The premise is sexist.
The trans right movement could indeed be spearheaded by people who are aroused by the thought of being the opposite sex, but why is it necessarily male?
Swap out woman female from autogynaephilia and add andros? (i think, don't know much greek) and you get someone that is necessarily female with the same condition, why couldn't they be spearheading it too.
Because, as always happens when you try to turn a description of particularly male behaviour round to go for "but what about the women who do the same thing?" you make no sense.
If a woman were to suffer from an equivalent condition it would in fact be something completely different - being aroused at the thought of being male. I certainly couldn't say it doesn't happen, but the psychiatrists and sexologists seem to think that something else is going on when women desire to take on a male sex role, and that autoandrophilia, if it exists at all, is extremely rare. We are not seeing organised pressure groups of women insisting that they're men in order to get sexual satisfaction from llistening to men pee or change their underwear.
Autogynaephilia is something that only happens to men. It also seems to co-exist with narcissistic personality disorder in an alarmingly high proportion of cases, and there you have the toxic mix of desiring entry as-of-right into female single-sex spaces and getting off both on being there and on making the women who are there acutely uncomfortable.
These men are not in any way occupying a feminine role or behaving in a feminine manner, except in their own porn-fuelled imaginations. Woman are socialised to be kind and considerate and to give way to the feelings of others. These men are weaponising this, demanding that women be kind and considerate and give up all their single-sex spaces to satisfy their sexual whims, and the idea of giving anything up to avoid making the women uncomfortable wouldn't even cross their minds. Women being uncomfortable in their presence isn't even a bug, it's a feature, it's part of what they get off on.
Someone posted a video clip of a TV studio conversation involving a transwoman who seemed to "pass" relatively well - until he rounded on a male panellist whose behaviour wasn't sufficiently deferential to the pronoun police and threatened him with physical violence, at a distance of about two inches. That kind of said it all about the so-called "feminine" gender role occupied by these men.
If the nunber of trans people is so tiny, why are we turning society upside down in order to appease them - forcing schoolchildren to use mixed-sex toilets and changing rooms and so on? If it's not so tiny, then women's rights are under enormous threat as invasion by a male isn't going to be a rare event that most people won't even encounter.
It's Schrodinger's trans. The poor timid oppressed trans person who has managed to capture the political agenda of most western countries and who will rip your face off if you challenge his right to touch up his make-up next to a girl who is trying to deal with her first period. The trans person who is so rare it will hardly be noticed if he's allowed to go in with the women, but is so common that you probably encounter several every say without knowning it.
And so on.
Polka is an excellent example of the non-trans trans activist, though more coy than some. Of course he doesn't care about gender roles, but some people do, and these people must be accommodated and given everything they want, and women who want something different can just suck it up. And by the way we re-defined language while you weren't looking so you can't win the argument.
And anything unpleasant men are doing, well obviously women must do it too, so there. Gotcha.
