u/Successful_Roof_979

Hey everyone,

I’ve been looking into the demographics of modern China—specifically the massive gender imbalance where men outnumber women by about 24 million due to the legacy of the One-Child Policy and traditional son preference.

The mainstream narrative almost always frames this demographic crisis exclusively as a product of misogyny and male privilege. But when you look closely at the material and cultural mechanics of why sons were preferred, a very different picture emerges—one that aligns deeply with the concept of male disposability and instrumentalism.

Historically in China, a son wasn’t "spared" or preferred because he was uniquely cherished as a human being. He was preferred because he was a compulsory social safety net.

Under Confucian traditions of filial piety, a son was culturally and legally locked into a lifetime contract of labor to support his parents and grandparents in their old age. Conversely, daughters married out into other lineages. In fact, traditional culture dictated that it was deeply shameful for parents to demand financial support or shelter from a married daughter, as it implied they were leaching off another family's resources And also shameful to demand that from an unmarried daughter because of the social stigma around it but socially acceptable to demand it from a son whether married or unmarried

So, the birth of a boy wasn't a celebration of his inherent value; it was the acquisition of an economic asset. The son was a "success object" who carried 100% of the survival pressure of the entire extended family on his shoulders. If he failed, became disabled, or couldn't provide, his societal worth dropped to zero.

We see this exact same utilitarian pattern throughout history. For example, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the practice of female infanticide (wa’d al-banat) is frequently discussed. While mainstream analysis views this purely as the hatred of females, historical context shows it was heavily driven by the desperate survival math of desert warfare. Boys were spared not out of love, but because they were desperately needed as frontline soldiers. They were kept alive to be conditioned into weapons, facing exceptionally high mortality rates in relentless tribal blood feuds.

In a culture like Pre Islamic Arabia where warfare between neighbouring tribes was common place boys had no choice but to become soldiers

Men as Defensive Assets: In an environment where a tribe could be wiped out or displaced overnight, male children were seen as vital future soldiers. They were investments in the tribe's military defence.

The Burden of Non-Combatants: Because women did not traditionally engage in frontline combat during tribal raids, a high number of female infants meant an excess of non-combatants. In times of severe resource scarcity or famine, feeding individuals who could not pick up a sword to defend the community’s water wells and livestock was viewed by desperate tribal leaders as a luxury they could not afford.

• From early youth, boys were subjected to brutal conditioning to become ruthless killers.
• The mortality rate for young men in pre-Islamic Arabia was exceptionally high due to relentless blood feuds and inter-tribal war conclusion

So in conclusion historically sons were not favoured over daughters because they were loved or some kind of male privilege but because they were considered useful

Hey everyone,

I’ve been looking into the demographics of modern China—specifically the massive gender imbalance where men outnumber women by about 24 million due to the legacy of the One-Child Policy and traditional son preference.

The mainstream narrative almost always frames this demographic crisis exclusively as a product of misogyny and male privilege. But when you look closely at the material and cultural mechanics of why sons were preferred, a very different picture emerges—one that aligns deeply with the concept of male disposability and instrumentalism.

Historically in China, a son wasn’t "spared" or preferred because he was uniquely cherished as a human being. He was preferred because he was a compulsory social safety net.

Under Confucian traditions of filial piety, a son was culturally and legally locked into a lifetime contract of labor to support his parents and grandparents in their old age. Conversely, daughters married out into other lineages. In fact, traditional culture dictated that it was deeply shameful for parents to demand financial support or shelter from a married daughter, as it implied they were leaching off another family's resources And also shameful to demand that from an unmarried daughter because of the social stigma around it but socially acceptable to demand it from a son whether married or unmarried

So, the birth of a boy wasn't a celebration of his inherent value; it was the acquisition of an economic asset. The son was a "success object" who carried 100% of the survival pressure of the entire extended family on his shoulders. If he failed, became disabled, or couldn't provide, his societal worth dropped to zero.

We see this exact same utilitarian pattern throughout history. For example, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the practice of female infanticide (wa’d al-banat) is frequently discussed. While mainstream analysis views this purely as the hatred of females, historical context shows it was heavily driven by the desperate survival math of desert warfare. Boys were spared not out of love, but because they were desperately needed as frontline soldiers. They were kept alive to be conditioned into weapons, facing exceptionally high mortality rates in relentless tribal blood feuds.

In a culture like Pre Islamic Arabia where warfare between neighbouring tribes was common place boys had no choice but to become soldiers

Men as Defensive Assets: In an environment where a tribe could be wiped out or displaced overnight, male children were seen as vital future soldiers. They were investments in the tribe's military defence.

The Burden of Non-Combatants: Because women did not traditionally engage in frontline combat during tribal raids, a high number of female infants meant an excess of non-combatants. In times of severe resource scarcity or famine, feeding individuals who could not pick up a sword to defend the community’s water wells and livestock was viewed by desperate tribal leaders as a luxury they could not afford.

• From early youth, boys were subjected to brutal conditioning to become ruthless killers.
• The mortality rate for young men in pre-Islamic Arabia was exceptionally high due to relentless blood feuds and inter-tribal war conclusion

So in conclusion historically sons were not favoured over daughters because they were loved or some kind of male privilege but because they were considered useful

I saw something on a subreddit not going to say any names and it was art a woman drew

It was art depicting a a human like dog and pig along with the male logo in the background and a text that says all men are

Yes the art is stating that all men are pigs and dogs

She says this was a drawing of her assaulters and that and she was describing her assaulters the way they were

But the thing even worst then the drawing is that most users took her side

Saying stuff like don't judge how a victim shares her trauma

And of course there were several comments calling men an oppressor class

Only few very users pointed out that being a victim is no excuse for prejudice

Also one thing I should not is that male victims of female abuse don't act like this

I have seen many men victims of female on male domestic violence, sexual assault or stationary assault but most specifically blame the women who abused them rather than the female gender as a whole

I saw something on a subreddit not going to say any names and it was art a women drew

It was art depicting a a human like dog and pig along with the male logo in the background and a text that says all men are

Yes the art is stating that all men are pigs and dogs

She says this was a drawing of her assaulters and that and she was describing her assaulters the way they were

But the thing even worst then the drawing is that most users took her side

Saying stuff like don't judge how a victim shares her trauma

And of course there were several comments calling men an oppressor class

Only few very users pointed out that being a victim is no excuse for prejudice

Also one thing I should not is that male victims of female abuse don't act like this

