Can you be a feminist and be completely accepting of transgender individuals?(249 Posts)
It seems to be a thing that the majority of feminists on here are against transgender people. I'm just curious if you can be a feminist and completely accept transgender individuals.
I don't think ‘against transgender’ is correct here. Questioning and asking for clarification is not being ‘anti’.
The issue is self ID and the erosion of women only spaces (ealcecially where there is the issue of vulnerable women and trauma) is the issue questioned and the right to say ‘I am a woman because I say I am’ and the whole #nodebate thing.
That and the threats of being doxxed/ beaten up/pushed into extinction by some of the less charming cheerleading squad.
Hello Magic have you read many of the threads here? I only ask because nobody here is against transgender individuals; in fact some trans folk even post here themselves. We are for Women’s rights, and we are keen to ensure these rights are not eroded. Can I ask why you got the impression we are against trans folk? Specifically?
Nobody is against transgender people as a class of people.
People on here are against trans rights being conflated with women's rights to the detriment of women's rights, and that decades of knowledge and practice about safeguarding women and children are being thrown under the juggernaut of trans ideology.
Most feminists do not support trans ideology. That is not the same thing as individual trans people.
But I think you probably know that.
It seems to be a thing that the majority of feminists on here are against transgender people
I believe this is wrong and would be interested in seeing some links for the 'majority of feminists ' bit
I think i am a feminist
I am on here
I am not against transgender people
I don't agree with your first statement at all. Being gender critical, a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man, does not mean you are against transgendered people.
How are you defining against transgender people?
Yes of course. You can also be a transwoman and agree with the views of most women on here.
See Kristina Harrison or Debbie Hayton for eg - both pretty vocal on twitter on this, Debbie has written for Times and Morning Star on this.
Of course! I accept trans identified people as the wonderfully diverse people they are.
I wish trans rights activists would too.
I don't believe trans people should be able to self-define. I think TRAs are a festering pile of misogynistic wankers. But I know trans and non-binary people I get on with in my personal life. It's not mutually exclusive.
You’ve not read the threads properly (giving you the benefit of the doubt here).
The ‘majority of feminists’ on here are NOT against transgender people. What many are against is the following:
2. The idea that ideology trumps biology and trans women (or trans men, but let’s face it, TRAs are not really interested in them, are they?) are LITERALLY women
That is all.
'It seems to be a thing that the majority of feminists on here are against transgender people.'
No that isn't a 'thing' on here at all. But you already know that don't you.
I am not against transgender people. If they fought for their own rights, I would fight shoulder to shoulder with them. It's the muscling in on women's spaces, rewriting what words mean, inability to define basic terminology (trans, women, men) , the illogical circular logic and the refusal to debate #nodebate that I am strongly against.
I'm completely accepting of transgender individuals, just as I am of other individuals, with the caveat that I don't "accept" anyone - trans or not - that behaves like a dick.
The current issue has arisen because some transgender individuals - amazingly enough, mostly those trans individuals who possess male bodies - are behaving like dicks, telling women they must accept their own erasure, and stealing women's resources, privacy and safety. It's a dickish thing to do, to tell women that "woman" is just a feeling, and that lesbians must learn to like dick.
I don't accept them, because they are dicks.
I've only recently joined up to this board (after being directed here by some lovely individuals in my local support group)
I am a feminist.
I am also a biological male/ transsexual.
I am very much against the new umbrella term of 'transgender' which puts me (someone who has gone through years of therapy, surgery and mental torment due to a mental disorder) in to the same category as some of the disgusting misogynistic perverts now protected by that term.
I’m a feminist and am fairly vocal on a lot of the trans threads here and you may well think I’m “against” trans from my comments.
But I’m not. I have friends who are trans who I love. I’m happy for a genuine trans woman to be in a changing room with me.
I’m against self ID, and incidentally there are trans people who aren’t keen on self ID. I am against trans women being on woman’s teams for sports, against trans women’s getting on all women short lists, women’s industry awards, women of the year awards, etc.
I am accepting of transsexual people. I have a transsexual woman in my family.
I am not accepting of self-ID or transactivists
And I am pro-womens rights
To answer your question, I do not believe anyone can be a feminist whilst supporting selfID as selfID is totally anti-womens rights. It will remove most rights female people actually have. So no, I do not think you can be a femnist if you agree with removing the rights of 51% of the population to please a few shouty male people. Self-ID is bad for transsexual people too.
And as you can see by the apt username I chose...I'm not exactly accepted by these new 'trans' people anyway.
< high fives TruScum>
Exactly what I’ve heard from trans friends.
Trans women are not women does not imply "you don't exist". The issue is that they seem to be against non-trans people, women in particular, wanting into women's spaces. Of course there will be objection to that.
Not against transgender people. I think their rights should be enshrined in law and they should have safe spaces. I do not think they should be discriminated against.
What I take issue with is the argument that there is no need for women's spaces based on biology, because being a woman has nothing to do with biology apparently and everything to do with an inner feeling. Once you accept that, it becomes impossible to have segregation based on biological sex.
That, coupled with self-ID means that biological women will be forced to share spaces with biological men, many of whom have their genitalia intact. That includes in prison, where many female prisoners are already past victims of sexual abuse and rape. There will be nothing to stop a rapist from being transferred to their wing. In fact, that has happened several times and the person in question has been found to be harassing women.
There is nothing in my position that is anti-trans in the slightest.
I am not against any human being living his or her life in the way that they want to, once they do not injure or infringe on the rights of others.
I am against the concept and belief system of 'Gender Identity' replacing the material reality of 'Sex' as the differentiating characteristics between girls and boys, women and men.
'Gender Identity' is, at best, a wholly subjective internal feeling, impossible to prove or legislate for. At worst, it is a reification of outdated and oppressive stereotypes, a means by which to equate being of a particular sex with having a particular type of personality: if your personality (or 'Gender identity') doesn't match your genitals, you must have been 'assigned' the wrong sex at birth.
Sex is just a fact, and the physical differences between the sexes - and/or male exploitation of those differences - are the reason why we need women's sports, separate spaces for personal care, women-only refuges, separate prisons, and protections in law to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex.
Replace sex with gender identity in any of those contexts, and you are undoing the work of feminism, not furthering it. Because in ideological terms, much the work of feminism has been to resist and subvert the notion that our personalities -
our interests, behaviors, aptitudes and potential - are determined by our sex. And in practical terms, much of the work of feminism has been about creating and protecting safe spaces and equal opportunity for girls and women in sport, in the workplace, and in politics.
So an ideology that says it's your personality that determines your sex, and your male size, strength and socialization should not prevent you from racing against the girls or working in the women's refuge, is not an ideology that's consistent with feminism.
Discussing the implications of this discourse and seeking to prevent changes to the law that would roll back sex-based protections isn't about being against anyone. Framing it that way is just a handy tool for silencing women.
Welcome Truscum. I feel strongly that it is you and the genuine people who are in great danger of being swallowed up by the activists.
I cannot believe this is going on. It's an Orwellian nightmare and seemingly unstoppable.
It seems to me the gentle, peaceful and kind humans are being sacrificed and I don't understand why.
There is safety in numbers and this is the only way we are going to stop the deadly poisoned roller coaster . Collectively. With one loud voice. Enough.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.