To dislike "Radical Feminism"

[InternetPerson]

I've got nothing against feminists that fight for womens rights and genuinely want the best the best for everyone and don't hate anyone, but "RadFems" tend to be full of bitterness and hatred. And I'm not just talking about kids, these are high profile, intelligent women with power and influence. Do you think it's unreasonable to dislike something where most people think men are inherantly evil and to be feared? Or do you think their hatred is fair and we should respect them for their good work in trying to make humans hate eath other even more?

Like, I said, I have nothing against Feminism, it's done a lot of great work down the years and still does, but "Rad Fem" and "Feminism" are too completly different things in my opinion. Is this a wrong conclusion?

AIBU?

Yes, I understand. I'll give it a rest now, Ego. I will know my place. I will be quiet and let you dictate what women talk about on threads about feminism, on a website called MumsNet.

Transwomen and biological women have many different experiences and problems, along with the shared problems of male violence and sexism.

Ego has accepted we have biological differences and that we are entitled to space to discuss them.

Now, let's not rub her nose in these differences, It's not kind and we were having a reasonable debate

Ego, you came onto this thread saying "YANBU" to the OP because radfems exclude transwomen from their meetings.

Do you still think this in view of the discussion tonight? Or are you now willing to allow that women who were born biologically female should be allowed to group together, in a safe space, to discuss those many feminist issues that only affect those born biologically female?

"those born biologically female"

There is no other way to be female but biological.

There is no such thing as "psychologically female".

"Female" is a biological term. It means of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. It does NOT mean "whoever thinks they are not male".

I am insisting on these points, because it is not possible to debate these issues unless we are clear about the basic concepts and definitions.

Unless I am wrong or a missed a post in a thread a while ago Ego while not saying women (born female) should not have women only spaces but Ego was questioning why they should when trans women suffer the same experiences this was in relation to domestic violence and violence directed at women from men

Unfortunately I could well imagine that transgender children do experience being groped, leered at and being treated as inferior to "real" boys (whether they are FTT or MTT).

I don't think Ego's identification with feminism is unwarranted or unwelcome. I do think, however, that there is a strong rationale to the idea that female biology is what underpins historic and continued oppression of women and that respect for that - and the consequent need for some female-born only spaces - rather than a focus on 'why are you so determined to exclude me when I'm suffering under the patriarchy too?' would lead to more willingness to acknowledge the overlaps and the possibility of allied support with radical feminism. I'm sure it feels hurtful and cruel to be reminded that you don't have the biological body of a woman but I'm sure it also feels hurtful and cruel to be called 'transphobic' and portrayed as some sort of nasty bigot for refusing to deny the importance of biology.

Ego - personally I really didn't think your earlier posts in this thread were helpful on any level but your subsequent ones have been for sure. I know people feel (rightly a lot of the time in my opinion) that it's unfair when a discussion about feminism gets derailed by trans issues, particularly when done in a non-constructive way… but if you're wondering whether it's reasonable to like/dislike radical feminism, I think the question of its stance towards transgender people is, yes, just one of many aspects to consider… but it's not an insignificant one.

response to BigChoc post

Ego do you understand that essentialised identities are dangerous?

Ego, Radfem meetings for women only are safe spaces for women to discuss feminist issues affecting them - all those things on Choc's list.

You either accept that, or you don't. If you accept the need for it, then you can't really use the exclusion of transwomen from those meetings as a stick to beat radical feminism with.

I didn't know it till now but I am most definitely a radical feminist...haven't read all posts but very much with Buffy & her balanced reasoned arguments...far from aggressive/angry (those more akin to patriarchy of course)...

Oh and sorry I seemed to have taken ages posting that & a lot happened in between..

The latter part of this thread proves the point of why radfems want women only meetings.

I think it's quite amusing that Ego has accused radfems of being unable to separate the majority of trans people from the ones that doxx, access women's spaces for nefarious purposes, make murder and rape threats etc while at the same being unable to separate the majority of radfems from the views and actions of Cathy Brennan (who has good reason to be extremely pissed with some of the trans community but sometimes takes things too far) and other prominent radfems who take a very hard line on the whole trans debate (who have also all been attacked by the trans community for daring to say that a man cannot become a woman).

From Mary Beard's writing I would guess that she is a radical feminist but she has always steered clear of the trans debate. She was massively attacked just for signing the the letter to The Guardian on no-platforming. Glosswitch has always managed to address transgenderism without resorting to the personal and even she has been doxxed.

We've all tried being kinder to Ego, most of us have just run out of sympathy.

Em, you didn't post for less than 12 hours - I'd hardly call that not contributing any more especially since you are here now. I was addressing the post you made at 11 last night (after I went to bed) where you said "My issue is more the way that some (especially prominent) rad fems talk about and discuss trans issues and trans people."

Ego you have completely ignored my post which details why trans* orthodoxy is so dangerous to black women. You are being very selective and playing the victim it is tiresome.