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."

Yes it's not just silencing, its a smear, as you say Vesuvia. Older women are less vulnerable I reckon to caring about this sort of smear - which leads to a sort of feeling that if only older women are ready to speak out, that means it's a way of thinking that's outdated and 'on the wrong side of history'.

I speak as an older womam

Totally agree with witching's post. The majority of the public are not aware of the issues involved.

Fab posts Witching. It is silencing and smearing. Man hating/trans hating/put up/shut up and move over women.

I do not believe that the general public have idea of the magnitude of the proposed trans rights. I don't even expect men to care, I'm sure some will but as it will not affect them in a meaningful way it will not bother them. Young women are being inclusive and keen for everyone to be supported, I'm pretty sure I would have been the same.

So no men and no maidens. Women apparently move from maiden, mother to crone. Caitlin Moran did a great video of how Hillary Clinton has exploded her ideas about crone status. We have gender critical mothers and crones who are looking at this thinking no.

How do we use our strength to influence the young? How do we get those who are looking into changing the law to recognise the terrifying scope of what is proposed?

It's like a split personality society. We have the Obama's launching Let Girls Learn at the same time as the American government put forward a federal bathroom bill. I wonder whether Theresa May has looked over the proposed changes and thought about how it will affect women.

just dropping in to also add that I think Witch is bang on the money.

The suffix "phobia" is being used as a magic bullet to silence any legitimate questions people have about a range of issues. I suggest we start a new term - gynephobia - to describe those people who seem to have an irrational fear of allowing feminists to speak freely about issues like misogyny in Islam or the trans movement.

Nobody will care though. Because it's acceptable to hate women. People are a lot more afraid of looking racist or anti-trans than they are of being sexist.

I like what Witching has to say, and am interested in Microferret's gynophobia idea. Turns out it's already a word. Definition made me chuckle. It's 'an abnormal fear of women', which makes you wonder what a normal fear of women might be. Of course a normal fear of men is common and understandable.

The definition goes on to say that gynophobia used to be called by the Latin term horror feminae, which I love. Visions of glamorous horror film vampires.

I don't think including men in organized feminist groups is generally a good idea, as men always try to take control, but I do think men can be important in implementing feminism. Critical, even, as so much change is possible using the family.

Microferret, I went through that^ thought process last week, including looking up gyneophobia. Yes, sexism and misogyny are so normal^ that ordinary people aren't horrified by it in the same way as racism and homophobia and transphobia (ignoring that a lot of TA and pro-trans regimes like Iran are driven by homophobia) .

Oh well - If other people are going to redefine language to suit their needs it seems entirely reasonable that women should use gynophobia if we want to, though I doubt it will cut much ice and probably provoke whining about it being transexclusionary.

"horror feminae"

If only I could sing, that would be my rock band name!

"Horror feminae" sounds like something in 6 parts by Hildegarde of Bingen

I think when women are quick to deny they are phobic they are inadvertently giving credence to the ideology, as it implies that some women are just phobic. I think discrimination exists against gay men, and that is really what these men experience from other men. As any man who assumes the trappings of the female sex role is thought to be gay. There is no need for a new 'phobia' to be invented, we already have homophobic which covers that. Moreover, for women it comes down to either not wanting to share facilities with unknown men, or men who could have AGP. And how the ideology is erasing our rights, which is very different from homophobia.

I understand why some women would feel unable to speak up at work, particularly if they worked in public services etc. Because they would be worried about loosing their jobs, due to being accused of discrimination. This is why these accusations are a form of McCarthyism, they act to at once discredit someone and also put others off from speaking out. However, I think we have to have courage to speak out to other women in our personal lives, where there is no real risk except to personal friendships. Otherwise we can not build a strong women's movement, which I believe is key.

I think WinchesterWoman is right TA's want to smear us by saying we are just old and out of touch. However, we can counter that by pointing out that this ideology is not new, it is a concept that started in the victorian era. And was used to keep women in our place and to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. I am in my mid 30's, but many TA's are in their late 40's and 50's, so it is ironic that these men feed that line to the young and they believe it.

