the 'same as') men. Male violence is just down to patriarchal oppression and will disappear once patriarchy does. Our job is therefore to challenge patriarchy.

This has morphed into 'Being a woman has got nothing to do with biology'. 'woman' Is nothing but a social role; a set of 'performances of gender' which anyone can express or display.

Gosh, this conversation is so interesting. I agree with many of the points.

I have a suspicion that with some (only some), there is a romantic attraction to violent, transgressive males.

There is a Damon Runyan short story about this whose name I wish I could remember - about an academic Ivy League gender non-conforming bluestocking type (think Katharine Hepburn) who only wants to hang out with violent gangsters in 1920s New York. It is so accurate about the sort of women who have a mix of lady bountiful do-gooder with 'not like other girls' attitude (because they aren't pretty) and a superiority that comes with academia and wealth. It perfectly foreshadows the Judith Butler types. 60+ years ahead of its time.

Another theory I have is that woman's innate capacity to put other's first (and I do think it is innate because it's needed for child rearing) sometimes runs rampant and actively works against their own interests. Like an allergy where the immune system attacks the host body. Women who empathise so much they end up writing letters to serial killers. This is what I think has happened with some lady TRAs - they are so used to putting their own needs last they end up serving the men.

Interesting posts … @Heggettypeg are you talking about the kinds of women who go crazy over men like Luigi Mangione? A cold-blooded murderer, after all.

In academic circles, I can think of trans-identified men such as Susan Stryker (famous for a book on trans history), Talia Mae Bettcher (trans philosopher) and McKenzie Wark (media theorist) - they are physically imposing, project a ‘tough guy’ image and I can see how some women might be attracted to them. I think I’d find them scary if I met them IRL … irrational, transphobic fears, I am sure ….

Lots of reasons many very good ones mentioned above, it's not one homogenous group and women I know who are otherwise mostly quite sensible have elements from several groups.

There are those with the beauty and the beast complex (waves at Layla Moran)

Those with the rescue complex

The Not My Nigels who have 'lovely friends'

Those with the awww bless mummy instincts towards males they perceive as vulnerable (lots of sexism in this one, it's males only that they get silly about, they expect girls and women to just get on with things)

Those who are open minded and naturally centre left, and are welcoming and accepting and have not yet had the insight or direct experience to realise the issues

Those who are acting on internalised misogyny and believe deep down that men have needs and it isn't ok for women to say no to them, that men have a right to use women's bodies (you can find them on the relationships board informing women that yes their MiL may have eaten the children and burned the house down but they should be grateful )

Those who love the opportunity for righteousness and scolding, being better than everyone else and virtue signalling it. New generation religious zealot/ keeping up with the Joneses/ a hundred years ago would have been on the Parish women's board sending children to Canada on the grounds that their mummy was a bit common and feckless

Those who are doing for good girl cookies and pats which equal social status

Mixed bunch.

Shamefully I sometimes think that women (as a class) are so inept at promoting their own interests and needs and so complicit in male power that I wonder if our oppression is perhaps natural and inevitable.

(To be clear, I don't really believe that - obviously male violence and power is always there as a threat even in civilised equal societies and that is why we behave in these ways. We have to align with those in power to survive.)

I think there has been a lot of denial, and a lot of wishful thinking that there are no generalised sex based differences which impact upon the preferences, choices and decsions we make as human beings. Denial that sex and its chromosomal hard drive do shape and condition responses, and have greater impact upon us than we care to imagine.

Civil society serves to flatten out differences between people in pursuit of fairness and equality...but it can only go so far before differences re-assert themselves, which is why you see Scandinavian countries hitting certain barriers in spite of their equality laws and practices.

Because not all women think the same, and i am sick of being told how to think and feel by anyone man or woman

And not all men think the same, but they still remain male.

That would certainly the case if pregnancy, motherhood and being generally smaller than males are viewed primarily as oppression.

The animal kingdom is ruthless and " red in tooth and claw". It has no sentiment - and the conditions of males and females, certainly in mammals, is pretty much determined from the start.

I don't know about prominent feminists, but I see a lot of younger tik toker feminists basically very scared that if you define women by biology, it leads to restricting women by biology. So they suggest it can then become women can't or shouldn't do this because they have eggs not sperms.