Is it actually possible to be a feminist and completely embrace trans rights?

[BertrandRussell]

Because I am beginning to think that i will never be able to say anything about trans issues without being accused of being transphobic.

It seems to me that in some cases trans rights are just incompatible with women's rights. Obviously then, someone has to step aside- and if I want the ones stepping aside to be transwomen then I am being, I suppose, transphobic.

So has the time come for feminists to say to trans women "I support you to live the life you want to. I will stand up to and with you against people who abuse you and are violent to you. I will call you what you want to be called. I will defend your employment rights, your right to housing and any other "social" service. I will defend your right to appropriate medical treatment. In fact, I will defend you and support you in anything up to the point where your rights conflict with and take precedence over the rights of women. From that point, my allegiance is with women.

If this causes you to call me transphobic so be it. I will continue to support you up to that point regardless."

This push of transactivism is about the elimination of the word woman to mean woman, though. And that's what women who want to be liberated from male oppression (actually, male violence) are fighting against. Because if you can't define women (and show me a trans definition of woman, because Lord knows I'm tired of asking for one) then that liberation becomes very difficult to define, let alone achieve.

There's a good reason for few trans voices against the transactivists - nothing to gain from speaking up, but wins achieved by the vocal that benefit. Funnily enough, just like blokes who would class themselves as feminist but gain from the status quo and don't speak up.

I'm a bit lost with the stuff going on with this thread, but I would really like to understand how one can square support for self defining gender / sex (because there's a woolyness legally) and support for women's rights, a fight that exists because of biology and the assumptions and restrictions that have been placed because of that biology.

HairyLittlePoet - I totally agree re women need to be able to get angry. It's all just a bit Dave's "Calm down, dear".

Women have been being nice for EVER. We are told that's why there is a pay gap. It's worth noting that the 70s were both a time of loud angry feminists and significant social change.

Great post again, Hairy.

Venus, if that was aimed at me then it's bloody unfair. My last post was to Winchester hence quoting her 'it is what it is' and was in response to her recognising that she has the wrong view on my position.

Felsa - again with the analogy.

I was comparing campaigning style not the issues. The way the debate has changed, not the actual issues.

Don't back off, Winchester. I like your posts.

I thought it was in response to me as well as Winchester. It seemed to be a continuation of the discussion we were having. I think I also said something similar to "it is what it is" in a post I made, so I connected your post with mine. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. All I really wanted to say was that I don't appreciate being patronised and I don't think it's a particularly great strategy to get people to work together.

That was to Blistory, to avoid confusion.

Sorry, Blistory but I'm with Hairy all the way, and NotAnother. I think you're wrong; being nice and well-behaved has never, ever got women anywhere.

Fat lot of good it'll do us to go all dignified and elder stateswoman when the TAs are getting pretty much everything they ask for both in the media and at the highest level.

Look at the IOC! Men in women's sports. Would we have believed this 10 years ago? The time to overreact is now. It's already an emergency.

In all seriousness it is the ESSENCE of patriarchy to say "no, you didn't ask nicely enough".

I think we should simply accept that trans women ARE women. I don't understand where the incompatibility is?? As a feminist I am committed to equal rights, non-discrimination, and the right to self-determination and autonomy for everyone. I have no idea how trans rights could possibly be incompatible with women's rights - can you clarify?

Asserting that a genetic woman is somehow a 'superior' sort of women to a trans woman; and that WE are the ones who have the right to decide what makes a woman seems like a mirror of patriarchy.

Honestly I've never given it any thought until now but I think we should be fighting over issues that matter, not arguing the toss over the definition of 'women'.

FFS, Prawn, you don't need to apologise to me for having a different view. It isn't a popularity contest where we get to count those posters as being on team a or b.

I posted a point of view - I didn't paint a bloody big target on my back.

And yes, I'm well aware that Rome is burning while we're all sitting here fiddling.

Why exactly are trans women women? I think that's a good starting point for any discussion, thingamy.

And for the sake of completeness, I think being polite and respectful, and sometimes even nice, goes a long way and can achieve a lot.

Sometimes, yes.

thing woman is a descriptor. So it's describing a class of people who all have something in common not shared by other people.
That's quite easy for me as I define it as "women can make eggs and bear young". My definition doesn't include women.
From your perspective you have a definition of woman describing a class including trans women and women and excluding trans men and men. If you do please share (I'm serious because I would love to hear one).
If not then your descriptor "woman" in effect just means "human". Which is fairly useless.

Thanks prawn right back atcha I'm reading every word - onward and upward

Gah sorry. My definition doesn't include trans women.

That's disappointing, Fela. I thought you were adding a whole new classification to it all.

And yes, I'm well aware that Rome is burning while we're all sitting here fiddling And this is where I majorly part company with those who have caved in. I'm not including you in this, Blistory, btw. But it enrages me that feminist spaces have allowed the transactivist voice to over-rule and so there is no woman centred group countering the ludicrous idea that women are what what you feel like. I used to think that the Fawcett Society were that group, but no, they have capitulated. But, more importantly, feminist groups seem to have lost their way entirely. And that's because they are tip toeing around the trans issue. Not good enough.

Thingamajiggy do you think that women suffer because they are women? If so, what definition of women are you using?

Thingammyjiggy, congrats. I think you are the only person left on Mumsnet who has managed to entirely miss years and years worth of debate and explanation threafs regarding trans vs women's rights.

I don't know where you got your information-impregnable forcefield but there's probably a fair few people who would be interested if you wanted to market it on Mumsnet.

You say you've never given it any thought. I believe you. Perhaps, it might be worth giving it a thought now? There is lots to be learned from the debates here.

You'd have to deactivate that forcefield first, mind.

To be fair Buffy, you are very good at framing things in a conceptual way. You are an academic. Not everyone finds that easy, so not everyone feels comfortable expressing strongly felt opinions in that way and they may be blunter.

No, I agree with that. Your posts do have that force without being blunt and angry. You make very compelling arguments.