Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

At a very basic level, I can't campaign to save the whale if I can't explain what a whale is or why it needs saving.

GC and radical feminists are saying that the only thing that all women have in common is their reproductive class. That’s it. There’s no one way to dress or act or be that makes someone a woman, because women look and act many different ways.

GC and radical feminists know that women are human beings who happen to be born with female bodies, not collections of stereotypes that a particular society has deemed “feminine.”

Correct.

Woman = womb haver = child bearer = breastfeeder or whatever, it’s misogony at its best

That isn't misogyny, it's fact, and the unavoidable consequence of that fact is that women have been prevented from participating fully in society for centuries. By recognising the impact of female biology we see what happens in societies where women don't have access to birth control, where they can be physically dominated by men. Women become the possession of men and are prevented from having access to education, economic independence and rights over their own bodies.

You cannot recognise the particular problems faced by any group if you cannot identify who they are.

How can you be a feminist if you can't define what female means?

Woman = womb haver = child bearer = breastfeeder or whatever, it’s misogony at its best.

This is a misrepresentation of gender critical and radical feminism.

GC and radical feminists are not saying that the only thing a woman is is a “womb haver” or “child bearer” as if that is the only things women are good for.

GC and radical feminists are saying that the only thing that all women have in common is their reproductive class. That’s it. There’s no one way to dress or act or be that makes someone a woman, because women look and act many different ways.

GC and radical feminists know that women are human beings who happen to be born with female bodies, not collections of stereotypes that a particular society has deemed “feminine.”

You don't need 'permission' to call yourself a feminist. It's always useful to define terms, though. For example, your quote here

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.

Is an interesting one given that the issues you mention largely rest on the reality of female biology, which elsewhere in your post you dismissed as pretty irrelevant.

And, given that Jean Hatchett rides in memory of women murdered by men and raises money for a woman's charity in the process, which a large number of women here have donated to, your flimsy accusation doesn't really hold much water, does it?

Perhaps you'd like another go?

In terms of what makes a ‘women’ I think traditional feminists would have completely dismissed this question many years ago, as what a woman should traditionally be is what we’ve been fighting against for a long time.

Gender is tradition. Sex is fact. You are fighting for the right for men to identify as women because they they want to occupy traditionally female gender roles.

woman = womb haver

well yes

I think the point here is that if it's not biology that defines what a woman is then it's stereotypes isn't it?

Or Earlywalker, can you define what a woman is without resorting to biology or stereotypes?

If you can I would genuinely (no snideyness here) love to hear it

or to be told I’m not one because I don’t want to exclude trans people at every opportunity

Ive said eleventy billion times on here that i dont want to exclude trans peoole at every opportunity and no one has said im not a feminist

Are you sure its this bit thats causing the problem?

Ive a memory like a sieve so i cant remember what anyone posts!

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

How do you know? That's a massive assumption to make based on no evidence whatsoever.

fighting this overly inflated and exaggerated enemy.

The "enemy" is the obliteration of women's right to self-define and to have spaces safe from men.

Earlywalker, how can you be a feminist if you don't know what a woman is?

I’m a feminist, and I support trans rights and hate the constant berating of them on here.

I don’t need anyone’s permission to be a feminist, or to be told I’m not one because I don’t want to exclude trans people at every opportunity. I stopped being told what to do by bullies when I entered secondary school.

In terms of what makes a ‘women’ I think traditional feminists would have completely dismissed this question many years ago, as what a woman should traditionally be is what we’ve been fighting against for a long time.

Woman = womb haver = child bearer = breastfeeder or whatever, it’s misogony at its best.

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.

If that doesn’t make me a feminist, but laughing at trans rememberance days, or berating a tv show about a battle trans people face does, then it’s certianly not me that has my head buried in the sand.

Trans people and cis women have a huge amount of common ground

Nope. Can't think of anything at all. Apart from transmen, who have in common with me that they're women.

A lot of the discrimination faced by women (all women) is based on assumptions about our biology

Weeeeeell that is mostly true, but the problem is that the vast majority of male-bodied transwomen don't pass, instead they look like a man who hopes everyone will treat him like a 6 yo fairy princess. So no one is treating him as they would a real woman, instead they're patronizing him as if he's an insane manbaby and he doesn't understand the difference.

