There are two things that I've frequently seen used in gender issues debate to try to treat examples of men's issues as if they're not examples of men's issues. Paying attention to them and considering their basis or meaning has provided a way to explain something about men's issues discussion, particularly with those who oppose discussion that isn't controlled by Social Justice ideologues.

They have two methods of attacking the validity of discussion on men's issues without offering any real evidence to counter that discussion's validity.

1) Painting anything that doesn't focus exclusively on women or isn't done exclusively for women as if the focus or benefit excludes women.

One example of this is in the creation of "safe spaces," (a space dedicated to a specific group, for example men, women, ethnic groups, etc.) Feminists especially, but often women in general, argue that spaces dedicated to women are needed, but spaces dedicated to men aren't, based on the claim that the world is a man's space. They don't have any factual support for that claim; it's basically built on the idea that if women aren't the sole focus or benefactor of a factor, that factor somehow belongs to men.

Another example is in discussion on health issues. If public discourse on a health issue is about the organ(s) or system(s) it effects, but not the gender of the patients affected, feminists treat the health issue as a men's health issue, even though the non-genital organs of both sexes have largely the same primary functions, nutritional needs, and responses to unhealthy habits. The difference in feminist response when a health issue is seen as having a higher or more frequent impact on one gender or the other is decidedly hypocritical. When a health issue is seen as affecting men more often than women due to the differences in the way we live our lives (heart health, for instance, due to differences in work habits) there's a push to "include" women in discussion of that issue by having discussion that is exclusive to women. When an issue is seen as affecting women more often than men (osteoporosis, for instance) it's not a problem if we focus discussion on that issue primarily on women, even though some men are subject to it.

2) Using other factors involved in any issue that affects men as an excuse to ignore the way the issue affects men and therefore treat it as not a men's issue.

If it affects young men more than old men, it's an age issue, even if it impacts on men more or more often than on women. If it affects men of a minority status more than white men, it's an ethnic issue, even if it impacts minority men harder or more often than it impacts minority women. If it affects low income men more than rich men, it's a wealth issue, even if it impacts low income men harder or more often than it impacts low income women. Mental health issues that kill men in greater numbers are considered female issues because more women display symptoms without dying from them.

This is how society makes men's experiences invisible, marginalizes men's needs, and sacrifices men's welfare for the sake of other groups. It happens because we see men as a group having the power to act on their own behalf, while we ignore the ability of people belonging to groups we as a society consider vulnerable to act on their own behalf.

When this is perceived as being done to any other group, there's a public outcry. The response to seeing it done to men is often the claim that men have it easy, but in order to support that claim, the same faulty reasoning (nothing is a men's issue if it includes other factors, men have the power to act on their own behalf, therefore men aren't vulnerable to adverse conditions) has to be used as justification.

That's why Social Justice ideologues use terms like "privilege," and "patriarchy" as a substitute for substantial argument.

"Patriarchy" as an argument is the treatment of all men everywhere as a single unit instead of individuals with individual experiences and effects on the world. The gist of this argument is "men's problems are caused by men having power and control in society. One man's power is all men's power. Therefore, your issues aren't issues, and everyone else's issues come first.

The "privilege" dialogue uses treatment of perceived disadvantage as an excuse to infer guilt upon anyone not experiencing that disadvantage, and a baseline level of innocence for those presumed disadvantaged. The term is used as a cattle prod in gender and other human issues discussion, allowing Social Justice ideologues to claim it's justified to treat existing conditions differently based on the "averaging" factor of privilege. Injustices against privileged people become justified; Injustices against the non-privileged are amplified. This allows the social justice ideologue to ignore real, life-effecting conditions in favor of an ideological interpretation of them.

Opponents of men's issues discussion combine those ideas to ignore any adverse conditions faced by men on the basis of their perceived power as members of a unit upon which is universally conferred the power attributed to a select few. That, in turn facilitates treating men's issues as non-issues, ignoring an issue's impact on men, treating focus on men as unnecessary or anti-woman, or otherwise marginalizing male experiences. Effective countering of that attack on discussion of men's issues requires only that you point out what the individual is doing, by addressing the assumptions on which that flawed thinking is based: The perception of only men (but not women or other subsets of the overall population) as having the power to act on their own behalf, which leads to the perception that women are excluded where women aren't the sole focus, and the treatment of other factors involved in an issue as reason to ignore the issue's impact on men. That's the core challenge faced by the men's rights dialogue; removing the perceived-agency gap, and the use of that gap in perception to excuse facilitating or tolerating social or individual discrimination and other dysfunction on the basis of gender.