> My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it
Exactly. The traditional gender roles come out of the tradition of patriarchal exploitation of women and subordinate men. The extreme version of this is seen in groups like the FLDS [1] and make the dynamics more apparent. But it's the same basic deal even on the softer complementarian end of things. The far right will talk about how gay marriage is a threat to marriage in general, and in one sense I agree with them: functional marriages without rigid gender roles demonstrate that their conception of marriage is limited and grimly unequal.
The irony of transgenderism is that it's just yet another form of patriarchal exploitation of women, in its drive to eradicate female-only spaces, in encouraging actual female women to mutilate themselves to reach some twisted ideal of masculinity, and in reifying gendered impositions as the epitome of womanhood, for the pleasure of men.
Conservatives don't see it from this point of view, of course, but feminists - the radical ones, at least - certainly do.
It's a movement that hides behind the LGB to paint itself as progressive, but really this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, without regressive gender roles, there would be no transgenderism. How else would men be able to pretend they are women without the cloak of false femininity to wrap themselves in.
For sure. Especially when it's regurgitating a blob of standard-issue partisan nonsense that is only tenuously related to what's actually being discussed.
Which parts of my comment do you believe are dubious, and why?
If we look at the eradication of female-only spaces, for example, the reasoning behind this is that proponents of transgenderism want women's spaces to be based on self-declared gender identity rather than sex. Where this occurs, it means that formerly female-only spaces and services now admit a mixture of males and females, as they will also include men who say they are women. Any attempts to maintain female-only spaces are shot down as being 'bigoted' and 'transphobic'.
Everyone here can clearly see that you are a sea lion, and not worth debating.
You're not here in good faith. If you were, you wouldn't be making inflammatory assertions from the partisan playbook with no references, and you wouldn't be on here with a burner account. There's another name for that behavior: shitposting.
That's a rather lazy dismissal, seems that you don't like having your beliefs challenged, and will say anything to avoid considering a different point of view.
Perhaps you can explain which parts of my comment you think are factually incorrect?
Exactly. The traditional gender roles come out of the tradition of patriarchal exploitation of women and subordinate men. The extreme version of this is seen in groups like the FLDS [1] and make the dynamics more apparent. But it's the same basic deal even on the softer complementarian end of things. The far right will talk about how gay marriage is a threat to marriage in general, and in one sense I agree with them: functional marriages without rigid gender roles demonstrate that their conception of marriage is limited and grimly unequal.
[1] Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is a good place to get the flavor of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven