How do we scourge out racism and classism in feminism?

I have met Catharine MacKinnon as it happens but her only comments on trans that I know of were wrt transsexual people, not supporting self id, and I very very much doubt she would support women being told they are not allowed to have boundaries anymore because a male who self identifies as a woman is sad about it.

Are there not enough threads about trans identified males? Can this one not be about the impact of race and class on women instead of on the demands and sads of males?

The title is offensive

Whoops, x post! Must type quicker (and less).

Actually just to bring it back in line with where we were in the thread (kind of), if you accept the need to acknowledge intersectionality in terms of race and class so as to promote the interests of all women, by the same vein you have to at least be open to considering the intersectionality surrounding trans. Because otherwise one runs the risk of one's Feminism being for the good of all women except a small few, regardless of whether you think those few "women" are the trans women or the trans men. Someone still gets left behind.

I don't think anyone will ever logic their way out of people calling themselves trans. That doesn't mean any women should be left behind.

Whilst that's not the crux of my own personal position on tans issues I do think it's one with considering.

Although the issues of race and class intersectionality do affect a far greater proportion of women; I would say that's irrefutable.

TIRFs definitely do exist. We had one round here not long ago and me and her since become friends. Her feminist credentials are irrefutable, and she is a member of at least two groups who share her trans-inclusive stance. So TIRFs definitely do exist. And they can't so easily be dismissed as the "choicey choice" non-feminist kind.

Oh absolutely. One of the most raddiest of rad-fems you could hope to meet, Catharine MacKinnon, is trans-inclusionary. I believe Sara Ahmed is too. Absolutely no doubt whatsoever about their feminist credentials. The two are not incompatible.

I find the title of this thread hugely offensive.

Seems like an attempt to smear and demonise feminists to me.

There has been an unrelenting effort to undermine gender critical/anti-prostitution feminism for a while now by flinging shit at it, to see if it sticks. M/TRAs have been handing rocks to young, ignorant, blood-lusting pomos to fling at smeared, dehumanised feminists (TERFS & SWERFS) quite openly.

The thing I found astonishing was the way that bastardising intersectional feminism to centre men and demonise radical feminists (whose class analysis is where intersection theory rose out) has been actually successful, and some BAME women actually buy into the utter bullshit that white males suffer two intersecting oppressions in the way that they themselves do - white men are oppressed both as 'women' and opressed as 'trans' - all that male entitlement and privilege disappearing in a puff of smoke the minute they get it into their head to live a lie of pretending to be the opposite sex and violating and abusing women's spaces and services to validate that lie.

It is ludicrous and beyond offensive.

Joan, it definitely is a sidetrack - cba to look back and see how it started.

People always reference these "choice" feminists but seriously, they're not the sorts actively engaged with feminism are they. I've never met a anyone who would defend that as a position round here for example, probably because it's patently shallow.

I think however that is frequently used as a gross over-simplification of the Liberal feminist position. I'd call myself libfem, although it's not a clean cut distinction. And like many libfems that's because I think the best way to unshackle women is through lobbying for practical changes within the existing system, rather than proposing a radical reordering. Although I agree in many of the "new order" ideals.

TIRFs definitely do exist. We had one round here not long ago and me and her since become friends. Her feminist credentials are irrefutable, and she is a member of at least two groups who share her trans-inclusive stance. So TIRFs definitely do exist. And they can't so easily be dismissed as the "choicey choice" non-feminist kind.

Anyway as you say, that's neither here nor there on this thread. Hopefully there will be another edition of lib vs. rad as there often is and we can hash it all out on there

I mean does anyone really trust that the push to demedicalise what is currently known as GID will ultimately result in anything else other than cutting of essential services for this vulnerable group?

I don’t.

Has anyone arguing in favour of it really looked at how medicine actually treats women’s health?

Nobody in power I mean.

No-one is particularly bothered regarding women being offended or having hurt feelings re ‘Transwomen are women’ and nobody is really considering the potential this has to harm both transwomen and women either.

Well, there is a grey area re the risk of hurtful or offensive things to translate, through the dynamics of power, into harms such as ‘phobia or discrimination.

This is why reasonableness assessments need to be employed re someone being offended or having their feelings hurt.

Many people would say either of those phrases as a response to a transwoman expecting them to disingenuously pretend they are female.

Offred yes that makes sense, I guess in this case it would be hurt feelings. Which could be easily avoided by not using any of these phrases but each to their own.

The trans part of the descriptor is actually quite important for the health and welfare of the transwoman.

This is true. But there is a sense of some kind of pretending or disingenuity in these phrases. The word 'performing' kind of suggests to me that the person saying this thinks that the transwoman is just acting or something. I might be reading too much into it. But personally I find the phrases offensive. Why not just say 'biologically male' if you wanted to point out their sex? Both of these phrases are unnecessary imo.

People have various rights to protect them from harm. There are no rights to be protected from hurt feelings or being offended.

This is important.

Hurt feelings should not be conflated with harm in this context IMO.

Obviously the words could be used interchangeably in many ways but in the current climate re ‘literal violence’ I think it is important to be clear that what may happen is ‘hurt feelings’, which is mean, not ‘harm’.

