I agree up to a point, akkakk.
If you had written this in 1996 not 2026, and if there were a whole lot of posters saying things about those awful men pretending to be women, you'd have a point.
But the problem - and it is also a problem for those potentially vulnerable transpeople you refer to - is that an entire social/political movement was built around the clearly erroneous idea that humans can change sex.
In a very short space of time, this movement, which has a tiny base in the population - maybe 250,000 out of a population of nearly 70m - has had an incredible and disproportionate influence on just about every aspect of life: the law, medicine, the arts, education, museums, the media, language - even individual speakers' everyday use of language, e.g. 'preferred pronouns'.
Flags, lanyards, days, months, painted trains ... future sociologists will have a field-day working out how a flawed concept, representing a tiny percentage of the population, took hold so forcefully.
One explanation can be found in the 'Denton's Document', which set out a plan of action for extending the reach of the transgender movement into all areas of society. Some of the recommendations are very clearly in use
-
Piggybacking on other causes: Attach trans rights to broader equality, diversity, or anti-discrimination initiatives to normalise them.
-
Strategic framing: Use language that resonates positively (e.g., “equality,” “human rights”) and avoid terms that may provoke opposition
Analysis of the Dentons Document: A How to Manual - Women Speak Tasmania
If the Denton's Document didn't exist and hadn't been safely archived, it would sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, wouldn't it: that the transgender rights movement was not a grass-roots movement, but a carefully thought-out strategy produced in 2019 by a law firm, and which clearly was put into practice, because we can detect its recommendations in how things have actually panned out.
Another explanation for the disproportionate influence of the transgender movement is that it is basically anti-women, anti-feminist.
I say 'basically' because the most basic assault on a group's rights is to appropriate their very name. If you insist on extending the definition of a group so it can include just about anybody, it removes the identity of that group, and effectively nullifies it. That's what the trans rights movement has done to women's rights.
So future sociologists may observe that the starling success of the trans movement was aided by the fact that it is anti-women, and therefore as useful -as a backlash against feminism as the manosphere is - different, obviously, but also undermining women.
That's what we are arguing against - not individual men who identify as women, the transvestites or transexuals of former years who were so few that they could be viewed neutrally, or sometimes with sympathy or even pity. It's a very successful social movement which has taken hold of key areas of society, and far from representing 'the most marginalised' as it claims, has achieved an incredible and disproportionate amount of visibility and influence.
There is a lot of compassion here towards individuals caught up in the trans juggernaut, especially if they are vulnerable for one reason or another.
Not so much kindness towards a movement which is so inimical to women's rights, and I think that's fair enough.