Any appetite for further discussion on 'trans-feminism'?

[CrewElla]

I made the mistake this morning of reading the comments on an article on the Guardian website re Kellie Maloney being 'outed' in the tabloids which led to me googling trans-feminism and coming across this article from the New Yorker: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

I haven't considered myself radical in the past and, at times, even (naively) said I had no need of feminism. Reading the New Yorker article I felt they so missed the point and tried to marginalise a view (woman have a need for spaces free from penises, whether the penis belongs to a man or a transwoman) that I don't think is that radical.

Am I being naive? Does anyone have the time/interest to read the article and share their views on it?

I spoke with someone the other day about this and they told that a transwoman is a woman, just a woman assigned man at birth. Ok thats fine, but I have a question for people with this line of thinking

If a Transman is also just a man but assigned woman at birth and we should call this person a he and a man. Does that mean if said transman (Still has female organs) gets pregant, you would say "He is pregnant"? If a transman is to be referred to as a man but can still get pregnant that means we are saying men can get pregnant......

I really don't agree with this at all

Have you bothered to read the thread Bolton?

Your question has almost certainly been answered.