The feminist case against anti-trans feminism

I actually read this when I came across it as I am pretty new to this and wanted to see it it could make a good case. It was the same waffly drivel Mumsnetters have deconstructed many times before. Thank you for the recommendation but I have yet to see any article explain how it is possible for human beings to change sex.

Charming! What a bastion of reasoned debate

Pot

Kettle

Black

As in 97% of people who answered the poll in the Times, haven't fallen for your chat.

It is not like Pomos care about what the people want - except in order to gauge how difficult it will be to subvert the people's will.

As in 97% of people who answered the poll in the Times, haven't fallen for your chat.

Sorry to have been away for a bi

No need to apologise: we got on just fine in your absence.

97% OP.

I find it seriously depressing when people refer to pro-woman feminism as 'anti-trans'. I mean, how can one be a feminist at all if you are not pro-woman?! Surely the only kind of feminism is centering women rather than men?

Those same people cannot even define 'woman', 'female' and who knows how may other words they use in their manifesti Not even should their lives depend on it. So, what do you expect?

I find it seriously depressing when people refer to pro-woman feminism as 'anti-trans'. I mean, how can one be a feminist at all if you are not pro-woman?! Surely the only kind of feminism is centering women rather than men?

Hi five for Hamster

and respect for anyone who carves out their own identity, without trying to impose themselves onto an oppressed group without consent.

Seconded. The nonchalance with which the pomos try to erase women and transsexuals no matter what we say and destroy language in the process is really something to behold.

Hi five for Hamster

and respect for anyone who carves out their own identity, without trying to impose themselves onto an oppressed group without consent.

Trans women are not a subset of anything.

Transsexuals = men with gender dysphoria
Trans women = men with AGP / sexual paraphillias / non-medicalised "gender feelz"

Trans women are NOT women. How hard is this to understand.

As a transsexual I want my own identity thank you, not be a subset of anyone elses.

I imagine it won't be a recipe book.

Bunbury has a great recipe for lemon drizzle actually. Check it out.

Feminism with capital F, of course.

Two to the power of two aka 2^2 Wave feminism = 4th Wave feminism?

That article was virtually unreadable.

I think we need a name for this moment in time.

I propose the ‘The Second Wave of Second Wave Feminism’

You know, writing about Natacha Kennedy, this male transactivist who is employed at Glodsmith as both, a man and a woman at the same time, using two different names, the pronoun use they/them for one single biological person has made sense to me for the first time.

I gather Germaine is busy writing new material as we speak - the recent revival of interest in her work has given the guru renewed vigour.

I imagine it won't be a recipe book.

I am actually thankful for spanna's post, as it made me revisit the outrageous attempts of Natacha Kennedy - a self-identified 'transwoman' who cannot even let go of their male privilege to the point where they would be ready to give up their male identity, thus listed at Goldsmith under a male and a 'female' identity - to get female academics fired for daring to voice an opinion.

Knowing Natacha Kennedy's persona and actions means knowing the heart of TRA activism. Males who sometimes sport a skirt doing everything in their power to silence females with an opinion. That's it in a nutshell.

It also asks you to imagine how bigoted it would be to exclude (from women's spaces) women belonging to some minority if it was shown they posed a particular risk.

The TRAs use this excuse for an 'argument' so often it's embarrassing to see them do it once more.

Thing is, women are women - no matter what other characteristics they might have - and transwomen are not women.

It also asks you to imagine how bigoted it would be to exclude (from women's spaces) women belonging to some minority if it was shown they posed a particular risk. I think the reason that suggestion is so abhorrent is because it is so obviously untrue, we all know that e.g. black women are not as dangerous to other women as men are - the suggestion is clearly untrue and offensive. In a different world, where some minority of women is as dangerous to women as men are, the idea of excluding that minority might be very sensible and fair. But it's too different a world from ours for our intuition to tell us what's right in that world.

QuentinWinters

Have sent a PM.

PS embarrassed to admit that I missed the Germaine Bunbury stuff. Please can someone tell me where I can get a summary of her work?

Excellent analysis wee
Really to be logically consistent trans women would be renamed trans men and then would be a subset of males who are trans.
Hang on, didn't we used to be able to use a term just like that?

Spanna

But you don't debate do you? You don't engage. You have demonstrated that. It is a pattern of posting that's been seen many times before.

So the women posting regularly ignore you and would rather spend their time posting elsewhere.

I'll tell you what does happen sometimes. A lurker will get tired of you being unchallenged. She'll feel that she needs to articulate the arguments that the regulars can't be bothered making as you don't engage. So she'll post, she may eventually get fed up with you "clown dancing" and cease to engage.

But you know what, she's posted, she's honed her argument and hey presto we have another active and engaged poster, she's not a lurker anymore. Hey, she might even feel empowered enough to discuss this offline, maybe even become more of an activist.

So keep up the good work Spanna, you're doing a grand job. 👍

So the article says “think of trans women as a subset of women, like white women.” Ok, but “white women” are women who are Caucasian. The adjective “white” tells you they are women with this additional property.

It doesn’t seem to work in the same way for “trans”. Trans women are women who are “trans”. But what does “trans”mean? It means they are male and are transitioning to be female. So trans women are women who are male. This makes no sense. If the category of “woman” can include males then I’m afraid I don’t know what the word means anymore.

Given that trans women are male, I don’t see a good reason why they should be thought of like “white woman.” It’s like saying “trans dogs should be thought of a subsection of dog, like toy dog.” Except in this case “trans dogs” refer to cats.