But secondly, he'll never worry about getting pregnant, or needing an abortion, or not getting hired because he might take maternity leave, or being raped by somebody much bigger. Nobody ever expects him to shut up and make coffee, or volunteer to bake a cake for someone's birthday, or be supportive when others are having a rough patch, or take care of elderly parents when they are sick, etc etc etc. He's exempt from all that exhausting emotional labor that is expected of every woman because nobody thinks he's a woman.

A young trans girl does not have the same experience growing up as a young cis boy, even if they’re both treated by the people around them as young boys. If you’re treated as something you’re not, you’re not going to have the same experience as people who are treated as something they are.

First he claims to pass, then he claims to not pass. Make up your mind. And you can't possibly have the same experiences as a girl when you admit that other people are NOT treating you like a girl.

Trans people and cis women have a huge amount of common ground

Considering that I object quite strenuously to your dick in my shower whereas you keep trying to intrude in rather a rapey way despite my objections, no sweetie, we only have as much in common as any rapist and victim.

You do have a very odd idea of academia, Spanna if you think it involves very slowly sending poorly written blogposts between offices. If you'd said cat pictures or puppy pictures I might have believed you'd ever actually had any experience of it.

If you can't engage with the material, then it's fairly pointless you posting it, no? It really does make you look like a cool girl wannabe I'm afraid.

I mean, look... if you don’t understand how scientific classification works, I’m not sure we can talk.

Here's an easy question for you, spanna. If sex is some sort of indefinable quantity, what are trans people transitioning from and to?

If there's no such thing as biological sex, and everyone is just what they say they are, then doesn't that mean that 'transgender' doesn't exist either? If we're all just what we say we are and biological sex doesn't matter, then what does the 'trans' bit mean?

Ha! Xpost Floral

So engage Spannablue

Then people will be less frustrated with you

spannablue, you're still doing it. Aspie and others are posting some really good posts, and all you've got is pointless snark at me for pointing out your non-engagement.

no-one says that Kim Kardashian is less valid as a woman because she dresses in a stereotypically feminine way – so why should there be a different rule for trans women?

tyvm Merrymouse I missed that part. Notice what he thinks is a reason... He thinks that the reason Kim Kardashian is considered to be a woman is NOT because she is female but merely because of the clothes she's wearing. One presumes that trans would classify Kim as male if Kim dressed in lumberjack plaid. It's all about stereotypes, but the stereotypes are assumed to be real, so they aren't using the word stereotype in a way which most would recognize. Too much word salad...

AspieAndProud That was really interesting. If you ever start a blog I'd like to read it.

The stupidity of thinking that being female is a question of identity, not biology “because you let all those [insert name of marginalised group] be women” would be funny if it weren’t so horrible.

This. Here's what I - a white woman - have in common with the marginalised groups that TRAs and their supporters like to use as some sort of 'gotcha!' when all they're doing is demonstrating their own horrendous prejudices towards those very groups:

We're all actual, biological, XX women.

Would having human DNA cover it Aspie?

No, because you’d have to define human DNA in a way that isn’t circular. Humans are defined by their DNA. What’s human DNA? The DNA that humans have.

TRAs throw up this ‘Hah! You can’t define women! Therefore anyone can be a woman!’ But we can’t define things like human (at which point did our ancestors become human? Is a fetus human? How about a corpse?), consciousness (are animals conscious? Can we create it artificially? What the fuck is it anyway?) or life (Self replicating molecules? Proton pumps? Bowl of cherries?) in absolute terms and yet we still get through the day without doing so.

I’ve heard this kind of argument described as ‘isolated demand for rigour’. TRAs demand sex be defined with a clarity they would never accept for other commonly understood words because they think having a fuzzy edge makes a concept incoherent. But the atmosphere has a fuzzy edge - and we don’t believe that the Earth extends indefinitely into space.

no-one says that Kim Kardashian is less valid as a woman because she dresses in a stereotypically feminine way – so why should there be a different rule for trans women?

Part of the problem is this idea that being male or female isn't just a neutral description like blood type or height, it's an endorsement of 'validity'.