I have seen many men victims of female on male domestic violence, sexual assault or stationary assault but most specifically blame the women who abused them rather than the female gender as a whole

To begin it should be more important to clarify what the caste system actually was basically in ancient India there was a system that essentially meant that more people were considered more human than other and it was based on birth

The higher caste someone was born with the better they were treated

However people from lower castes as is to be expected given the description were mistreated by people from higher caste to give some examples:

In ancient India, people of the lowest caste—specifically the Shudras (laborers) and especially the Dalits (historically called "Untouchables," who sat outside the main caste system)—faced severe social exclusion, forced labor, physical segregation, and systemic humiliation. Over many centuries, a social hierarchy based on birth became very rigid. High-caste groups used religious ideas of "purity and pollution" to justify treating low-caste people as unclean

The most severe mistreatment was the practice of untouchability. Upper-caste individuals believed that touching—or even being near—a low-caste person would make them spiritually "dirty"

Shadow avoidance: In some regions, low-caste people were forced to keep a long distance so their physical shadows would not touch a high-caste person

Banned from shared resources: They were strictly forbidden from using the same water wells, ponds, or public paths as the upper castes.

Separate utensils: If they were served food or tea near upper-caste areas, they had to use separate, marked dishes so no one else would touch them

• Village outskirts: They were forced to live in poorly made huts on the very edges of towns.
• Extreme restrictions: In later historical periods, some areas forced low-caste people to tie brooms to their waists to sweep away their footprints, and hang pots around their necks to catch their spit so it wouldn't pollute the ground.
• Dead animals and bodies: They had to remove animal carcasses, tan leather, and burn dead bodies at funeral grounds.
• Unpaid labor: They were frequently subjected to bonded labor, meaning they were forced to work for landowning upper-castes for little to no pay
• No schooling: Low-caste individuals were banned from learning how to read or write.
• Banned from temples: They were prohibited from entering temples or listening to sacred religious texts.
• Clothing bans: They were often prevented from wearing fine clothes, gold jewellery, or new garments.
• Strict behavior: In many regions, they were forbidden from wearing shoes or holding umbrellas when walking past higher-caste people

You might be thinking okay but how is this relevant to gender dynamics?

The reason it is relevant is because we are appalled by this due to our modern sense of morality and see that these people didn't chose to be low caste they were simply born into it without control

And we understand that treating someone differently based on something outside of their control is morally wrong or do we ?

men and boys are treated significantly worst then women and girls in almost all areas even though they have not done anything deserve that despite being born male something outside of their control

Women receive lower prison for the same crime, are likely to be favoured in school and get better marks for the same quality of work, have company quotas for them ensuring that at least a percentage of them are female etc

And we can compare it further:

One of the most fundamental principles of modern progressive and left-wing thought is that a person’s worth, rights, and social duties should never be decided by how they were born. We look back at history with horror when we see systems that locked people into rigid boxes based on immutable traits.

A stark example of this is the caste system of ancient India. In that system, your entire life—your job, your social status, your worth to society, and how you were treated—was decided the moment you were born. You had zero control over it. Today, we are seeing a troubling parallel in how society treats men. Through rigid gender expectations and systemic biases, men are frequently judged, restricted, and punished simply for the gender they were born into.

The Parallel: Purity, Pollution, and the "Monolithic" Label
In the ancient caste system, the hierarchy was maintained through ideas of "purity and pollution." Lower castes were often viewed through a lens of inherent untrustworthiness or spiritual pollution.

We see a modern secular equivalent of this in how masculinity is often discussed today. Rather than treating men as individuals, modern discourse frequently treats men as a monolith, often associating maleness with inherent harm or "toxicity." When a group of people is socially conditioned to view one gender as a default threat based purely on their birth, it mirrors the ancient prejudice where an individual's character was judged entirely by their social category rather than their actions.

Forced Social Roles and Disposability
In ancient India, the lowest castes were forced into the most hazardous, dirty, and physically punishing labor because society deemed that to be their "natural" place.

When we look at modern society, men still bear the overwhelming burden of hazardous and life-threatening expectations:

• The Worker Caste: Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries, dominating high-risk industries like construction, logging, and mining. Society often views this sacrifice as a default male obligation.
• The Warrior Caste (Conscription): In times of conflict, men are routinely stripped of their bodily autonomy through forced conscription. They are legally required to put their lives on the line simply because they were born male.

Just like the ancient caste system, society accepts this unequal distribution of danger because it views men's safety as secondary to their social utility.

The Double Standard of Accountability
In traditional caste structures, a high-caste person’s misdeeds were often overlooked, while a low-caste person was severely punished for the slightest infraction.

We see a similar asymmetry in modern social and legal structures:

• Sentencing Disparities: Statistically, men face significantly harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crimes.
• The Empathy Gap: When men fall victim to homelessness, suicide, addiction, or domestic violence, society routinely blames them individually, rather than looking at the systemic failures failing them. They are expected to suffer in silence, reinforcing the idea that their pain is less valuable.

What makes this extremely comparable is the fact many men are in fact okay with this viewing it as necessary using words like I am a Man I have or it's necessary for society

Here is the thing there were zero recorded low caste revolts

Although since they were illiterate I can't say what their exact though were but I can give theories as to why even though maybe some did hold perhaps hold resentment

Religious reasons: People back then were though this was the way of the universe itself

Some did in fact accept it: Although this might sound hard to believe if you lived your entire life being told that due to birth you have to do something without out anyone to challenge that idea no matter how mistreated you might view it as a duty

We see the same mentality in men who view their gender roles or military conscription as a duty and it's brainwashing and self-gaslighting

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the caste system is that 3000 years after it's creation it never went away

men are still treated worst than women in almost all areas even though even the male child did not chose to be born male and the female child did not chose to be born female the same way the lower caste person did not chose to be born low caste and the high caste person did not chose to be born high caste

We should know thousands of years later that treating people differently based on how they were born is wrong but the truth is we still don't

To begin it should be more important to clarify what the caste system actually was basically in ancient India there was a system that essentially meant that more people were considered more human than other and it was based on birth

The higher caste someone was born with the better they were treated

However people from lower castes as is to be expected given the description were mistreated by people from higher caste to give some examples:

In ancient India, people of the lowest caste—specifically the Shudras (laborers) and especially the Dalits (historically called "Untouchables," who sat outside the main caste system)—faced severe social exclusion, forced labor, physical segregation, and systemic humiliation. Over many centuries, a social hierarchy based on birth became very rigid. High-caste groups used religious ideas of "purity and pollution" to justify treating low-caste people as unclean

The most severe mistreatment was the practice of untouchability. Upper-caste individuals believed that touching—or even being near—a low-caste person would make them spiritually "dirty"

Shadow avoidance: In some regions, low-caste people were forced to keep a long distance so their physical shadows would not touch a high-caste person

Banned from shared resources: They were strictly forbidden from using the same water wells, ponds, or public paths as the upper castes.

