Is it actually possible to be a feminist and completely embrace trans rights?

See I read berts OP as full support the current trans movement ie a woman us anyone who says they are a woman. That's how I interpret "fully embrace trans rights".
The vast majority of posters on here and other threads have said we a sympathetic and support trans people's rights to live and present as they wish free from violence and discrimination. That's not the same thing as agreeing that they are the sex they identify with though.

Bertrand I just meant transwomen who appreciate why others might be uncomfortable with them joining, say, a group for female rape survivors. Or workplaces where trans people use toilets of their choosing and nobody bats an eyelid because they know that person and aren't threatened by them. I'm not denying there is a debate to be had over prisons etc, just that the debate doesn't completely stop you from fighting for basic rights for both groups. There are many, many areas of equal rights outside of those conversations.

Haven't read whole thread but yes you can campaign for women's rights and trans rights. A patriarchal society harms women but also harms others who don't don't fit into the tiny group of elite who seem to have all the power. Women, trans people, people of colour, disabled people etc all deserve equal access to services and the right to be free from violence.

There are definitely contentious issues such as women-only spaces, but aside from a few crazies on the Internet, most women and most trans people I know are reasonable and able to find the right solution in individual circumstances. I know plenty of trans people (both transmen and transwomen) who challenge sexism and plenty of feminists who are trans allies. Generally one marginalised group sympathises with another.

Banbam
Huff post journos are full on liberal nightmares. I am too for many things, but not this. (well not since MN sorted me out)

Op
If they fully embrace women's right's and not trample on them, yes, it's very possible

Felas - maybe the only shorthand women will be left with is XX ?

Just curious to thoughts on this journalistic piece regsrding the Huffpost article on Cher's rant about Terfs.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57cee4b4e4b084e81ba348c1

buffy cheerleading whoop whoop!

I can see what you mean about the move to gender identity being more important than biology in determining "woman".
That still leaves a group of people who have periods, get pregnant and breastfeed, menopause etc etc. Surely we will always need shorthand to refer to them? And surely trans people will always want to use that descriptor? Because that's the nature of being trans. I posted on another thread that I read something yesterday where trans people were debating whether SRS makes a previously trans woman a cis woman. So it still won't be clearcut, unless we entirelying do away with any description of biology which just doesn't seem workable from a medical and policy POV.

Yes please do. (Is it crass of me to say that I have been a lurker on this bit of Mumsnet for a year or so and have a bit of an Admiration thing going on for your posts?)

NO PRESSURE THEN.

Well the MOST basic facts are presumably not. (There no doubt is out there somewhere a theory that surgery alters your XY/XX makeup, the internet's a big place after all, but I am pretty sure that we don't have to worry about Maria Miller believing it, fingers crossed anyway). It's the NEXT "fact" that is the issue isn't it, i.e. whether XY vs XX (and yes there are occasional variants but still) is the significant thing.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this exactly, to be honest; I'm just sort of at a point where, in all the discussion of potential problem areas it sort of feels that surely it should be simpler than this.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it's helpful to keep asserting things that are 'basic biological facts' and 'dictionary definitions of woman'. Because this conflict is not about facts as such, it is about politics.

Buffy, I know "let's ignore facts" isn't what you meant (!) but I can't help thinking we're in a time where fact-absent politics are causing all sorts of problems, and not just in this context ... I'm almost at the complete opposite point of view at the minute.

By which I mean: it seems to me that the only coherent way of addressing the many many problems surrounding the anti-women slant of current government thinking in relation to transactivism HAS to be, let's not lose sight of the basics (biology, and equal rights means equal not superseding) here.

If we have to fight for every single space and idea separately - loos, changing rooms, hospitals, DV refuges, rape counselling, prison services, primary schools (in my LA), sex-specific health screening, and on and on - then we are going to be fighting the same battle over and over and we will lose most or all of them. It seems to me that the whole problem is that basics and facts have got lost, and that one fight is what needs fighting.

definition of phobia: 'an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.'

I don't think that feminists objections to TAs impact on womens rights is in the least irrational or extreme. Women need safe spaces because of the actions of some men.

Whereas homophobia is an irrational aversion, how does anyones sexual orientation harm anyone?

I'm not tarring trans people with any brush. I'm saying men will abuse laws designed to protect trans people. By which I mean men pretending to be tran's not trans women.
Part of the trans movements issue is a total unwillingness to discuss it as an issue, instead relying on "men can commit crime anyway" and "the law exists to deal with it". For me, given the derisory levels of conviction for rape and sex crimes I don't think that's enough to protect women.
So I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying that it's not possible for me to be the kind of feminist I am, and embrace trans rights as set out in Maria Millers report

Felas and harlot - that must be right (re etymology).

So going back to the OP, if "transphobia" means "to have a well founded fear of men encroaching on female-only spaces", then I am transphobic and so must any other feminist be. If "transphobia" means something more like "has a strong aversion to transpeople or discriminates unfairly against them", well then I am not, and although some feminists might be, I'd wager the majority are not.

I won't apologise for putting the rights of women and girls at the top of my personal tree of priorities, given how far we still have to go

surely it would be a third and fourth space? one for biological males identifying as transwomen who may pose a threat to biological women. and one for transmen (biological females who may be in endangered in a biological male space, if they self-exclude from the womens space).

Plus Felas, a woman saying she is a man doesn't automatically get afforded male privilege. She finds herself in the worst of all worlds. Whereas a man who says he is a woman often gets to keep his male privilege, whilst also enjoying - for example - a physical advantage over his new peers which in turn gives him power and the ability to discomfort other women. There's so much more to be gained by transitioning MTT than FTT

I do see those points, I'm conflicted because I don't think we have any evidence to suggest that most trans people (who in the past would go through real hardship to transition) are trying to gain access to women's spaces for those purposes. I get that it's a disturbing possibility, but it doesn't seem just to tar the whole trans movement with that brush. My feelings about that in no way detract from my awareness of the importance and value of protecting the rights of women and girls. I think we will have to find a solution that involves some kind of third space as someone suggested earlier.

Well turn this on its head devil
Why would anyone want to do that though? It's easy enough to enact violence against women and girls and get away with it. Why put yourself through the trouble of acquiring a whole new gender?

If all one needs to do to aquire a new gender is to say they feel like the opposite gender (which is the proposal):
If a man was convicted, why would they not do that to avoid being housed with the most violent offenders?
If a man got a thrill out of exposing himself to unsuspecting women, why would he not do that to gain access to female changing rooms?
If a man can get a suspended sentence for sex crimes because there's no appropriate sex offender course for women, why would he not do that?
If a man wanted to record women using the toilet, why would he not do that to gain unfettered access to women's loos?

I'm unsure what you think the barrier is to a man (not a trans woman) just saying they feel like a woman to do these things? There doesn't need to be any commitment to living/acting/presenting as a female so the argument of "why would they do that?" Doesn't stand up for me.

I think that's why less is said about transwomen. It's a lot harder to see a situation where a woman would pretend to be trans to gain access to men than the other way round. So the risk of self identification for trans men is much lower and it's not as controversial.

Going back to the OP, i can't see how transgenderism is compatible with feminism at all. I don't see how, if you think women do not constitute a class of persons who are subject to oppression because they are female, there is any basis for feminism.

I think its a nice choice of word which makes people feel like they are being unreasonable and wrong for having an opinion like lesbians aren't evil because they don't want to sleep with someone with a penis.

I think it's building on homophobic olenna