Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

However this whole ‘define a woman’ thing makes no sense to me, if someone is suffering I do not care what sex they are or wish to be, I care that they are helped

I'm confused.

So anyone suffering needs help. (I agree).

So therefore, they are included in feminism. (I'm immediately confused. So it's not feminism, just 'anyone who is suffering'?)

So what is the definition of feminism? is it just 'anyone'?

If transwoman experiences misogony while appearing as a woman, or are raped by a male, abused by a partner, or given lower pay or passed up for a promotion based on their new status - why is it so wrong to include them in our fight?

The reality is that in most cases they would be abused because they were trans, not because they were female. That abuse might be worse, but it wouldn’t be the same and it isn’t helpful to pretend that it is.

Why not include them in any fight as what they are - fellow humans?

I’m afraid you sound like one of those people who goes on about ‘all lives mattering’ whenever somebody tries to describe the specific issues faced by black people.

YY, though I doubt she'd do it to any other marginalised group of people. Just women. We're apparently not important enough to deserve our own rights movement. That's not any feminism I recognise.

Ironically it’s also difficult to understand how progress can be made on the specific difficulties facing trans people if anyone with blue hair can now identify as trans.

Yes, that's so true.

However this whole ‘define a woman’ thing makes no sense to me, if someone is suffering I do not care what sex they are or wish to be, I care that they are helped.

Better to prevent the suffering in the first place and that means identifying its causes.

You can’t deal with the structural causes of suffering if you refuse to recognise their existence.

If you want to save a whale you need to understand why they are being hunted in the first place.

Earlywalker, I’m afraid you sound like one of those people who goes on about ‘all lives mattering’ whenever somebody tries to describe the specific issues faced by black people.

Ironically it’s also difficult to understand how progress can be made on the specific difficulties facing trans people if anyone with blue hair can now identify as trans.

f transwoman experiences misogony while appearing as a woman, or are raped by a male, abused by a partner, or given lower pay or passed up for a promotion based on their new status - why is it so wrong to include them in our fight?

But early - no women here are saying they wouldn’t. No women are saying transwomen should be abused - we ALL want everyone to be able to live without violence, to not suffer discrimination or abuse.

What’s causing the problem isn’t us all standing against Male violence. It’s that what TRAs want is going up actively strip tights and protections from women.

If the trans narrative was about us all working towards a world without abuse or domestic violence we’d all be side by side. But that isn’t what they (Tra, not trans people in general) want. What they want is changes to the law which will harm women, and open up child safeguarding to those who use loopholes to harm children.

So the argument that ‘why can’t we all be nice’ doesn’t hold. And the ‘we all want the same thing’ doesn’t hold. And feminism is not a movement to be all things to all people - it centres women.

Feminists have fought for decades to replace the many pseudoscientific myths about female biology and psychology with real scientific understanding. And now women are supposed to surrender to a subjective, unscientific redefining of the meaning of "woman", and just pretend that all those battles didn't actually mean anything? That's a huge backwards step, comparable to replacing evolution with creationism in schools.

For example on the making misogony a hate crime thread, most people on there shut it down because ‘trans hate shouldn’t be a hate crime’ completely dismissing woman’s issues Incase trans people get sympathy in the process.

That wasn't what happened. People asked Stella Creasy some awkward questions which she declined to answer and ran off. There were concerns that due to the Stonewall support this was a Trojan horse, as with new legislation in Scotland which quietly changed the legal definition of "woman".

Also just wanted to add, i’m Not here to shut anyone down (or a man - just so we’re clear)

I’m just expressing my opinion as it does sadden me that a lot of people think you cannot be a feminist and trans inclusive.

I don’t think you’re automatically bigots as you don’t support trans rights.

We all have reasons, I’ve prrsonally watched a trans friend through his ordeal transitioning, i could never be on board with some views on these boards and sometimes I do worry it’s all gone too far. (Both sides)

For example on the making misogony a hate crime thread, most people on there shut it down because ‘trans hate shouldn’t be a hate crime’ completely dismissing woman’s issues Incase trans people get sympathy in the process. And the trans remmeberance day thread, was disgusting imo.

And of course feminism is about women, but woman and trans people can live together, you can support both similtaniously.

But it's ok for women, 51% of the global population and still marginalised/oppressed in many ways to a greater or lesser extent, to have a movement which centres them and their own needs as biological females? Why wouldn't you think that was reasonable?

The only time I would care about biological sex is sporting and prisons (of which I would always campaign for a third space) if that was what this was about, and even toilets as well then I’d be right there with you all (as would most people) but it really is not. The majority of you just want to shut down trans people at every turn and to say you cannot be a feminist if you do not participate is beyond comprehension.

But, if TWAW then it follows that they should be allowed into every space women have carved out for themselves, surely?

This is like that bloke who says that he sees TWAW except for relationship purposes.

What is it about TW that would make you make an exception in those circumstances, but not in others?

If you worked to raise money to save the whales and then discovered that the money you had donated was being used to fit out new whaling ships, you would be rightfully pissed off.

THAT's how to do a good analogy!

Earlywalker, do you accept that women as a class are oppressed?

Of course!! But I think the notion that trans people exist to oppress woman further is egotistical and illogical.

And of course feminism is about women, but woman and trans people can live together, you can support both similtaniously.