Separate utensils: If they were served food or tea near upper-caste areas, they had to use separate, marked dishes so no one else would touch them

• Village outskirts: They were forced to live in poorly made huts on the very edges of towns.

• Extreme restrictions: In later historical periods, some areas forced low-caste people to tie brooms to their waists to sweep away their footprints, and hang pots around their necks to catch their spit so it wouldn't pollute the ground.

• Dead animals and bodies: They had to remove animal carcasses, tan leather, and burn dead bodies at funeral grounds.

• Unpaid labor: They were frequently subjected to bonded labor, meaning they were forced to work for landowning upper-castes for little to no pay

• No schooling: Low-caste individuals were banned from learning how to read or write.

• Banned from temples: They were prohibited from entering temples or listening to sacred religious texts.

• Clothing bans: They were often prevented from wearing fine clothes, gold jewellery, or new garments.

• Strict behavior: In many regions, they were forbidden from wearing shoes or holding umbrellas when walking past higher-caste people

You might be thinking okay but how is this relevant to gender dynamics?

The reason it is relevant is because we are appalled by this due to our modern sense of morality and see that these people didn't chose to be low caste they were simply born into it without control

And we understand that treating someone differently based on something outside of their control is morally wrong or do we ?

men and boys are treated significantly worst then women and girls in almost all areas even though they have not done anything deserve that despite being born male something outside of their control

Women receive lower prison for the same crime, are likely to be favoured in school and get better marks for the same quality of work, have company quotas for them ensuring that at least a percentage of them are female etc

And we can compare it further:

One of the most fundamental principles of modern progressive and left-wing thought is that a person’s worth, rights, and social duties should never be decided by how they were born. We look back at history with horror when we see systems that locked people into rigid boxes based on immutable traits.

A stark example of this is the caste system of ancient India. In that system, your entire life—your job, your social status, your worth to society, and how you were treated—was decided the moment you were born. You had zero control over it. Today, we are seeing a troubling parallel in how society treats men. Through rigid gender expectations and systemic biases, men are frequently judged, restricted, and punished simply for the gender they were born into.

The Parallel: Purity, Pollution, and the "Monolithic" Label
In the ancient caste system, the hierarchy was maintained through ideas of "purity and pollution." Lower castes were often viewed through a lens of inherent untrustworthiness or spiritual pollution.

We see a modern secular equivalent of this in how masculinity is often discussed today. Rather than treating men as individuals, modern discourse frequently treats men as a monolith, often associating maleness with inherent harm or "toxicity." When a group of people is socially conditioned to view one gender as a default threat based purely on their birth, it mirrors the ancient prejudice where an individual's character was judged entirely by their social category rather than their actions.

Forced Social Roles and Disposability
In ancient India, the lowest castes were forced into the most hazardous, dirty, and physically punishing labor because society deemed that to be their "natural" place.

When we look at modern society, men still bear the overwhelming burden of hazardous and life-threatening expectations:

• The Worker Caste: Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries, dominating high-risk industries like construction, logging, and mining. Society often views this sacrifice as a default male obligation.
• The Warrior Caste (Conscription): In times of conflict, men are routinely stripped of their bodily autonomy through forced conscription. They are legally required to put their lives on the line simply because they were born male.

Just like the ancient caste system, society accepts this unequal distribution of danger because it views men's safety as secondary to their social utility.

The Double Standard of Accountability
In traditional caste structures, a high-caste person’s misdeeds were often overlooked, while a low-caste person was severely punished for the slightest infraction.

We see a similar asymmetry in modern social and legal structures:

• Sentencing Disparities: Statistically, men face significantly harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crimes.
• The Empathy Gap: When men fall victim to homelessness, suicide, addiction, or domestic violence, society routinely blames them individually, rather than looking at the systemic failures failing them. They are expected to suffer in silence, reinforcing the idea that their pain is less valuable.

What makes this extremely comparable is the fact many men are in fact okay with this viewing it as necessary using words like I am a Man I have or it's necessary for society

Here is the thing there were zero recorded low caste revolts

Although since they were illiterate I can't say what their exact though were but I can give theories as to why even though maybe some did hold perhaps hold resentment

Religious reasons: People back then were though this was the way of the universe itself

Some did in fact accept it: Although this might sound hard to believe if you lived your entire life being told that due to birth you have to do something without out anyone to challenge that idea no matter how mistreated you might view it as a duty

We see the same mentality in men who view their gender roles or military conscription as a duty and it's brainwashing and self-gaslighting

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the caste system is that 3000 years after it's creation it never went away

men are still treated worst than women in almost all areas even though even the male child did not chose to be born male and the female child did not chose to be born female the same way the lower caste person did not chose to be born low caste and the high caste person did not chose to be born high caste

We should know thousands of years later that treating people differently based on how they were born is wrong but the truth is we still don't

I will begin this post by saying that it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females then males and this applies to both genders

In other words both males and females have inherently more sympathy for women than man in the exact same predicament

Which is why there has been countless news about how oppressed women are in Iran because the laws makes them mandatory for them to cover up

Women are being forced to wear something they don't want to wear and the media literally treats this like a second holocaust

But lets look at how the law treats men there

1. Mandatory Military Conscription (Sarbazi)

The most blatant form of state-sanctioned gender discrimination in Iran is mandatory military service, which applies exclusively to men.

• The Burden: Upon turning 18, all healthy men must serve roughly up to two years in the military.
• The Penalties: Men who refuse or cannot serve are stripped of basic civil rights. They cannot legally obtain a passport, leave the country, secure official employment, or apply for business licences.
• The Risk: Young men are regularly deployed to volatile border regions to fight drug cartels and insurgent groups, resulting in high casualties that exclusively impact males.

Full Financial Liability (Mehrieh and Nafaqeh)

Iran’s family law places crushing financial obligations strictly on men, backed by the threat of imprisonment.

