It's a bit long but it's spot on the nail and witty with it.
I've stopped being surprised by men leaping to support men who want to occupy women's spaces and erase the fundamental definition of women though. Burn the witch.
It was interesting to read, and an informative perspective on the social background of the incident described in the OP.
But I'm having trouble connecting it to anything. It's fascinating stuff, but it's like reading about the intricate history of a computer game world. None of it seems real. It might be that things are very different in the UK. But I think it's more likely that things are just very different on the Internet.
Case in point: As I mentioned upthread, there was a statewide referendum here in Massachusetts earlier this month. The question was whether or not to keep in effect an already existing law that went into effect in 2016.
The law adds (spoiler: I'm using the present tense because as I expected, the public voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it) gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. (Discrimination based on gender identity in employment, education, housing, and other areas was already prohibited by other state laws.)
The law also directs the state Attorney General to issue regulations or guidance on referring for legal action any person who asserts gender identity for an improper purpose.
How does that last part actually work in practice, against for instance a male pervert who falsely claims a female gender identity to get access to a girls' locker room? We don't really know, because there haven't been any actual incidents yet.
Let me recap all that.
There haven't been any actual incidents yet. Law in effect 2016. Current year (*checks calendar*) 2018.
The sponsors of the repeal effort were some Christian organization with the word Family in their name, and the rationale they provided amounted to keeping girls safe from perverts in bathrooms. All signs pointed to their agenda being anti-trans, not in any way anti-patriarchy or pro-feminism. Opponents of the repeal argued that it protects a vulnerable portion of the population from discrimination, which is good, and that it hadn't caused any problems over two years so far, so why repeal it?
There was no public support of recall from any organized group of feminists—traditional, radical, intersectional, neo-post-structuralist, or otherwise. Let alone a ground swell of support from women in general. No one on either side came forth with any arguments whatsoever based on issues of misogyny, privilege, patriarchal oppression, women's identity, bio-essentialism, burning witches, anyone being or not being a TERF, anyone being or not being erased, or any of the other arcane intrigue described in the "Annals."
Around here, if people demand women born women should be called "cis women" or "menstruators," we roll our eyes and ignore them. If a political party appoints an under-qualified trans women as "women's officer" we read that as a weird choice of the person in charge of propaganda to get women to vote for that party, and ignore it. When people speak of the public places they go to expel waste products from their bodies as if they were sanctuaries of sacred group-identity-ness, we smile and back away a little. (Except those of us in Boston, who instead say, "I've heard of such places but never seen one. I always have to hold it til I get home.")
The idea that there's a whole population of male-supremacist "dudebros" who identify with and support trans women on the basis of, "It's not fair I can't go into that Ladies room and peek, but it makes me feel better knowing at least he can... I mean *wink*
she can!"—and that they're the actual impetus behind the trans rights movement—is just incredible. An outrageous fantasy light years away from even aspiring to plausibility.
