How explain trans ideology to inclusivity trained friend

[Whatnown]

Hello, I’m trying to explain all the trans stuff to friends without sounding nuts. I’ve explained that it’s not a rebellious youth thing, it’s from blokes in frocks who own some big pharma companies and want big profits, also men in frocks who want their fetishes normalised, also men in frocks who want to perve, also confused young people who are being told their normal curiosity means they must be trans. But I’m doubting how measured I sound, and it sounds a bit mad if you are speaking to a cynical friend that has had inclusivity training.

gCan anyone recommend links to anything that explains all this for the dubious and cynical? I have sent her the link to the actual essay by jk Rowling https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
other suggestions helpful!
im sure I can’t be the first to ask this, maybe the results could be pinned at the top of the thread like on several other threads?
thank you!

Anne A Lawrence, well known American psychologist, sexologist, and physician, who is a trans-identified male and self-identified autogynaephilic, argued against Moser's claims. He stated that the scale that Moser used to measure AGP was seriously deficient and would not measure autogynaephilic arousal in women.

Sure - I appreciate there’ll be academic debate / rebuttals etc. But worth noting that there is some evidence that autogynaephillia is not just something that occurs for trans people.

I suppose my real question though - as above - is why would that make someone more of a threat to anyone else?

You're asking me to explain things I explicitly haven't said.

What I did say was that I don't think men who get off on dressing as women should be allowed to further their sexual fantasies in doing so by interacting with women in women's single sex spaces. I think many women would (entirely reasonably) be horrified by the prospect that could be happening any time they use a public toilet.

We don't even need to raise the spectre of a physical threat; there are vast vistas of behaviour that we can and should try to prevent before we rise to that level.

Are you ok with men dressing as women and furthering their sexual fetishes by interacting with women in women's facilities and spaces? It's a clear question. If you are ok with it - then don't be ashamed to say so.

I am absolutely fine with trans people using the toilet they feel safest in.

And I am not going to reduce a complex psychological and social reality to a sexual fetish (because I’m not a bigot), or get or board with your misinterpretation of normal aspects of embodied human sexuality.

edit: replying to @MyAmpleSheep

I think you're dodging the question because an honest answer makes you uncomfortable.

At this point I don't need to misinterpret anything at all. You concede that it's "normal embodiment" of human sexuality for men to get aroused by dressing as women and interacting as women with women in women-only spaces and facilities.

But you won't look in the face the proposition that women are allowed to say no to that.

Bit of a backtrack and goalpost change there, I see.

No-one is saying that all AGPs claim a trans-identity. Nor that all trans-identified men are AGPs, but there is evidence from Blanchard himself and Dr Az Hakeem, for example, that in the region of 70% of trans-identified males have a transvestic fetish, the majority of them sexual fetishes, and that a small proportion are AGPs.

As for your threat question. They are men. The overwhelming threat to women comes from men. That, along with privacy and dignity, is the reason why we have single-sex spaces in situations where we are vulnerable.

Say no to what @MyAmpleSheep? How someone feels about their own body?

No to having our dignity violated by being props in a man's sexual fetish.

Can you actually explain how women are being used as a prop in the situation you describe?

I named a study and I then accepted not everyone would agree with the study. I’m not really sure that’s a backtrack.

I think women are allowed to reject being used as an unwitting or unwilling prop in any man's furtherance of a sexual fetish - regardless of what that fetish is.

One effective barrier in the way of some men who (you acknowlege) would like to do exactly that is to be assured that everyone who uses a women's only facility is actually a woman.

The words women's privacy and dignity actually have some meaning in this context.

You are not actually able to explain how women are being used ‘as a prop’, are you?

how women are being used ‘as a prop’

Because it enhances a man's sense of himself as a woman - the very core of this fetish which you acknowlege as normal - to be treated or accepted "as a" woman, by women, in a service or facility reserved for women.

I didn't realize this was controversial.

What @MyAmpleSheep said. If you want more lurid descriptions you will have to go elsewhere. We are not here for titillation.

LOL. It’s not me that has a lurid fascination with sexualising trans people.

@Canadanian You're being slippery, while I'm trying to be clear.

What I didn't realize was a matter of controversy was the mechanism by which women in women's facilities are used to further some men's fetish. You challenged me that I couldn't explain it. In fact I can and did.

I haven't ever insisted that "the reason trans women want to use the women’s loo is because of a fetish rather than for practical and safety reasons is(n't) controversial".

I know it's controversial. But being controversial doesn't speak to its truth.

My advice to the OP was further up thread; round about post 25. I don't need to repeat it.

I’m not being slippery; I’m just not at all convinced by your arguments / explanations. And you’re not convinced by the way I see things. We’ve reached an impasse I think!

I find it so sad when people will defend almost anyone or anything if they share gender critical beliefs.

Acknowledging that Joyce could have shown more sensitivity / awareness when she chose her examples if she didn’t want to contribute to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories wouldn’t take anything away from your gender critical beliefs.

You're being slippery by straw-manning virtually every post I've made, and asking me to explain opinions that I haven't stated.

I'm very clear about my opinions. What nobody can be clear about is your opinion, because you refuse to say if you're ok with giving to any men who wish to do so the opportunity to dress as women and further their sexual fetish, should they have one, by interacting as women, with women, in women's facilities and spaces.

I've been on the Tube a lot this week, and I'm struck by the poster campaign against unwanted staring, comments, catcalls and other harassment of a sexual nature. I do not understand why "a man going into the women's toilet dressed as a woman" doesn't feature on this list.

I’m not going to say I’m ok or not ok with allowing men to further their sexual fetishes in women’s spaces because I do not believe that’s what’s happening.

I think you conceded upthread that it was a very normal part of human sexuality. It's a bit late now to say you don't think it's happening.

You did raise the issue though.

I didn’t ’concede’ that’s what’s happening in public spaces or why trans people what to use spaces matching their gender. I’ve just realised you think I’m being ‘slippery’ because you can’t really handle nuance.