Men who affirm TW

[Holdmeclosertinydancer2018]

This is something I've wondered for a while and a post from a woman on FB asking/stating the same thing prompted me to ask everyone's opinions on this.

I have noticed a large proportion of Trans Idealogues on both FB and Reddit go absolutely berserk when someone points out that TW are not, in fact women, but oddly, a large proportion of them are men.

Now I completely understand the women that have bought into this notion as women generally speaking tend to be more empathetic for their fellow human so are more likely to go along with 'be kind'. But what about the swathes of seemingly normal, gender conforming men that support it? I don't know a single man other than one in real life (who's daughter is apparently now a 'she') that support the idea that TW are women. What is their motive for this?

When you compare oppression/persecution, trans people sit at the top, which is why there is a moral obligation to fight for their rights

I appreciate that this is the argument, but it is completely baseless. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that men (however they dress) are more oppressed than women.

Saying TWAW is a normative statement designed to help the community

I see what you are saying here, but at least on some level it has to be acknowledged that this statement is completely false and therefore a complete dead end when it comes to building an argument.

Where does that get us? The entire justification of 'we have a logical point' is based on suppositions that are obviously not true. So how are we all supposed to deal with that?

People dismissing pro-trans arguments as just being about hating women or "being thick" don't really understand the crux of the issue. And if we are to fight their arguments, we have to first understand them rather than dismiss them as being just stupidity or lack of education.
**
we do understand them. They're just total bollocks. In fact the reason we've been so successful with court cases is because unlike TRA we've taken the time to understand their arguments. They've never done the same for our view point also known as reality. The only way to be a woman is to be born a juvenile human female and grow into an adult one. Everything else, everything, is irrelevant. Wear DMs or stilettos or trainers, short or long hair or no hair! A full face of make up or none. Be a builder or a ballet dancer or a lorry driver or a teacher. Have children or not. None of those things make you a woman or not a woman

Do men oppress women - yes
women oppress TW - no

TW are men. The reason this ludicrous ideology has gained so much traction is because institutions/ the establishment/ the media is patriarchal and sexist. They know exactly who the women are which is why they've lined up behind TW - because they know they're men

I think a huge amount of this is about men being uncomfortable with men who like to cross dress and are happy to make that a problem for women to deal with.

I don't think they've thought about it very much. That's mostly because they don't want to.

There are a lot of myths around trans that seem feasible at first glance, but dont hold up to any scrutiny. And because a lot of men dont want to, or dont need to, think too hard about it assume the myths are true. Especially when women repeat them.

There's the idea of 'intersex' people being between and of both sexes naturally. Therefore trans people become intersex, and should be treated as the sex they are not. But that misinterprets what DSD are, and forces trans onto an unrelated medical condition.

The idea that we've always accepted men into womens spaces, because we know genuine trans. But if that was the case, we wouldn't need trans inclusive signs to be put up in women toilets or trans awareness.

There are a lot of compromises that seem reasonable at first, but unworkable. Trans inclusive women only spaces cannot happen, because there has to be a reason to exclude men for the women space to exist. Adding men back into the group negates the reason for the women only group.

The reliance of the passing trans is very odd. Im not saying it never happens, but so what? The idea that some men pass as women, therefore they have a right to be in women spaces, and because they have the right, all men do?

Again, its reinterpretating the reason why women spaces are allowed to exist. Men transgressing boundaries is one of the reason women only spaces are needed in the first place. Announcing they are going to use the space anyway, is not a winning argument to get rid of womens spaces.

I am left wing and GC.
You are quite correct that the left wing support for TI is rooted in the principle of fighting oppression. However, I would question whether it is 'intelligent' to simply accept the statement that a subset of men are 'the most oppressed' group in our society. Because its not supported by logic or evidence.
Even if we accept that being trans predisposes a person to discrimination and marginalisation, trans people have recieved disproportionate levels of support and targeted inclusivity measures far in excess of the size of the population they represent. The institutions in our society have embraced their cause and introduced accommodations for them that marginalised groups could only dream of.
Also, importantly, the accommodations they desire directly impose on women.
The Left not only concerns itself with oppression from an ethical position, but also because of a perspective of what is considered most functional for society. The greater good. Prioritising 1% of the population over 50% is a stark deviation from this, and I've yet to hear a left wing person who supports TI square this circle, other than repeating but TW are W. Which is where for me the intellectual element breaks down.

Women oppress men because we stop them following girls into swimming pool changing rooms.

Women oppress men because we reject gender as the definition of our sex.

I know their arguments, they feel better presenting as the opposite sex. But that isnt enough. We need to acknowledge that they are their preferred sex. Any boundary is proof that we dont believe, and one of those boundaries is women only spaces.

Any boundaries is proof that we dont believe, and one of those boundaries is women only spaces.

👏👏👏

Prioritising 1% of the population over 50% is a stark deviation from this, and I've yet to hear a left wing person who supports TI square this circle

That's a utilitarian argument and not all segments of the left are utilitarian.

