#there's no problem with with men wanting to be se*ually objectified and walking around in frocks and heels; violence against groups should

[saintkevorkian]

NB:

trans theory presupposes male and female personalities. Some might consider this most basic premise rather dubious

trans women say trans women are women

many cis women say trans women are not women

per trans theory, this difference of opinion amounts to a zero sum game: that is to say, choosing to align with one group silences the other.

if one entertains the possibility that trans women might be men, then one has according to neoliberal orthodoxy done the expected thing and silenced the oppressed group, on the order of the oppressor, for speaking out against their oppression. (of course it is also possible the reverse phenomenon has taken place; if one is unwilling or unable to entertain possibilities however unpalatable they might at first seem--no, sorry; these are weasel words. if going against the grain is too difficult, then what are you doing philosophising honestly)

(in parentheses because it isn't a fact, but a likelihood relevant to the coherence of the argument -- the purpose of philosophy is not to while away the hours but to use all available mental strategies to answer difficult questions.)

there isn't any sort of net material advantage to be gained from becoming a woman

worldwide, the female body is seen as an object into which men implant pregnancies. There is a strong culture of disadvantage and disrespect that comes with this perception, and forms an ineluctable part of womanhood for all but the luckiest women. This is tied to simply having a uterus and being seen through the lens of farming and husbandry (next bullet point). It isn't clear how someone's personal feelings about their preferred social or sexual roles opts them into this reality

women have been oppressed since the stone age, in which the oldest known written document describes gifting a male ruler with a child bride. the possibly sudden and apparently worldwide oppression of women correlated with civilisation and settlement and may not have much applicability to nomadic groups as recently as a few hundred years ago (nomadic groups require a more maverick mindset than agrarian societies, particularly established ones -- as such nomads possibly cannot afford to oppress half the population).

women were the last group to be allowed to own property in most countries, and (this isn't a fact but most people would agree--) in a non-collective society, if you cannot own, you are liable yourself to be owned.

the different treatment of women (which as far as science can tell might be the only thing to account for any large-scale personality variations between women and men) most likely arose from the time it takes a woman vs a man to produce children, the strong, almost causal connection between wellbeing of mother and child in early life, and some amount of physical disability in the last months before childbirth

just like 'wiggers' aren't black despite feeling theyve had 'the black experience', it's not clear that any marked group contains an opt-in. an indicator of being marked is to find oneself without options, and to opt into not having options contains not only an element of absurdity but also, in fact, an apodictic prerogative. (if one chooses to burn all bridges and complain of the isolation... one still had a choice*)

(trans men are men, at least in english. it's mankind; we are all men. the extent to which those who do not fit neatly into one category or could pass as another but may have traits of both suffer discrimination and possibly violence is determined both by how each individual is perceived and by the authoritarian inclinations of the surrounding population. NB, strictly policed language and attempts at policing thought indicate increased authoritarian sentiment)

*Obviously, some choices are so cursed and miserable that there's not really anything to choose between the available options. But in cases where a certain path appears preferable, one assumes upon calculating the odds of certain outcomes it has been assessed as the optimal course for the group or ~representative subgroup. Alternatively, if the subgroup are acting against their own interests, one begins to suspect they might have been subjected to organised persuasion.