Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

middle. I understand your frustration with this issue, but I don't think it's 'maybe time to put all the transitioned people on an island and let nature take its course' as you say

Perhaps you're joking, but that really does sound transphobic.
Not all trans people, by any means, are trying to erase women or encroach on our rights. Just the most vocal ones.

It's a trendy cause, and radical feminism isn't.

Many organisations both here and overseas are happy to throw women under the bus as their paltry token gesture to "equality and diversity", Meph. Trump himself has said he's not bothered (though other republicans are).

Meph - the report of the select committee chaired by Maria Miller seems to disagree with your common sense reading - they are suggesting in all seriousness that self-identification should be the be-all and end-all of being accepted as a given "sex" [sic] for legal purposes.

That's why we're all up in arms about it. Words are coming to mean whatever Humpty Dumpty says they do, and all the legal consequences that follow from that are absurd and scary (pre-operative trans people in communal single sex changing rooms, pre-operative trans people in rape crisis centres, indeed, never mind pre-op trans people, Brian the hairy trucker who simply decides to self-identify as a woman on alternate Tuesdays...)

That was to venusinscorpio.

Well, that's just self-evidently absurd. I was a little confused by the apparently negative attitude towards post-HRT transexuals, but things are a bit more clear.

If that's the level of silliness on offer, perhaps feminism is in less of a crisis than might be expected. I don't think even the fundamentally disinterested are going to blithely accept the idea that you can self-identify as an alternative sex without (at the very least) radical biochemical changes, not with extreme political correctness facing the backlash it presently is.

Personally I have got to the point where I am no longer able to tolerate this BS in terms of the amount of biological and linguistic untruths we are told to assimilate. Maybe its time to put all the transitioned persons on to an island and let nature take its course?

It's considered transphobic to say that these things are a prerequisite for a man to transition and be considered a woman in all meaningful ways, including entering women's sex segregated spaces.

There isn't always any surgery involved, or even hormones.

Thank you.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, one issue with trans is that it's essentially altering gender expression through surgery, but is claiming to fundamentally alter sex? Which is naturally antagonistic to the idea of sex and gender being separate.

Hmm, thank you for the clarity. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I can see the logic in the position.

The generally accepted term is "gender critical feminist".

Some of us don't care about being called terfs. Or just feminist will do. I honestly don't see women who believe in including men in feminism to be feminists at all. I don't "exclude" men from anything else -I have lots of great men in my life, I am married to a man, I have sons - but include them in feminism? What a fucking weird idea.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that feminism is inclusive of men (regardless of their gender presentation) except for a few men who are confused about their 'allied status'.

I apologise for using a loaded term, as I had no intention of being hostile. If it's ok to ask, what term(s) do you think is appropriate to distinguish between the two feminist perspectives on this subject? I've seen 'liberal' feminist used, but that doesn't appear to always be the governing factor in those feminists who accept the trans-perspective.

Nah, you're alright, thanks.

Non inclusive is just as goady. It's loaded. Feminism, as a movement for human women is non lizard and non robot inclusive too. Who says feminists should have to include men in feminism? Who decreed that?

I was trying to use non-inclusive as an alternative to trans-exclusionary. It was literally an attempt to be non-goady.

And my plans are going wonderfully, thank you Venus. I won't bore you with the details. How is your tyrannical matriarchy progressing? Need any pointers?

LOL at Meph trying to be all goady.

Please do tell us about your socialist surveillocracy utopia plans, I'm all ears.

(That was to meph)

No, it really doesn't. And just "misogynist" will do, thanks.

What exactly do you mean by "non-inclusive feminists", Meph? In what sense are feminists non-inclusive?

I've explained upthread I'm happy to defend trans people's rights to employment, housing, a voice in the political process, the right to go about their life free from harrassment. To that extent I am happy to be inclusive.

I don't want be-penised individuals in my private space (e.g. a communal changing room in which I and they would be naked). I don't want them as potential sexual partners. That's not about inclusivity, that's about my right to dignity, privacy and control over who has sexual access to my body.

Furthermore, I'm not prepared to re-write my understanding of biology to entertain the claim that some penises are female, or that a hole fashioned out of the remains of a penis is equivalent to a real vagina. That's not about inclusivity, that's about a refusal to say the world is flat, "intelligent design" is a scientific theory and humans are not overwhelmingly a sexually dimorphic species.

ChocChocPorridge

'rejecting biology' - it's more rejecting 'biological reality' - which is entirely different.'

Ha! Ok.

Anyway - I'm not disagreeing that the trans-movement is starting to undermine feminism, only that this really does seem to prove the old Nietzchean maximum:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

It applies as equally to the fanatically cis-misogynist TRAs as the non-inclusive feminists that oppose them.

First comment:

TERFs are like Nazi Germany (and other guff).

Response from OP:

Thank you for this comment, made sense.

That's the level of weapons' grade stupidity we're dealing with here.

Forgot link!

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/5oc1cz/why_do_the_radical_feminists_hate_people_with/

As i said, i try snd seek out less extreme trans voices to not be surrounded by an anti trans echo chamber. This thread on reddit shows the thoughts and feelings on "terfs" or really any female who foesn't parrot and accept that TW are women just like bio women

I don't understand that blog post... Surely, even if you make the cognitive leap and accept that her husband is now a woman, as she also fancies men then she is not a lesbian but bisexual? Or does lesbian now mean whatever the heck you want it to?

The language around trans-issues from non-inclusive feminists is already based around 'rejecting biology' and it being 'unnatural' - certainly on MN threads

The fuck it is. Neither here, nor on the main boards is this a prevailing opinion or thought - I've rarely seen the word 'unnatural' used - and as to 'rejecting biology' - it's more rejecting 'biological reality' - which is entirely different.

The prevailing opinion is that the only thing that makes a woman is sex, and that women deserve the right to sex segregated spaces and language, but outside of that, trans people can wear what they like and do whatever to their bodies (as long as they are adults), but that it's sad that some people feel that they have to go though that amount of surgery and medication to be happy