Thread derailment

Yes that's your opinion and I'm not here to discuss that because I think it is irrelevant to the wider fact that feminism has many subgroups who only share the loose principle of equality for women.

Some subgroups would argue that GC feminism isn't feminism. I'm sure we have all heard that argument. And I'd say the same thing back. Something doesn't have to align with YOUR feminist views to be feminist. Women aren't a monolith, whoever women are, you are never going to achieve equality for all of us with one political movement. There will always be things specific to our womanhood but intersecting with our other labels and identities that mean we will have varied and sometimes opposing subgroups.

I think this is the difference between gender ideologists and GC women. GIs think there is a fundamental difference in feeling because they believe in a definition of woman that I don’t agree with. I don’t because I don’t believe in that concept of “female”. It’s just sex. I just have a difference of opinion, that’s literally all!

I know that TWAW and TMAM are both absurd statements, with zero evidential underpinnings. They are blatant lies and/or wishful fantasies. TWAW and TMAM are claims in the same league as the 'Earth is flat' and the 'Moon Landings were fake'. Science says NO, they're really really not.

And some nonsense is dangerous. Men in women's contact sports, as inmates in women's prisons, using women's changing rooms and domestic violence refuges has real world consequences. These can be life changing or even life ending for the women and girls affected. It is important we keep on pointing this out.

Moreover not all views are valid. Some are simply silly and need to be mocked. Would you claim, for example, that I just hold one particular stance on the issue of the Planet Earth's shape? Opinions other than my view that it is spherical are to be respected?

Believing the Earth is flat, or a dodecahedron, or an infinite turtle stack, shouldn't get you drummed out of the Royal Astronomical Society? Really?

I know that TWAW and TMAM are both absurd statements, with zero evidential underpinnings. They are blatant lies and/or wishful fantasies. TWAW and TMAM are claims in the same league as the 'Earth is flat' and the 'Moon Landings were fake'. Science says NO, they're really really not.

And some nonsense is dangerous. Men in women's contact sports, as inmates in women's prisons, using women's changing rooms and domestic violence refuges has real world consequences. These can be life changing or even life ending for the women and girls affected. It is important we keep on pointing this out.

Moreover not all views are valid. Some are simply silly and need to be mocked. Would you claim, for example, that I just hold one particular stance on the issue of the Planet Earth's shape? Opinions other than my view that it is spherical are to be respected?

Believing the Earth is flat, or a dodecahedron, or an infinite turtle stack, shouldn't get you drummed out of the Royal Astronomical Society? Really?

I think the whole "includes men" thing is a bit of a red herring tbh. It sounds good because it quietly suggests that women who aren't GC are "pick me's", but as you pointed out, not many brands of feminism exclude men, anyway. So GC feminism isn't "male exclusionary". You just don't recognise TMAM or TWAW. It's about a particular stance on one issue.

You questioned that I would feel a sense of shared femaleness with someone who calls themselves a trans inclusive feminist. I said, that’s nonsense because femaleness is about sex, and I share it with all women and girls and zero men and boys.

Absolutely.

But I would have a problem with them labelling is as for 'proper feminists only', because the rest of us aren't proper feminists/women (or whatever nonsense the other poster claims happens at her very intersectional feminist group).

There seemed to be a poor analogy being made that excluding some men from feminism is no different to excluding some women.

Clearly those 2 things are not the same unlessyou believe men can be women.

Absolutely.

But I would have a problem with them labelling is as for 'proper feminists only', because the rest of us aren't proper feminists/women (or whatever nonsense the other poster claims happens at her very intersectional feminist group).

There seemed to be a poor analogy being made that excluding some men from feminism is no different to excluding some women.

Clearly those 2 things are not the same unlessyou believe men can be women.

I have absolutely no issue that women with other shared protected characteristics have their own more granular feminist groups. If they centre women and girls, but find that general feminist groups are not suitable for them, that’s up to them and I’m sure they have good reason. If they centre men, I feel exactly the same as I do about any such group.

I feel shared femaleness with any other woman or girl. It’s my sex, nothing more or less. I don’t have it with any men and the suggestion that I do is alienating.

And Bingo! My point is proved.

Yes, of course.

When I see anti-GC women talk about what makes (them) a woman, they often use very similar language to what a TW might use to describe womanhood. I can't imagine you feeling much of shared femaleness with someone who thinks that way, I suppose. Maybe I don't know enough details to such views but in my mind, they'd say that they could just as easily have been a man despite being female bodied, so their experiences of vagina=woman won't be aligned with yours.

I have absolutely no issue that women with other shared protected characteristics have their own more granular feminist groups. If they centre women and girls, but find that general feminist groups are not suitable for them, that’s up to them and I’m sure they have good reason. If they centre men, I feel exactly the same as I do about any such group.

Her perspective on our shared femaleness is important, her support of an anti feminist movement not so much (I’m sure we agreed I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you and we’re going to have to agree to disagree that pretending men are women is a form of feminism).

I haven't told anyone that they are wrong. Why have you brought up white women?

Even if I was talking about a race/ethnicity based subgroup of feminism, the analogy wouldn't work. If white women were excluded from a non-white feminist group, it would be because they are white, not because anyone doubts their womanhood or their feminist allegiance.

GC feminism includes understanding that gender constrains men as well as women, that one cannot free women from cultural oppression without also changing things for men, and that demolishing society's myths of gender will ultimately benefit men as well. To that degree it certainly includes men.

It does not, however, include men in the definition of women.

This is not just a passing detail, it is fundamental.

If your definition of women includes men, you have switched the group you are actually fighting for under the name of "feminism", and the feminist analysis and understanding based on the experiences and history of the people with female bodies, while probably still relevant to the degree that it informs the social identities you group togater as "women", is no longer the fundamental basis for and insight of your "feminism"

HTH

I hope you tell them how wrong they are, in the same way that you have decided to take over this thread and tell everyone here how wrong they are. Or are you actually trying to argue that white women are not women in the same way that men are not women? (Please, no faux innocent 'where did i say white women' - its clear what you meant).

Or are some feminists more wrong than others?

Honestly, what is your actual point? You've been wanging on for pages now, people have engaged with you politely and respectfully but many pages in, Im still not sure what point you're trying to make - except perhaps that one posters derail is another interesting discussion? If that's it, that point has been made and mostly accepted.

Other threads/ boards are available if you don't like this one.

Its like going onto a science discussion board and going on about creationism on every single thread, just to make sure those scientists know that not everyone shares their views. But guess what - they know!

Could you explain what point you're trying to make? Because it sounds very much like there isn't one, this is all just an exercise in goal post moving, false equivalence, gaslighting whataboutery.