• Mehrieh (Dowry): Under Iranian law, a man must promise a specific amount of property or gold coins to his wife upon marriage. Legally, she can demand this at any time, not just during a divorce.
• Debt Imprisonment: If a man cannot pay the Mehrieh upon request, he faces immediate imprisonment

Judicial Disposability and the Death Penalty

The penal system in Iran impacts men disproportionately when it comes to the ultimate punishment.

• Execution Rates: The vast majority of executions carried out by the Iranian state are against men, primarily for drug offenses, financial crimes, or violent crimes.
• Legal Accountability: Boys are held fully criminally responsible as adults at a young age, leading to systemic institutional violence that heavily targets the male demographic.
• Workplace Casualties and Economic Pressure

Because men are legally mandated to be the sole providers, they dominate high-risk industries.

• Workplace Fatalities: Due to poor safety regulations, thousands of Iranians die in workplace accidents annually (construction, mining, heavy industry). Over 95% of these workplace fatalities are men.
• Street Vendors and Manual Labour: The hyper-inflation and economic collapse of Iran have forced millions of men into grueling, informal manual labour and street-vending, where they face frequent municipal crackdowns and police harassment.

Conclusion

When we look past Western media talking points, the reality is that the Iranian state treats men as disposable financial and military assets. A system that forces one gender into military servitude under threat of exile, imprisons them over marital debts, and sends them to die in unsafe work conditions or border conflicts cannot be accurately described as a simple patriarchy that only privileges men. It is a system built on systemic misandry.

So in conclusion Men are forced to become soldiers and ATM machines while Women simply have to wear something they don't want to and the media treats the latter as inheritably oppressed and the former as privileged

The fact that that people focus on something so small for one gender but ignore the big elephants in the room for the other proved that yes the studies are correct and people really do just have inheritably more sympathy for females than males

I will begin this post by saying that it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females then males and this applies to both genders

In other words both males and females have inherently more sympathy for women than man in the exact same predicament

Which is why there has been countless news about how oppressed women are in Iran because the laws makes them mandatory for them to cover up

Women are being forced to wear something they don't want to wear and the media literally treats this like a second holocaust

But lets look at how the law treats men there

1. Mandatory Military Conscription (Sarbazi)

The most blatant form of state-sanctioned gender discrimination in Iran is mandatory military service, which applies exclusively to men.

• The Burden: Upon turning 18, all healthy men must serve roughly up to two years in the military.
• The Penalties: Men who refuse or cannot serve are stripped of basic civil rights. They cannot legally obtain a passport, leave the country, secure official employment, or apply for business licences.
• The Risk: Young men are regularly deployed to volatile border regions to fight drug cartels and insurgent groups, resulting in high casualties that exclusively impact males.

Full Financial Liability (Mehrieh and Nafaqeh)

Iran’s family law places crushing financial obligations strictly on men, backed by the threat of imprisonment.

• Mehrieh (Dowry): Under Iranian law, a man must promise a specific amount of property or gold coins to his wife upon marriage. Legally, she can demand this at any time, not just during a divorce.
• Debt Imprisonment: If a man cannot pay the Mehrieh upon request, he faces immediate imprisonment

Judicial Disposability and the Death Penalty

The penal system in Iran impacts men disproportionately when it comes to the ultimate punishment.

• Execution Rates: The vast majority of executions carried out by the Iranian state are against men, primarily for drug offenses, financial crimes, or violent crimes.
• Legal Accountability: Boys are held fully criminally responsible as adults at a young age, leading to systemic institutional violence that heavily targets the male demographic.

1. Workplace Casualties and Economic Pressure

Because men are legally mandated to be the sole providers, they dominate high-risk industries.

• Workplace Fatalities: Due to poor safety regulations, thousands of Iranians die in workplace accidents annually (construction, mining, heavy industry). Over 95% of these workplace fatalities are men.
• Street Vendors and Manual Labour: The hyper-inflation and economic collapse of Iran have forced millions of men into grueling, informal manual labour and street-vending, where they face frequent municipal crackdowns and police harassment.

Conclusion

When we look past Western media talking points, the reality is that the Iranian state treats men as disposable financial and military assets. A system that forces one gender into military servitude under threat of exile, imprisons them over marital debts, and sends them to die in unsafe work conditions or border conflicts cannot be accurately described as a simple patriarchy that only privileges men. It is a system built on systemic misandry.

So in conclusion Men are forced to become soldiers and ATM machines while Women simply have to wear something they don't want to and the media treats the latter as inheritably oppressed and the former as privileged

The fact that that people on something so small for on gender but ignore the big elephants in the room for the other proved that yes the studies are correct and people really do just have inheritably more sympathy for females than males

Despite that long claims that women are oppressed and men are privileged all research suggests that it is opposite men are disadvantaged compared to women in all areas but one (even that one are actually benefits

Women are the majority in most nations thus the majority vote

In most nations with the draft it's male only

Men are overrepresented in the numbers of homeless people

Women receive far less prison times than men for the same or not as bad crimes and women are more likely to not be jailed or arrested at all even in cases where a man would be

Men are less likely to receive custody of their children

Female on male domestic violence, sexual assault and stationary assault is not takes seriously

Women have 70%+ of the consumer market
aimed towards them.

Women have the MAJORITY of government
spending spent towards them when compared to men

Women pay LESS of the overall taxes of
the country, yet have more of that money spent on them ( again ).

The vast majority of work place deaths are male

Men are over presented in dangerous job .

Women are more likely to have an university degree than Men

Girls receives better grades for the same of worst quality of work as boys

Women despite being the most of university students still has almost countless gender specific scholarships for them

Women have quotas in companies forcing them have at at least a percentage of managers or the board of directors be female but men have no such quota

Men are more likely to be victims of a crime like homicide

Men are more likely to commit suicide than women

Even in areas where men don't have it worst than women such pay and it might be incorrect to consider even that an advantage.

Despite what feminist have constantly said through the ages no men do not get paid more than women for the same job in fact everything suggests that a man and a woman working at the same company with the same position and the same hours would in fact have identical pay whoever men work more hours on average and there are more men than women in most of the really big high paying jobs and CEO's

This fact has long since been used to demonstrate women being oppressed however a lot of these highly paid men and CEO's have a thing in common most of them are married usually to women.

