I am not seeking to insert myself or other heterosexual men into safe spaces created to service the needs of other groups.
I just want the full complexity of a cultural problem to drive the way we use language to describe that problem.
Ideologies, when used to grasp reality, tend to oversimplify, to condense, to fail to deal with complexity. Any ideology is vulnerable to short-cut thinking, not just feminism or LGBT activism. The result can be collateral damage that, logically, makes no sense to inflict.
If we understand harassment solely as ‘men bad, women and LGBT good’ (I realize that you do not understand it that way, but some do), I can see advocacy moving to shift, on average, who is privileged over other groups, but I can’t see an end to the abuse of privilege. That could end up just being a case of moving the problem around, rather than fixing it.
Mind you, I’m not arguing for the status quo, and I’m not arguing for male privileges over other groups. I’m only arguing for accuracy in language when describing a social problem that’s more complex than some are willing to credit.
So far as I am concerned, you don’t have to open up your safe spaces to anyone but those you created those spaces for. That’s fine. But once in those safe spaces, and also outside of them, the way people use language matters. Gender and sexual identity are tangled up in the problem of harassment, sure. But there are heterosexual male victims, too, and perpetrators outside of that group.
Because of the way people use language about the problem of harassment, it’s difficult to find instances where advocates or social scientists are even bothering to look.
As an heterosexual male who has experienced harassment, I take that as a clue that advocacy in this area isn’t always dealing well with the real world.