I'm not saying their argument is correct or supported by evidence, only that their position make sense if you start from the premise that trans people are the most marginalized in society. I personally don't start from that premise, although I do think trans people face a lot of discrimination in society.

The issue is that they're only starting from that premise because they haven't thought about it. They've lazily accepted some bullshit they've been told.

We can't take that as a 'starting point'. We need the starting point to be one based on fact.

A HUGE issue here is that these men fundamentally don't want to engage, beyond trotting out some nonsense that makes them feel virtuous in the moment.

The segments of the left who are not utilitarian are actually liberals identifying as left.

Theres a clip going round of Joe Rogan telling Steve O men shouldn't be in women spaces. Rogan has daughters and understands sports, it makes sense that he speaks up.

But even then, he said that some men were genuine. He has interviewed a comic with his male 'wife'. They all acknowledged that this man wasn't female, but were all happy to see him as not a man and call him 'she/her'. And listening to them it was obvious they were motivated by porn.

That's the male privilege, the boundary can be placed somewhere that still changes the meaning of women.

I don't know if it is necessarily true that they haven't thought about it. A lot of deep thinķers are pro trans. It is possible for two people to have the all the facts but still come to different conclusions (usually due to a difference in values). For example if you care most about preserving life then you might side with the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women).

Just assuming everyone who disagrees with is automatically stupid/misinformed rather than simply having different values is lazy thinķing.

the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women

Probably because thinking they were in the wrong body had been, all along, a deflection from something else deeply upsetting in their lives. So being ‘trans’ had not been the answer they’d been looking for after all.

The hierarchy of men oppressing women, and women oppressing 'trans women' makes no sense.

Women and men are different sexes, and we need to acknowledge this for a variety of reasons. Including saftey and medically, as well as men being the dominating class. Men have prioritised male needs that have disadvantaged women.

The oppression trans women have is the acknowledgement that these sex difference are real.

So the assumed hierarchy fails. Men are oppressing women because they are male and we are female, yet women are oppressing men because we acknowledge that they are male?

A lot of deep thinķers are pro trans

What does that mean though?

They think men can become women?

They think women should have to give up their single sex spaces to men who want them?

If this is 'deep thinking' you'd have to concede it's either shaky on the science or extraordinarily misogynistic.

For example if you care most about preserving life then you might side with the trans community as they have a higher rate of suicide than women).

Surely a deep thinker would conclude from this that they need better mental health support, not access to women's changing rooms.

I'm not sure why it has to be explained to people in 2026 that threatening suicide to get your own way is emotional manipulation.

In the hierarchy, a man is not oppressed but a transgender man is because he experiences transphobia. Fundamentally, they put transwomen and men in different categories, which most of us on here obviously don't. Again that is the difference in values that lead to different conclusions.

Another "deny trans existence" post I see.

I would like to know what is meant by the term "deny trans existence", instead of the typical drive-by post, and like to see evidence of where this happens.

I have not seen anyone deny that cross-dressing individuals exist.

A mixture of things.

In general we tend to have a bias towards people who are the same sex as us.

I genuinely think that a lot of gay men have been duped by TRAs. There is a huge over-representation of same-sex attracted males with an odd mixture of internalised homophobia and externalised misogyny which I think resonates with a lot of them. There is also the narrative of "finally being who you are" which makes sense for closeted men, but is the complete opposite of what people with gender dysphoria, transvestitism or AGP actually want. I think the TRAs have userped the emmotive message and taken advantage of this vulnerability and has convinced them that the women that say no are the enemies.

I think that most straight men by far are not supportive of "trans rights" but are very wary of saying that publically. They might be at risk at coming across homophobic or sexist and they will also be wary of the aggession from trans people who are on the spectrum/NPD.

I also think there is an element of backlash from the MeToo movement. Being shown that you are the villan in someone elses story would have fucked up a lot of those emmotionally immature men who were reading and wanking off too comics. It also would have scared a few of the normal men who have certainly witnessed shitty behaviour even if they didn't participate.

But it's not just a difference in values, it's a completely flawed premise.

What would make middle aged men who like to dress in women's clothes shoot right up to the top of the list of most oppressed?

They think men can become women?

I don't think anyone truly believes this. But they think that in pretending they are they can reduce the harm to the trans community (mostly in terms of high rates of violence and suicide). It is emotional manipulation.

Right. Personally I don't think succumbing to emotional manipulation is an expression of good values. I think it's a by product of lazy and cowardly thinking

If women en masse start to threaten suicide unless we are listened to and our wishes made paramount would the 'safety' of the trans community still be the top trump? I suspect it would and we would just be silly hysterical women.

If they don't care about women who are locked in prisons with men who feel female, or women who face male bodied opponents in contact sports or the presence of males in female rape counseling groups all of which endanger women why would they give a toss about female suicides?

What would make middle aged men who like to dress in women's clothes shoot right up to the top of the list of most oppressed?

Difference of values. They would argue because the trans community experience more violence, suicide etc than women do then that is evidence that they are more persecuted/more in need of help. That transition and social acceptance will help to lower those numbers.

I'm not the one making this argument, i'm simply explaining how they view the situation.