Men have a worldwide expectation of them to be breadwinners to provide for their families finically and it should go without saying breadwinners share wealth

A highly paid worker or Company owner is not going to keep all his wealth to himself while his wife starves to death

In fact the phrase "his money is the family's money yet her money is her money" which states men should share their wealth with their wife's unconditionally yet women even if working should never be expected to do the same for men should how normalised and romanticised financial abuse and double standards for men is

As such men on paper might appear to have more wealth than women on average but do they really? And it interesting to thing to note that even areas where where men don't have it strictly worst than women still benefits women

As such how could anyone after seeing just how disadvantaged men are compared to women come to the conclusion that women are oppressed and men are privileged?

Despite that long claims that women are oppressed and men are privileged all research suggests that it is opposite men are disadvantaged compared to women in all areas but one (even that one area actually benefits women)

Women are the majority in most nations thus the majority vote

In most nations with the draft it's male only

Men are overrepresented in the numbers of homeless people

Women receive far less prison times than men for the same or not as bad crimes and women are less likely to not be jailed or arrested at all even in cases where a man would be

Men are less likely to receive custody of their children

Female on male domestic violence, sexual assault and stationary assault is not taken seriously

Women have 70%+ of the consumer market
aimed towards them.

Women have the MAJORITY of government
spending spent towards them when compared to men

Women pay LESS of the overall taxes of
the country, yet have more of that money spent on them ( again ).

The vast majority of work place deaths are male

Men are over presented in dangerous job .

Women are more likely to have an university degree than Men

Girls receives better grades for the same or worst quality of work as boys

Women despite being the most of university students still have almost countless gender specific scholarships for them

Women have quotas in companies forcing them have at at least a percentage of managers or the board of directors be female but men have no such quota

Men are more likely to be victims of a crime like homicide

Men are more likely to commit suicide than women

The only area where men don't necessarily have it worst than women is pay and wealth but it might be incorrect to consider even that an advantage.

Despite what feminist have constantly said through the ages no men do not get paid more than women for the same job in fact everything suggests that a man and a woman working at the same company with the same position and the same hours would in fact have identical pay whoever men work more hours on average and there are more men than women in most of the really big high paying jobs and CEO's

This fact has long since been used to demonstrate women being oppressed however a lot of these highly paid men and CEO's have a thing in common most of them are married usually to women.

Men have a worldwide expectation of them to be breadwinners to provide for their families finically and it should go without saying breadwinners share wealth

A highly paid worker or Company owner is not going to keep all his wealth to himself while his wife starves to death

In fact the phrase "his money is the family's money yet her money is her money" which states men should share their wealth with their wife's unconditionally yet women even if working should never be expected to do the same for men should how normalised and romanticised financial abuse and double standards for men is

As such men on paper might appear to have more wealth than women on average but do they really? And it interesting to thing to note that even the one area where where men don't have it strictly worst than women still benefits women

As such how could anyone after seeing just how disadvantaged men are compared to women come to the conclusion that women are oppressed and men are privileged?

Despite that long claims that women are oppressed and men are privileged all research suggests that it is opposite men are disadvantaged compared to women in all areas but one (even that one area actually benefits women)

Women are the majority in most nations thus the majority vote

In most nations with the draft it's male only

Men are overrepresented in the numbers of homeless people

Women receive far less prison times than men for the same or not as bad crimes and women are less likely to not be jailed or arrested at all even in cases where a man would be

Men are less likely to receive custody of their children

Female on male domestic violence, sexual assault and stationary assault is not taken seriously

Women have 70%+ of the consumer market
aimed towards them.

Women have the MAJORITY of government
spending spent towards them when compared to men

Women pay LESS of the overall taxes of
the country, yet have more of that money spent on them ( again ).

The vast majority of work place deaths are male

Men are over presented in dangerous job .

Women are more likely to have an university degree than Men

Girls receives better grades for the same or worst quality of work as boys

Women despite being the most of university students still have almost countless gender specific scholarships for them

Women have quotas in companies forcing them have at at least a percentage of managers or the board of directors be female but men have no such quota

Men are more likely to be victims of a crime like homicide

Men are more likely to commit suicide than women

The only area where men don't necessarily have it worst than women is pay and wealth but it might be incorrect to consider even that an advantage.

Despite what feminist have constantly said through the ages no men do not get paid more than women for the same job in fact everything suggests that a man and a woman working at the same company with the same position and the same hours would in fact have identical pay whoever men work more hours on average and there are more men than women in most of the really big high paying jobs and CEO's

This fact has long since been used to demonstrate women being oppressed however a lot of these highly paid men and CEO's have a thing in common most of them are married usually to women.

Men have a worldwide expectation of them to be breadwinners to provide for their families finically and it should go without saying breadwinners share wealth

A highly paid worker or Company owner is not going to keep all his wealth to himself while his wife starves to death

In fact the phrase "his money is the family's money yet her money is her money" which states men should share their wealth with their wife's unconditionally yet women even if working should never be expected to do the same for men should how normalised and romanticised financial abuse and double standards for men is

As such men on paper might appear to have more wealth than women on average but do they really? And it interesting to thing to note that even the one area where where men don't have it strictly worst than women still benefits women

As such how could anyone after seeing just how disadvantaged men are compared to women come to the conclusion that women are oppressed and men are privileged?

Introduction

In modern mass media, female-on-male abuse is often treated commercially and meant to be humorous, whereas the opposite—a male character acting in an abusive manner towards a female one—is portrayed extremely seriously. This stark double standard is one of the most glaring contradictions in contemporary pop culture.

While mainstream progressive media critics have spent decades correctly deconstructing how violence against women is harmful, they remain entirely silent when the genders are reversed. When a male character is physically struck, emotionally degraded, or psychologically terrorized by a female partner, it is routinely accompanied by a sitcom laugh track, packaged into lighthearted movie trailers, or used as a comedic device to sell consumer products.

As left-wing advocates, we need to understand that this is not an accident. It is a highly profitable industry framework that commodifies human trauma for cheap entertainment, and it has devastating material consequences for real-world male victims.