I know in the late 60's and early 70's the women's movement primarily started with uni students. But in the victorian era the women who were at the heart of the movement were often older women; like Emmeline Pankhurst here in the UK and Susan B Anthony in the US. Many younger women were inspired by them and joined the women's movement. Perhaps that is how it will have to be this time also. It is interesting that both the women's movements of the victorian era and the 70s, were very unapologetic about their aims. They pursued them with gusto, and they both achieved a lot with those methods. I think thats how it will have to happen again.

NotAnotherHarlot said "So no men and no maidens."

I agree with Harlot, I think many women thought the battles had been won and men respected us, they then started including men in feminism. The reason that I think men do not belong in feminist groups is because women do not feel able to talk freely with men present. And many women start policing other women about what they can say, as they worry about hurting mens feelings. This leads to serious in-depth feminist analysis being replaced with theories that benefit only men, just packaged up as liberating. I think we are dealing with the consequences of that now, I believe it is imperative we don't carry on down that road. So I think it should be a principle that men are not present in feminist groups. There is no reason that men could not form their own groups. For example some gay men have formed their own group that is critical of trans ideology. However, I have no problem with men being included in protests and marches etc., if they wish to be.

I also agree with harlot that it is important that we do not to let ourselves get sidetracked by women who have been exposed to what I call queer theory feminism. Otherwise we will not move on from where we are, because that is not compatible with women's liberation, it just puts us into inertia. We need to debate issues with them, but I don't think we should compromise our principles to make them feel more welcome i.e. If we agree porn, prostitution and trans ideology are harmful to women, then it should be opposed by a truly feminist group full stop. Rather than debating how to make these things slightly less harmful.

NotAnotherHarlot said "How do we use our strength to influence the young?"

It will be very hard to get through to a young person who completely believes queer theory and wants to transition. I think we have to be very sensitive, when talking to those young people. Young people that are supportive, but do not think of themselves as trans, can often be reached by discussing how rigid sex roles are nowadays. And remarking that now if a boy likes to play with a barbie he is assumed to really be a girl. Most will agree how wrong that is, and say girls and boys should not be assumed to be the opposite sex because of how they dress or what they like. This then opens a dialogue and allows challenge to the legitimacy of the ideology. Young mothers I find are often very quick to understand the harms when it is explained to them in this way.

Another way is to explain how this ideology is from the victorian era and was used to convert gays and lesbians to heterosexual. Incidentally, I once heard a student asking a teacher for advice about an essay he was writing about conversion therapies for homosexuals. He said he had found out about cross sex hormone use and sex changes being used as cures. The teacher told him to just focus on aversion therapy. This is because it is obvious it is a conversion therapy if looked at with any depth. The young can be made aware of this.

Many young people are very aware about the harms of neoliberal economics, and class inequality. Postmodernism and queer theory are neoliberal to the core, I think a possible way of reaching the young is to talk more about how those ideologies are also neoliberal and therefore equally harmful.

Furthermore, young women at present are being told the sexual exploitation of women and trans ideology are actually liberating for women. Even 'feminist' groups are telling them that, so of course they believe it. They have no alternative view being offered to them, we seem like a fringe group at the minute to them. If we build a strong women's movement then we will not appear like a tiny group of out of touch women. I think in reality many young women are privately becoming disillusioned by queer theory feminism. This can be observed by the spate of suicides of young girls who have been blackmailed into sexting pics of themselves to boys then having them be used to humiliate them. They feel like they do not have any other options at the moment, if we build a strong women's movement they will be aware of other options and the tide will start to turn.

NotAnotherHarlot said "How do we get those who are looking into changing the law to recognise the terrifying scope of what is proposed?"

While I believe the public, especially women, are not aware of what is on, I don't think the same can be said for politicians. Some women's groups wrote very eloquently to the inquiry committee, explaining exactly how the proposed legislation harms women, they were just dismissed. There are very powerful lobby groups behind this, the pharmaceutical companies for one, they often fund TA orgs. Gay orgs are another, I read somewhere, that most of their money is now going on trans causes. These groups, particularly the pharmaceutical industry are so powerful that it is nigh on impossible to challenge them. I think whatever a politicians personal feelings may be, they will usually put monetary and career concerns first, which means not alienating powerful wealthy groups. For politicians wealthy lobby groups interests take priority over women's rights. I think unfortunately that is often true regardless of the sex of the politician involved. Of course by erasing women's rights it ensures that mens place on top of the social hierarchy becomes more stable, so I can not envisage many men wanting to oppose it. And men tend to have the money and are the largest donors to political parties.