If transwoman experiences misogony while appearing as a woman, or are raped by a male, abused by a partner, or given lower pay or passed up for a promotion based on their new status - why is it so wrong to include them in our fight?

Yes a woman may feel uncomfortable about an obvious Male in a rape crisis centre, but are we so focused on hate that we forget the reason that person may be there? Where do they go?

They were not born with a vagina, no, and deep down obviously no one believes that biologically they are a woman, but they are still people.

In all groups of people there are bad people under the guise of a group. Muslims have isis, do we deny a Muslim woman access to a toilet Incase she’s wearing a suicide vest? Of course not, because we know that Islam is a peaceful religion and she is just a normal person using the toilet, yes there have been Muslim woman who have worn suicide vests but the majority do not.

I just don’t believe in oppressing a whole group of people based on the ‘what ifs’.

I fight for woman’s issues, that many women actually face. Like fundraising for rape crisis centres, donating to refuges, running for breast cancer awarness, attending stand up for woman marches, white ribbon day, petitioning for making misogyny a hate crime... allot of the things that ‘feminists’ appear to have forgotten whilst fighting this overly inflated and exaggerated enemy.

I find comments like these really interesting.

The inference of course is that no one who has an analysis of gender can possibly be capable of doing both things. Thus implying that RFs or GC women are too heartless, too stupid or too thoughtless to do the things this woman does and that therefore she is a better feminist and better human than someone who understands the effects of male bodied people in women's safe spaces.

The sad failure of these kinds of logical fallacy is that the majority of women who understand the issues are those who have actually worked in or been helped by those very services. So those things are just day to day for most feminist women. In order to help women, you have to have a basic understanding of what one is.

If you worked to raise money to save the whales and then discovered that the money you had donated was being used to fit out new whaling ships, you would be rightfully pissed off. Apparently that pissed offishness doesn't work when the predators are human males and you've raised money to help their victims. Odd.

Do you think this analogy helps you?

Their analogies are always really really bad.

The majority of you just want to shut down trans people at every turn

Not true at all. Most of us came to our views after years of supporting transsexuals' rights to live as they wish free from oppression and discrimination. We count a number as friends here on this forum.

But then - the TRA movement began, which demands we include a massive range of people (see the Stonewall definition of 'trans') such as part-time crossdressers, a range of fetishists, people who commit sex offences in our spaces and as women.

Then it turned into an issue of safeguarding - for all women and girls - and the right to define ourselves and retain our sex-based protections. That is what we say "no" to.

As for "shutting down" transpeople - we're not the ones who use 'terfblocking' to prevent any sort of dialogue.

You identify as a feminist Earlywalker

what do you understand feminism to be?

If it's not about women then what is it about?

if it's about women, wouldn't it be handy to know what a woman is?

it would make you a more effective feminist, I promise

wouldn't you be more effective at combating the driving forces behind oppression if you understood their motivation?

Rather than seeing things like the denial of abortion rights, withholding contraception, the prevalence of sexual violence perpetrated by the class of people with penises against the class of people with vaginas and so on as a series of unique events with nothing whatsoever in common?

It may not matter to you, but try to have some empathy with the people who use the services and are losing them.
Sexual trauma support such as rape crisis and DV shelters should be single sex, they have been up til recently. Women are not clamouring to make them mixed sex. they have this forced on them.

if someone is suffering I do not care what sex they are or wish to be

what about if you're campaigning for an end to their oppression?

wouldn't it be good to have a full understanding of the basis of their oppression?

Earlywalker, do you accept that women as a class are oppressed?

what do you think the basis of that oppression is?

Women have VAGINAS. Oh, and CLITORISES. Clitori?
I dunno. I have no education but I do know that some lovely person posted a picture of a clitoris on here and it was amazing. Made me love it all the more.
It's fuck all to do with being fertile or having a working reproductive system.

Women have vaginas. And a rather fabulous clitorus. Men don't. It's fairly simple.

I can’t ‘save the whale without knowing what the whale is’ it does not matter to me if a man or woman is raped, what matters is that person has help and support afterwards, whether a man or woman is escaping domestic violance - I just want to know their children will have a warm bed and support them.
Yes most of the issues I try and do my part for are woman’s issues, partly because I’m a feminist, party because I’ve been there.

However this whole ‘define a woman’ thing makes no sense to me, if someone is suffering I do not care what sex they are or wish to be, I care that they are helped.

The only time I would care about biological sex is sporting and prisons (of which I would always campaign for a third space) if that was what this was about, and even toilets as well then I’d be right there with you all (as would most people) but it really is not. The majority of you just want to shut down trans people at every turn and to say you cannot be a feminist if you do not participate is beyond comprehension.

I really thought we might have someone who'd stick around and explain it, rather than throw insults and leave

ultimately it was the inability of trans activists to engage in debate that convinced me of how utterly wrong they are

I vote Deliberate

I'm really fed up with people deciding that because the only difference between men and women is biology, acknowledging that means they think women are good for nothing except producing babies.

I mean, think. How can radical feminism be misogynistic. How can understanding that secondary sex characteristics are what a woman has, means that's all they're good for?

It's lazy, dim or deliberate.

Personally as a feminist I want my biology to be respected rather than abused whilst at the same time asking that no other assumptions are made about me. So biologybis fundamental to my definition of woman.

It’s not one or the other. Gosh I am greedy