1. The Morality Gap: Love Interests vs. Irredeemable Villains

The double standard is most evident when we examine how the narrative positions the abuser within the hierarchy of the story. The media uses abuse to signal a character's morality in completely unequal ways:

• The Abusive Heroine / Side Character: When a female character acts abusively toward a male character, she is highly unlikely to be framed as the villain of the story whose actions we are meant to see as morally wrong. Instead, she could be portrayed as the main character's primary love interest—where her aggression is framed as "feisty," "independent," or "passionate." Alternatively, it might be a minor, passing moment between side characters used for quick comic relief. The audience is still expected to root for her, empathize with her, and view her as a fundamentally good person despite her abusive behavior.
• The Irredeemable Male Abuser: In stark contrast, male characters who act abusive towards females are almost always the villains. These moments are intentionally written and directed to show the audience how evil, dangerous, and completely irredeemable they are. The abuse serves as the ultimate moral line in the sand, ensuring the audience fully detests the character and anticipates their downfall.

By refusing to frame female abusers as morally compromised villains, mass media sends a clear message: abuse is only an act of malice if a man commits it. If a woman does it, it is a quirky personality trait or a harmless plot point.

2. A Transcultural Phenomenon: The Prevalence in Eastern Media

Crucially, this trope is not just prevalent in Western media; it is deeply embedded in Eastern media as well, particularly within Japanese anime and manga. This proves that the monetization of male pain is a global phenomenon that spans across different cultural landscapes:

• The Comedic "Discipline" in Fairy Tail: In the globally popular anime series Fairy Tail, the exceptionally powerful female character Erza Scarlet routinely subjects her male friends, Natsu and Gray, to brutal physical punishments. Because she is a beloved, heroic protagonist, her violent outbursts and physical domination over her male guildmates are played strictly for laughs. Her physical abuse is framed as a sign of her "strong leadership" rather than a toxic behavioral trait.
• The Abusive Premise of Inuyasha: An even more egregious example is found in the classic series Inuyasha. The entire premise of the relationship between the two main characters hinges on physical subjugation via the cursed "Sit, Boy!" (Osuwari) command. Whenever the female protagonist, Kagome, is mildly annoyed, jealous, or throwing a tantrum, she uses this magical command to violently slam the half-demon Inuyasha face-first into the ground. Despite the fact that this is literally a form of supernatural domestic abuse and forced physical compliance, the anime repeatedly frames it as a running gag for the audience to laugh at.

3. Unpacking the Double Standard: The Realities of a Gender-Reversed Dynamic

To understand how deeply entrenched this media double standard is, we only need to look at what would happen if a series with almost the same premise was ever released, but with the genders of the protagonists reversed. Audiences and critics would quickly point out how abusive and ungrateful the male lead is towards the female lead.

If we swap the genders in Inuyasha, the true horror of the dynamic becomes undeniable:

• Forced Physical Control & Violence: A male protagonist would place a collar around a female protagonist's neck. He would use a vocal command to take complete control of her body, violently slamming her face-first into the dirt, concrete, or floor whenever he got annoyed, jealous, or felt his ego was bruised.
• The Fallacy of "Slapstick" Durability: In the original series, Inuyasha's superhuman half-demon durability is constantly used to justify the "slapstick" nature of the abuse. However, if a male character did this to a female character—regardless of whether she had magical powers or high durability—audiences and critics would universally condemn it as a horrific, controlling, and physically abusive relationship.
• The Realities of a Protective Dynamic: In a gender-swapped version, a female warrior would constantly put her life on the line, fighting terrifying demons specifically to protect a male lead who lacks her combat skills. Inuyasha’s primary motivation quickly shifts from finding Shikon Jewel shards for his own gain to keeping Kagome safe at all costs. If that male lead responded to her life-risking protection by constantly yelling at her, insulting her intellect, and slamming her into the ground, audiences would instantly label him as incredibly toxic, fragile, and ungrateful. Yet, because the abuser is a teenage girl and the victim is a male, it is packaged as a lighthearted romance.

4. Grounded in Reality: The Social Normalization of Male Victimhood

This media bias does not exist in a vacuum; it is a direct reflection of real-world societal attitudes. In reality, female-on-male domestic abuse is already not taken seriously. Multiple sociological studies and public social experiments have shown that bystanders often view public female-on-male assault as humorous or completely non-threatening, whereas they will actively step in if a man lays a hand on a woman.

Furthermore, public perception frequently treats female-on-male violence as socially justified under specific interpersonal circumstances—most notably, if a male partner cheats on his female partner. If a man discovers his female partner has cheated, any act of physical violence from him is universally and correctly condemned as dangerous and criminal. But if the genders are reversed, the mentality shifts: society frequently makes excuses for her violence, viewing it as a righteous or excusable reaction to emotional betrayal.

To be absolutely clear: I am not saying committing abuse is justified if a partner cheats. Infidelity is deeply morally wrong, but so is physical violence for both parties. Violence is wrong and should only ever be used in absolute self-defense, regardless of gender or context. Yet, the prevalent mentality remains that female-on-male violence can be excusable, while male-on-female violence can never be under any circumstances.

5. A Materialist Critique: Why Corporate Media Exploits This Dynamic

From a class-conscious perspective, global media networks and corporate advertisers rely on these tropes because they are safe, low-risk, and highly profitable under late-stage capitalism.

• Manufacturing Cheap Consumer Narratives: Advertisers and production studios frequently use the "competent, aggressive woman correcting her bumbling, submissive male counterpart" dynamic because it generates effortless engagement. Relying on deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes allows corporate media factories to churn out cheap, highly repeatable, low-effort content that guarantees consistent viewership.
• Reinforcing Male Disposability: Capitalist economic structures require a steady supply of men willing to enter high-risk, physically destructive jobs. To maintain this, society must condition people to view male physical and emotional suffering as low-value. When the media normalizes and laughs at domestic violence against men, it reinforces the foundational bourgeois myth that men are disposable economic tools whose safety and dignity do not matter.

6. The Severe Real-World Harm to Male Victims

This media double standard directly translates into institutional negligence and systemic isolation for men in crisis.

• The Weaponization of Shame: When a man’s only cultural blueprint for female-on-male violence is a sitcom joke or a "quirky" trait of an anime heroine, he internalizes deep shame. He is conditioned to believe that if he speaks up, he will be ridiculed, emasculated, or dismissed. This media-driven stigma keeps male victims trapped in abusive relationships in complete silence.
• Institutional and Judicial Bias: Police officers, social workers, and judges are raised on the same media diet as everyone else. When they see female-on-male violence treated as a non-issue on television, it shapes their professional biases. Consequently, male victims who call emergency services are frequently disbelieved, ridiculed, or erroneously arrested as the primary aggressor under rigid, outdated policing models.
• The Starvation of Public Resources: Because corporate media masks the brutal reality of female-on-male abuse behind a wall of commercial comedy, the general public perceives it as a statistical anomaly or an impossibility. As a result, there is virtually zero political will or public funding allocated for male-specific domestic violence shelters, specialized trauma helplines, or educational campaigns.