"Are these ppl daily fail readers who don't like anything different hence have jumped on the latest bandwagon? (Someone even said we need to attract more daily fail readers!)"

It was me who said about attracting daily mail readers. Do I need to trawl back and find my thread from something like seven years ago laughing at baby DS being sick over a copy of the DM to prove I am not a reader? (i was at the house of someone who reads it - and votes labour FWIW - btw, in case someone runs with "ah but how did you have a copy?")

I said it because feminism is for all women, and the potential change in legislation around self ID needs to be brought to the attention of all women. Even those who read the DM.
I also acknowledged that in doing that there was a potential clash between different groups of women, and said I do not know how to square that. As I still don't, but I'm here discussing it with a hope to.

Personally I think both are offensive. I would take an issue with both. But who would actually hear both these phrases and only take an issue with the second? I can't imagine this happening.

Person 1: a transwoman is a male performing femininity.

Person 2: a transwoman is a man in a dress.

Person 3 I'm assuming is middle class. If they are surely they know that both phrases have the same meaning? Obviously many people are classist but if people know that they mean the same thing, it doesn't make sense that they would 'call out' one but not another, unless they were already prejudiced towards person 2 for the sole reason that they are working class.

Offred being offended isn't the same as harm obviously. But if you know it is going to hurt somebody's feelings that is causing harm, no?

I don’t think either of those phrases invalidate transwomen either. ‘Transwomen are women’ is vastly more invalidating in effect because it removes the ‘trans’ part of the descriptor.

The trans part of the descriptor is actually quite important for the health and welfare of the transwoman.

Nobody gets to decide, I agree. Debate is fine. And by tell I means discuss or ask, I should've thought about that before I wrote it. But the reason I made this point was because it has kind of been implied in this thread that we shouldn't say anything at all because it's not their fault.

TacoLover you've completely missed my point. My point is: why isn't a transwoman is a male performing femininity an offensive phrase when man in a dress is? Because they both, as you put it, are used as a way to invalidate transwomen as the women they wish to be.

Of course it is classist. A middle class way of invalidating transwomen as women is acceptable but a working class way of doing the same thing is not. Either both are acceptable (if you don't think transwomen are women) or both are offensive (if you do think transwomen are women).

I really don't know how much more clear I can be about the point I am making before I begin to think you are refusing to see it.

Being offended isn’t in itself a harm.

So telling people who use a phrase which is harmful to a minority not to use it isn't classist in this case is it?

But you cant't tell people not to use as phrase (unless you're there mother). You can explain why a phrase might be upsetting to others and hope that that convinces them not to use the phrase. But they may counter with reasons why the think phrase is necessary despite the upset. In this case who gets to decide who is 'correct'?

That's weird. I have met a lot of self identified feminists who aren't even slightly gender critical - they follow a sort of 'choice' or 'equality' feminism (I would say it wasn't feminist at all but that's how they identify it). You could summarise this position as "I'm a feminist and I choose to do xyz, therefore xyz is a feminist choice, and as it is a feminist choice then I am a feminist for making it". So, going to see male strippers is feminist, wearing makeup is feminist, etc.

And I have never met a 'trans inclusive radical feminist'. I've come across a couple of self identified 'TIRFs' who have no understanding or knowledge of what radical feminism actually is, and no respect for or relationship with actual radical feminists. They seem to spend most of their time slamming radical feminism and feminists tbh, it's pretty obvious they aren't genuine, their whole point is to manufacture confusion.

I think most people use gender as a synonym for sex, and they don't believe that people can change sex, though they might feel sorry for someone who has surgery to try and therefore treat them sympathetically. I don't think most people accept that it is possible to change 'gender' without having 'the surgery'. It is this confusion over gender/sex which trans activists exploit.

I think I'm getting a bit sidetracked from this thread now though.

The idea that there is a "correct" from of language, and a self-appointed group of "woke" people get to go around correcting everyone else for not speaking the way they believe to be "correct" is exactly the problem here.

If we use LangCleg's example, the two phrases mean the same thing essentially but it's been established that 'man in a dress' has been used as a way to invalidate transwomen and i have also seen it used as a slur, and so is offensive to many people. So telling people who use a phrase which is harmful to a minority not to use it isn't classist in this case is it? It's not about speaking in a way we believe to be 'correct' but in this example, speaking in a way that isn't harmful to others.

What would be the alternative? Saying nothing when someone of the working class calls a trans woman a 'man in a dress' even though we know it has been used as an insult many times because they don't know better? Staying silent is worse surely?

Gender critical feminism seems to have been very influenced by radical feminism, but I don't think all transgender critical perspectives are feminist. Some people are transgender critical but not gender critical iyswim.

I've never met a feminist who isn't "gender critical" in the sense that they seek to break down the rigid socially-imposed gender constructs with disproportionately disadvantage women.

I've met loads of trans-inclusive feminists though, and a number who would call themselves trans-inclusive radical feminists. And of course trans supportive non-feminists.

I think there's "gender critical" and "gender IDENTITY critical", the latter not necessarily denoting a feminist position where the former usually does.