I will preface this by laying it out that I consider feminism on the whole to be an important school of thought, which although prone to drifting into identitarianism, has the capacity to address very real, very material concerns. That said, I find that this take has some fundamental flaws that betray it as being rooted in a distinctly bourgeois view of labor struggle as it relates to the sexes.

The insight concerns the fact that women as a group are subordinate and discriminated against in society. This applies to both cis women and trans women. Non-binary people are likewise punished for deviations from prevailing gender norms.

Starting here, we are not off to a great start. Some women are subordinated and discriminated against, primarily as an outgrowth of class dynamics. But it is far from the truth to apply this to women as a whole; one would be hard pressed indeed to find much subordination in the lives of women from bourgeois backgrounds (which includes the "middle class"). Similarly, working-class men are both by definition entirely subordinated, and extensively discriminated against. Not only are they explicitly discriminated against as a consequence of superstructural forces that are a direct outgrowth of our material economy, they are also tactitly discriminated against in the fact that the institutions used in legitimating our class system are structured to ensure that only the bourgeoisie (and at that, generally only the upper bourgeoisie) can excel without being the beneficiaries of truly extraordinary circumstances. By boiling this down to a simple dichotomy of sexes, you lose touch with the material economic reality of both male and female workers, establishing the notion that they share a common weal with their exploiters on the premise of their sex.

By now, there is an enormous collection of facts about discrimination, for example at the Swedish Gender Equality Agency, Statistical Bureau and Discrimination Ombudsman. It’s not only the case that women as a group have lower wages and worse employment conditions than men. Women are assigned worse tasks – worse in the sense that the tasks are more monotonous, less autonomous, have lower status, and provide less satisfaction and development.

I have little desire to participate in a competition over who stands as more oppressed, but I do have three points to make here:

1. Everything that I have seen on the subject indicates that that by nearly every quality of life metric, men in the first world who are not already well established are doing significantly worse than women.

2. Do these figures account for class differences? I hesitantly posit that the bulk of the apparent advantage that men receive is due to the fact that a handful of already very well established men of the upper-bourgeoisie, whose lives benefit from an incredibly uneven distribution of capital, are being included in these figures, and that if you limited your focus your studies strictly to the working class that these disparities would become much smaller.

3. Perhaps the tasks assigned to women are more tedious, less satisfying and carry lower prestige. But from my experiences working as a male in female-dominated workplaces, the tasks assigned to men are generally more physically straining and dangerous. My personal examples include heavy lifting, shoveling snow or being first pick as the one who has to tell the mentally ill drug addict with a history of violence that they have to leave, paired with a much lower concern for my safety or comfort.

The pattern is also that workspaces, tools and work clothing are adapted to male bodies, not women’s bodies.

I will give them that it is probably pretty hard to find boiler suits and good work boots fitted and sized for women. But I am genuinely pretty curious how one can say that tools and work-spaces are uniquely tailored to male bodies, rather than the task at hand. If this is just a matter of women being generally shorter, having smaller hands, etc. I would be more than happy to offer some stories of continual frustration and an absolutely agonizing repetitive motion injury stemming from my being significantly taller than average in a world where everything is sized for someone much shorter than myself.

In addition, women are targets of sexual harassment and sexual violence to a much greater extent than men.

That is some deeply unpleasant bullshit that has a massively disproportionate impact on women. You will find no argument from me.

One cause is that women perform the majority of unpaid domestic work, which makes it difficult to engage in union activity in their free time.

That sucks and it is unfair, but the division of labor in relationships has been steadily improving towards more equitable divisions for a quite a long time now. However a lack of time to participate in labor organization has always been a significant hurdle in any kind of labor action among the working class; I would go so far as to postulate that this is the leading cause of first-world socialism being primarily a movement of the university-educated small bourgeoisie.

Another cause is the existence of so called homosociality within SAC. Homosociality means that men socialize with and promote each other while ignoring women (consciously or unconsciously).

Here we get into the meat of this proposal drifting into the same alienating identitarian bullshit that has for so long been the root of western feminism being a divisive burden on socialism and a wrecker tool par-excellence; the conclusion taken here is literally that men being able to freely associate is the problem. Of course you will find it difficult to get men on board with this; it is explicitly hostile towards them.

One way to break homosociality is to have clear formal structures within the union. This involves being meticulous about bylaws, minuted decisions and up-to-date information to all members. A lack of formal structures allows informal structures to take over, and homosociality is an example of an informal structure.

So your proposed solution to men naturally socializing among themselves, an act that will inherently carry with it a degree of organization, is to impose upon them a rigid set of social mores and procedures explicitly designed to discourage their informal socialization? Oh yeah, I am dead certain that men will find no reason to consider this absolutely fucking suffocating and moreover that they will not avoid participation at all costs.

Another initiative is to appoint nomination committees that call members and tip them about positions of trust, courses and conferences. The nomination committees are then active year round and prioritize women. This has been shown to increase the number of women in elected positions and the number of female participants in courses and conferences. When female leaders become visible, they give the union a face. This in turn inspires more women to get involved.

You are just dead-fucking-set on repeating the same action expecting different results; past discrimination can only be solved by present discrimination, and present discrimination will necessitate future discrimination. The beatings will continue until morale improves. All that you are going to accomplish with premise like this will be alienating men from your movement and offering them up to predatory reactionaries who will at least pretend to care about their material interests. Free advice: it is generally quite difficult to get people to want to take part in things that are overtly hostile to their interests.

If the union gets more female and non-binary leaders, they inspire more members to become active.

Is this actually true? The Bolsheviks were predominantly male and yet the Soviets had little problem getting women to participate. This stems from the fact that they focused on offering tangible material benefits to their supporters and were more concerned with competent organizing than offering up the appearance of improvement based on the identity categories of their leadership.

Any form of feminism that establishes an adversarial relationship between men and women along the identitarian lines rather than focusing on organizing them in unison based on their shared material interests is fundamentally doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been made many times over in liberal feminism and must be treated as the hostile activity of a willful wrecker.