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

"Transwomen may be feminine, can look & act like women and might even pass for more than a second, but they are not female and hence cannot be called women in the English language."

Working on the assumption this is correct (not sure it is) I still struggle with the reality. Entirely anecdotally and based on young people I have worked with, trans teens (both ways) are massively vulnerable. They are fragile young humans desperate to find a place they belong. I could not, could not enforce rules that would make them more miserable and confused.

I am struggling to equate the vulnerable young people I know with the strident activists much talked about on MN. So I might accept something I know is not true because it would feel unnecessarily cruel to act otherwise.

Just dropping in to say that I'm with hairy, prawn, venus, winch etc.

I think if we ever translate this into a proper political movement, that will be the time to be more conciliatory. Here is a place to discuss, to vent, to thrash out ideas. Many fence-sitters have been converted to a gender-critical stance by the discussions on MN. These conversations are often prickly - this is MN, fgs - but I'd like to think that everybody is able to least a certain level of sparring in a debate. I certainly don't see at any point in this thread any level of bullying, vindictiveness or unnecessary aggression. Yes, there might be things that some people find uncomfortable - that's the nature of having your ideas challenged. If these discussions don't raise, debate and deal with difficult questions and concepts, then what's the point?

I understand what Blistory is trying to say, but I think sometimes if you take issue with something a poster has said it is better to address that person and their comment directly rather than issuing a blanket request for the whole tone of the debate to change. I think in a climate where people are already upset enough about the way we're being silenced, such demands are probably counterproductive.

I have no idea how trans rights could possibly be incompatible with women's rights - can you clarify?

Because to give a group specific rights and services you need to define that group.

Because if the only thing that defines that group is self determination, it is very difficult to argue that the group needs specific rights or services.

"I think we should simply accept that trans women ARE women"

Why?

Y-chromosome makes people male, and the definition of a woman is adult human female. Transwomen may be feminine, can look & act like women and might even pass for more than a second, but they are not female and hence cannot be called women in the English language.

So, why "should" we accept something that is just not true?

No, I agree with that. Your posts do have that force without being blunt and angry. You make very compelling arguments.

To be fair Buffy, you are very good at framing things in a conceptual way. You are an academic. Not everyone finds that easy, so not everyone feels comfortable expressing strongly felt opinions in that way and they may be blunter.

Thingammyjiggy, congrats. I think you are the only person left on Mumsnet who has managed to entirely miss years and years worth of debate and explanation threafs regarding trans vs women's rights.

I don't know where you got your information-impregnable forcefield but there's probably a fair few people who would be interested if you wanted to market it on Mumsnet.

You say you've never given it any thought. I believe you. Perhaps, it might be worth giving it a thought now? There is lots to be learned from the debates here.

You'd have to deactivate that forcefield first, mind.

And yes, I'm well aware that Rome is burning while we're all sitting here fiddling And this is where I majorly part company with those who have caved in. I'm not including you in this, Blistory, btw. But it enrages me that feminist spaces have allowed the transactivist voice to over-rule and so there is no woman centred group countering the ludicrous idea that women are what what you feel like. I used to think that the Fawcett Society were that group, but no, they have capitulated. But, more importantly, feminist groups seem to have lost their way entirely. And that's because they are tip toeing around the trans issue. Not good enough.

Thingamajiggy do you think that women suffer because they are women? If so, what definition of women are you using?

That's disappointing, Fela. I thought you were adding a whole new classification to it all.

Gah sorry. My definition doesn't include trans women.

Thanks prawn right back atcha I'm reading every word - onward and upward

thing woman is a descriptor. So it's describing a class of people who all have something in common not shared by other people.
That's quite easy for me as I define it as "women can make eggs and bear young". My definition doesn't include women.
From your perspective you have a definition of woman describing a class including trans women and women and excluding trans men and men. If you do please share (I'm serious because I would love to hear one).
If not then your descriptor "woman" in effect just means "human". Which is fairly useless.

Sometimes, yes.

And for the sake of completeness, I think being polite and respectful, and sometimes even nice, goes a long way and can achieve a lot.

Why exactly are trans women women? I think that's a good starting point for any discussion, thingamy.

I think we should simply accept that trans women ARE women. I don't understand where the incompatibility is?? As a feminist I am committed to equal rights, non-discrimination, and the right to self-determination and autonomy for everyone. I have no idea how trans rights could possibly be incompatible with women's rights - can you clarify?

Asserting that a genetic woman is somehow a 'superior' sort of women to a trans woman; and that WE are the ones who have the right to decide what makes a woman seems like a mirror of patriarchy.

Honestly I've never given it any thought until now but I think we should be fighting over issues that matter, not arguing the toss over the definition of 'women'.

FFS, Prawn, you don't need to apologise to me for having a different view. It isn't a popularity contest where we get to count those posters as being on team a or b.

I posted a point of view - I didn't paint a bloody big target on my back.

And yes, I'm well aware that Rome is burning while we're all sitting here fiddling.

In all seriousness it is the ESSENCE of patriarchy to say "no, you didn't ask nicely enough".

Sorry, Blistory but I'm with Hairy all the way, and NotAnother. I think you're wrong; being nice and well-behaved has never, ever got women anywhere.

Fat lot of good it'll do us to go all dignified and elder stateswoman when the TAs are getting pretty much everything they ask for both in the media and at the highest level.

Look at the IOC! Men in women's sports. Would we have believed this 10 years ago? The time to overreact is now. It's already an emergency.

That was to Blistory, to avoid confusion.

I thought it was in response to me as well as Winchester. It seemed to be a continuation of the discussion we were having. I think I also said something similar to "it is what it is" in a post I made, so I connected your post with mine. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. All I really wanted to say was that I don't appreciate being patronised and I don't think it's a particularly great strategy to get people to work together.

Don't back off, Winchester. I like your posts.