I read TM was absent when there was a vote on the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004, this could mean that she has misgivings about it, but would not oppose it. I think that is how many female politicians think that are not completely on board with trans ideology. They probably do not agree with it, but will not make a fuss about it, for reasons mentioned above, which means it passes. In all honesty, I do not think that governments will listen to anyone opposed to this at present.

I think the answer is that we need to build a strong women's movement (I have a few ideas how this can be achieved). However, this will take time, so things will get worse before they get better. When we gain enough women willing to stand with us, the politicians will not be able to ignore us. There are some actions we can take now as individuals. For example writing letters of protest to politicians and companies that are supporting the erasure of women's rights. Though I fear it will be less effective until we have built a strong women's movement.

Actually I think you'll find that the main reason children of married parents do better is that married parents, statistically speaking, stay together longer. Considerably longer. This is not because marriage has some magic power, just that those parents who do marry tend to be more committed to each other.

This very much affects girls. Girls who have a committed father in their lives reach puberty later.

My boys have been much affected by the loss of their father, particularly the older one. It's a grief to me.

Regarding creating a strong women's movement, I'm up for that, though I'm not great on theory. I went to a feminist conference in July. It was brilliant. Looks like I'm going to a workshop later this month. Yay!

I struggle with getting my head around all this but I believe equally in women's rights, men's rights and trans rights. Therefore I am a feminist AND I support trans rights. I also support men's rights but that doesn't dilute my feminist ideals.

I think most of us would like to be able to say that, but we hit the problem of conflicting 'rights', and exactly who should have what rights. Does a woman have the right to a 'safe space' segregated by sex? (I'd say yes). Does a transsexual with a GRC have the right to share such spaces? (various views, I'd tend to yes). Does a person who identifies as a transwoman based on 'feelings' about 'gender' have any right to such spaces? (various views, I'd go with no). The middle case is greyer but you simply can't say yes to both 1 and 3. So whose 'right' should be given precedence?

OK, Dolly, what about when trans activists demand they be allowed to work in an all-woman rape crisis centre? Or allowed to share showers despite having a penis?

In many cases, trans rights directly conflict with women's rights. I suggest you read at least some of the thread and get yourself up to speed on the issues.

I think we all want all people to be treated with dignity and without prejudice. However saying you're for trans rights, women's rights and men's rights means you're not really in support of anyone.

Dolly- what do you do when rights conflict?

dolly rejecting the idea of a female brain is, for me, a fundamental part of supporting womens rights. The idea that women think and feel differently to men had been used to repress women, keep them out of certain jobs and reinforce the idea we are basically only good for raising babies and cooking dinner. How can you possibly fight against the oppression of women while supporting someone who claims they are a woman because they feel like a woman and have a female brain?

I will happily argue for men's rights to wear dresses and do things that are usually considered female, just as I will fight for the rights of women to wear trousers and do things that are usually considered masculine. I believe getting rid of preconceived gender roles is beneficial for both sexes. I won't support the rights of someone who wants to enforce the very roles I stand against.

One doesn't have to be for men's rights, same as the Civil Rights movement concerned itself not with rights for white people.

Men already have all the rights and privileges they could want. Matriarchal oppression of men is not something that we need fear in the near - or distant - future.
Proclaiming to be for "men's rights" will only lead to men demanding that they get to keep their privileges. Which they consider to be rights. So, not useful.

To an extent, the same could be said for MtT.

Men do not always have all the rights and privileges they could want (although they have many). That's a very flippant thing to proclaim. DH is a family law barrister and I can assure you that men do not have equal rights in relation to the family. I personally would give up every pay rise I got by virtue of being a man to be treated equally in the family law courts in relation to my children.

Women are not treated equally across many many aspects of life. It's a disgrace and unacceptable.

There should be equal rights for both men and women although the world has far far more to address on behalf of women.

Would I be way off base to suggest that if men have less parental rights than women it's because quite a lot of them don't actually want equal responsibility? Whereas women have that by default whether they want it or not.