Conclusion & Discussion Questions

By treating female-on-male abuse as a commercial punchline and framing the perpetrators as heroes, while treating male-on-female abuse with appropriate gravity and villainy, mainstream global media actively protects corporate profits at the expense of male human rights.

Ultimately, we have to look at the root of the problem: if male abuse is not taken seriously in real life, what obligation then does the media have to lie and pretend it is? The media simply sanitizes and profits off the biases society already holds.

As children in school we are taught an story for a long long time women were oppressed and treated as second class citizens but is this really true

Books such as the Privileged Sex and The Myth of male Power give another option to the idea that women are or were oppressed or that men are or were privileged

I cannot copy significant parts of either book here because that might lead to the post going past Reddit's word limit but instead I shall list link to reviews from readers which should give a brief idea of what the books state

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex: Amazon.co.uk: Farrell, Warren: 9780425181447: Books

The Privileged Sex: Amazon.co.uk: van Creveld, Martin: 9781484983126: Books

Briefs summaries: Women could historically claim benefits historically that if they were born male they could receive if they were injured or had other severe health problems

In addition Men could only claim several of these benefits if they were married thus having a wife who would be helped by default where as women could claim them even if they were single

In addition women always historically received less punishment than Men for the same crime and crimes against women were punished harsher than the same crime done to a man

(This is a very brief summary which does not go into major detail about either book but both books debunk the idea that males are privileged)

Now a big question to ask is why have Men never been treated like women?

The answer usually given hen looking at why men and women were treated so differently, popular evolutionary theories often claim that society protected women because "one man can reproduce with 100 women to restart a population." While biologically true in a vacuum, this theory is sociologically illogical and completely ignores historical reality.

In the brutal reality of the historical world, a society that lost the vast majority of its young men did not happily repopulate. Instead, it was immediately conquered by rival tribes and nations due to a fatal lack of soldiers and defenders

So I propose another theory as to why women have always been treated through history, society simply loves women

the Psychological Reality of Gender Bias (In-Group vs. Out-Group)

Beyond cold survival mechanics, we also have to look at the hard psychological data regarding how the sexes view one another. In sociology and psychology, most marginalized groups display a strong "in-group bias" (preferring their own group), while dominant groups usually do the same. However, gender is a radical psychological exception.

Famous psychological research, such as the Rudman and Goodwin study on automatic gender attitudes, has consistently demonstrated that women possess a powerful automatic in-group bias (favouring other women), whereas men demonstrate an out-group bias (favouring women over other men).

This directly feeds into the "women-are-wonderful" effect. Society has a built-in, protective affection for women simply for existing, while men default to protecting women and viewing their fellow men as competitors or utility tools. Because both men and women psychologically default to favoring and protecting females, historical societies naturally shielded women from the grim horrors of execution, frontline warfare, and lethal labor, leaving ordinary men to face those trials with little collective empathy.

Empathy for Girls, Aggression for Boys: Bias from the Cradle

This profound baseline difference in empathy is deeply ingrained and manifests the moment a child is born. In a famous, classic study by Condry and Condry (1976), participants were shown a video of a gender-ambiguous infant crying in response to a jack-in-the-box. [1]

• When participants were told the infant was a girl, they overwhelmingly interpreted her crying as fear and distress, triggering a protective, empathetic response.
• When a separate group was shown the exact same video but told the infant was a boy, they interpreted his crying as anger and aggression.

This demonstrates how early male distress is weaponised or dismissed. From literal infancy, male vulnerability is perceived not as a cry for comfort, but as an aggressive display. This deep-seated psychological bias explains why society historically found it easy to ignore the terror and suffering of ordinary men—whether they were terrified teenagers in trenches or exhausted workers in factories—by reframing male pain as stoicism, duty, or inherent aggression.

Men Subordinating Themselves for Female Companionship

While women maintain a strong psychological preference for their own gender group, the irony is that the group that loves, protects, and exalts females the most is actually men.

Throughout history and across cultures, men have willingly engaged in a profound form of self-subordination for women. To secure female companionship, validation, and affection, the average man has always been eager to part with his hard-earned resources, endure backbreaking work, and demean his own personal status. Culturally, we see this in traditions where men literally bow down on one knee, cross oceans, fight duels, or kiss a woman's hand, treating her less like an equal and more like royalty or a goddess. This deep-seated romanticism and drive to serve women completely contradicts the idea of a "patriarchy" driven by a collective male desire to dominate females.

We as a society say that we should teach young boys to never lay their hands on a woman instead of saying teach young children to only resort to violence in self defence

But yet a think I think that the average male is willing to put with all of this without viewing as demeaning himself no matter how much that might look from neutral perspective because Men simply love women

Ultimately, men put up with all of these structural burdens, high-risk expectations, and dangerous societal roles because, at their very core, men love and want to protect women.

Remember Men, the Republican Party is not our friend

Conservative politicians wish to deceive you men into believing they are on on our side using thinly veiled anti feminist speech even though Republican policies are in fact harmful to men

From stripping the livelihoods of working-class fathers to expanding a biased criminal justice system that destroys male lives, the Republican platform does not protect men—it exploits our votes while maintaining the structural systems that hold us down.

The mass firing of federal employees

The Trump administration has illegally fired 300,000 federal workers several of which male already hurting male Employability statics during it's first month

Doing absolutely nothing to help men in education

Despite the growing gender gap in education and college enrolment no democrat or republican administration has ever done or even suggested doing anything that could help males in education such as signing a new law to make female only scholarship's gender neutral or funding male only scholarships

Attacking Benefits such as SNAP

Despite Women actually being higher than Men in SNAP receipt statistics 54% and 46% the fact this benefit is gender neutral the Trump administration cutting funding for it and further restricting the criteria on who gets it heavily penalises already struggling men

Implementing Strict Work Mandates: The Trump administration has consistently pushed to expand strict work-reporting requirements for food stamps. These rules ignore the reality of unstable labor markets, seasonal employment, and the lack of jobs available to men re-entering the workforce or transitioning out of dying industrial sectors.

Aggressive Funding Reductions: Far from leaving SNAP untouched, the administration has ordered states to slash or halt full food-aid distributions. In specific standoffs and funding cuts, millions of struggling people—including hundreds of thousands of low-income men—faced a massive reduction in basic nutritional lifelines.

Reinforcing Anti-Male Traditionalism and Shaming

The "Able-Bodied Male" Stereotype: Administration officials have explicitly used shaming tactics to justify these cuts. In public defences of welfare rollbacks, leadership figures have explicitly targeted "able-bodied male workers," publicly accusing them of "refusing to get a job" or failing to meet minimal productivity thresholds.

Weaponizing the Provider Trap: This public rhetoric reinforces the archaic and harmful social expectation that a man's worth is entirely tied to his immediate economic output. By painting low-income men who rely on state assistance as lazy or deficient, the administration actively perpetuates the stigma surrounding men who fall on hard times, driving up the severe mental health stresses and financial anxieties that fuel the male suicide epidemic.

The Republican call to criminalise homelessness and several anti homeless laws in Republican states

Several Republican politicians have called for homeless to be illegalised and there are already several anti homeless laws in Republican states Republican-led state legislatures have aggressively passed laws that outlaw sleeping in public, camping on state land, or panhandling. By making the basic mechanics of survival a crime, these laws ensure that homeless men are cycled directly into the criminal justice system.

Fines Men Cannot Pay: These policies impose heavy financial fines on individuals who possess nothing. When these fines inevitably go unpaid, warrants are issued, leading to arrest and jail time, which permanently ruins a man’s chances of ever securing clean background checks for employment or housing.

Giving infinite power to ICE leading to several illegal deportations of males

The Trump administration giving ICE almost endless power has lead to:

• Bypassing the Judicial System: The administration’s policies drastically expanded "expedited removal" procedures, allowing ICE officers to deport individuals without giving them a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Deportation of Legal Residents and Citizens: This lack of judicial review has led to documented cases of ICE unlawfully detaining and deporting legal permanent residents and even United States citizens—the majority of whom are men—simply due to clerical errors, profiling, or a lack of immediate access to legal counsel

The call to be tough on crime

Republican politicians have called for the laugh to be harsher on criminals on several occasions

This is regarding the fact that Males on average receive 60% times more prison time than females already and that females are already far more likely to be let go entirely or to just be forced to pay a bail in cases where males would be jailed

If the Republican call to be tough on crime is implemented it would usually just mean to be tougher on male crime

The refusal to remove Selective Service

No administration Republican or Democrat has ever even suggested removing or making selective service gender neutral despite the fact that by definition it discriminates against males

Republican push for industrial deregulation

Republican politicians have called several times for factory safety standards to be decreased this move would heavily increase work injuries and deaths which are 90% male as it is

I believe we have all seen the news and constant debates trans women should be allowed in women's spaces or Not (I personally believe they should be but that is not the point of this post)

Although whether you are to consider trans women women or the far right or terf terminology and say they are men a historical fact needs to be acknowledged women have in fact invaded male only spaces

To give just some examples

The Century Association (New York City): This prestigious arts and letters club resisted integration for decades. Following a landmark 1988 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (New York State Club Association v. City of New York), the club was forced to officially admit women

The Cosmos Club & Metropolitan Club (Washington, D.C.): Influenced directly by the 1988 Supreme Court decision, these long-standing elite clubs voted to accept women to comply with local anti-discrimination pressures.

University Clubs and Ivy League Eating Clubs: Princeton University’s famous independent eating clubs (such as the Tiger Inn and Ivy Club) were forced to admit women after long legal battles under New Jersey's law against discrimination

2. Civic Service Organizations

Large, community-oriented business networks were traditionally male-only. Because significant professional networking and corporate deal-making occurred here, courts ruled that excluding women directly harmed their career advancement

The Jaycees (United States Junior Chamber): In the 1984 landmark case Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state public accommodation laws applied to the massive civic organization, forcing them to grant full membership rights to women

Rotary International: Following the Jaycees precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1987 (Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte) that Rotary clubs could not exclude women under California's civil rights laws. This forced a structural change across all U.S. chapters

Kiwanis and Lions Clubs: These international service organizations quickly dropped their male-only policies in the late 1980s following the legal precedents set by the Rotary and Jaycees cases

3. Public Bars and Taverns

• McSorley’s Old Ale House (New York City): Operating as a strictly male-only establishment for 116 years, the famous tavern was forced to admit women in 1970 after a successful lawsuit filed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) under a newly signed city anti-discrimination bill.
• El Vino and UK Pub Bars: In the United Kingdom, many traditional pubs refused to serve women standing at the main bar. In 1982, the landmark Court of Appeal case Gill and Coote v. El Vino Co. Ltd. forced UK establishments to allow women equal access to bar service

Public Facilities and Gyms

• Boxing Gyms and Athletic Clubs: Historically, local boxing clubs and athletic institutions operated as male-only enclaves. Local public accommodation laws passed in the 1970s and 1980s prohibited commercial entities from maintaining single-sex restrictions, forcing commercial fitness centers and boxing rings to open to both genders. [1, 2]

I say because this fact that there is even a debate about whether trans women should be allowed in women's spaces is proof of the double standards society has in regards to female spaces in comparison to male ones

It means also that regardless of the which side of the pollical spectrum you are on there is no excuse for not granting trans women rights to female facilities if you go with the leftist interpretation and they are women (which I agree with) there is no problem with them being in female spaces if you go with the right interpretation and they are men it is hypocritical to deny them access to female spaces after granting females right to male spaces

To further emphasise as aforementioned that this is a debate highlight the double standards in society because this is a raging debate manly because it is in regards to women even though men went to a similar dilemma and society's response was essentially "shut up and deal with it, buttercup"

The same arguments that are used to deny trans women access to female spaces can be used against giving females access to male spaces

"It could make the girls, uncomfortable"

I am certain that many members of the male only spaces felt uncomfortable having females enter their previously male only space

Likewise the argument to justify allowing females access to male facilities could be used to give trans women access to female facilities too

"Several of the places where used for career advancement and a Woman's career is more important then a Man's felling's

Several of these female only spaces are used for career development too and to mention the fact that trans females are in fact highly successful athletes

By using that same logic would a trans women's career not be more important that a woman's felling giving all the more reason why they should be allowed access to female only spaces or sports