Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

[mirrorisnotmyfriend]

They come up with this.

First post - Why Transwomen Aren't Biologically Male.
www.facebook.com/everydayfeminism/

The comments are encouraging though, that is, the ones that haven't been deleted. Lots of people questioning and calling this out.

No, it really doesn't. And just "misogynist" will do, thanks.

(That was to meph)

LOL at Meph trying to be all goady.

Please do tell us about your socialist surveillocracy utopia plans, I'm all ears.

I was trying to use non-inclusive as an alternative to trans-exclusionary. It was literally an attempt to be non-goady.

And my plans are going wonderfully, thank you Venus. I won't bore you with the details. How is your tyrannical matriarchy progressing? Need any pointers?

Nah, you're alright, thanks.

Non inclusive is just as goady. It's loaded. Feminism, as a movement for human women is non lizard and non robot inclusive too. Who says feminists should have to include men in feminism? Who decreed that?

I don't think anyone is under the impression that feminism is inclusive of men (regardless of their gender presentation) except for a few men who are confused about their 'allied status'.

I apologise for using a loaded term, as I had no intention of being hostile. If it's ok to ask, what term(s) do you think is appropriate to distinguish between the two feminist perspectives on this subject? I've seen 'liberal' feminist used, but that doesn't appear to always be the governing factor in those feminists who accept the trans-perspective.

Some of us don't care about being called terfs. Or just feminist will do. I honestly don't see women who believe in including men in feminism to be feminists at all. I don't "exclude" men from anything else -I have lots of great men in my life, I am married to a man, I have sons - but include them in feminism? What a fucking weird idea.

The generally accepted term is "gender critical feminist".

Thank you.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, one issue with trans is that it's essentially altering gender expression through surgery, but is claiming to fundamentally alter sex? Which is naturally antagonistic to the idea of sex and gender being separate.

Hmm, thank you for the clarity. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I can see the logic in the position.

There isn't always any surgery involved, or even hormones.

It's considered transphobic to say that these things are a prerequisite for a man to transition and be considered a woman in all meaningful ways, including entering women's sex segregated spaces.

Personally I have got to the point where I am no longer able to tolerate this BS in terms of the amount of biological and linguistic untruths we are told to assimilate. Maybe its time to put all the transitioned persons on to an island and let nature take its course?

Well, that's just self-evidently absurd. I was a little confused by the apparently negative attitude towards post-HRT transexuals, but things are a bit more clear.

If that's the level of silliness on offer, perhaps feminism is in less of a crisis than might be expected. I don't think even the fundamentally disinterested are going to blithely accept the idea that you can self-identify as an alternative sex without (at the very least) radical biochemical changes, not with extreme political correctness facing the backlash it presently is.

That was to venusinscorpio.

Meph - the report of the select committee chaired by Maria Miller seems to disagree with your common sense reading - they are suggesting in all seriousness that self-identification should be the be-all and end-all of being accepted as a given "sex" [sic] for legal purposes.

That's why we're all up in arms about it. Words are coming to mean whatever Humpty Dumpty says they do, and all the legal consequences that follow from that are absurd and scary (pre-operative trans people in communal single sex changing rooms, pre-operative trans people in rape crisis centres, indeed, never mind pre-op trans people, Brian the hairy trucker who simply decides to self-identify as a woman on alternate Tuesdays...)

Many organisations both here and overseas are happy to throw women under the bus as their paltry token gesture to "equality and diversity", Meph. Trump himself has said he's not bothered (though other republicans are).

It's a trendy cause, and radical feminism isn't.

middle. I understand your frustration with this issue, but I don't think it's 'maybe time to put all the transitioned people on an island and let nature take its course' as you say

Perhaps you're joking, but that really does sound transphobic.
Not all trans people, by any means, are trying to erase women or encroach on our rights. Just the most vocal ones.

Liberal feminism as people understand it today revolves around centring men.

It's easy to not be bothered by something that doesn't affect you isn't it.

Perhaps if the changing room at whatever sports club Trump uses was suddenly full of transmen wandering around he'd be miffed. Or if it became city ordinance that dogs had to use public toilets and that the women decided that it should be the men's toilet they used.

Ah, I suppose this is the logical end point of post-modernism (which is finally being given the correct label, post-truth). Every perspective is valid, every fact is an opinion - even chromosomes.

Well, that sucks. Personally I am extremely hostile to the dilution of fact and the manipulation of language, but I think all I can do is wish you guys luck, as this is an area of gender politics where 'cis' men have even less traction than usual.

Many TW believe they are women and always were - well, i guess female. They were never a boy or a man. The body isn't important, just how you feel and identify and why surgery, hormones, presenting as a stereotypical female - isn't necessary. Biology- as in looking male or having a penis or xy chromosomes - doesn't matter.

Them claiming their penis is female and they are lesbians and should be accepted as such - penis, beard or whatever - then makes sime sort if sense (if that's the ideology you choose to believe.

The only thing that I and every single other woman on the planet have in common is our sex. That physical reality is what makes us women. The oppression faced by women is because of our sex, and gender roles reinforce the subjugation of women.

The degree of subjugation varies over time and space but even in the wealthy West women are still fighting for liberation. Female socialization keeps us back, trains us to perform femininity.

Feminism is and always has been about women and our bodily autonomy. Women's issues are rooted in our physicality. A little girl can't identify her way out of forced marriage or FGM. The two women a week murdered by a partner or an ex-partner in the UK can't escape their fate by declaring themselves to be trans.

Feminists see gender as one of the main tools of female oppression. We reject it. This is why feminists,are described as "gender critical". The trans agenda is quite the opposite. They raise gender up, to make it more important. They talk as if long hair and heels makes you a woman. A lot of the trans activists are fetishists, and the porn they consume reveals that they see being a woman as intrinsically humiliating and demeaning.

Feminism isn't about men. They can support feminism but it's never going to be about them. And this isn't affected by transition. TW have no place in feminism, apart from as support should they wish it. Happily there are a few, but most TW seem actively to despise women, even to hate us.

I know loads of lovely men, and none of them display the aggression and toxic masculinity that comes pouring out from the typical trans activist. They are so unlike women it's ludicrous.

I feel for the quiet gay transsexuals who try hard to fit in with women but I have no time for the majority who campaign under the trans umbrella. Most of those who now call themselves trans are just cross dressers. They are actively anti-feminist and are creating no end of problems for the lesbians so many of them pursue.

Sorry, Mephistopheles, it's a bit of a screed.

I've found myself lurking an awful lot on these threads, trying to understand both sides of the debate for personal understanding, and also because I've got a whopping great assignment on gender to complete.

I'm full of questions, but it seems in most places where I could get answers, questions aren't welcomed or intelligent debate is stifled. I've never known any other issue where people are expected to just shut up and accept in this way; it's as if a lack of understanding (and seeking to address that in more than just a surface way) leads to accusations of bigotry. As someone who studied Women's Studies at university in the 90s, this shutting-down feels absurd to me; there were always plenty of dissenting voices relating to alternative sexualities and relationship structures at that time, but lively debate was always welcomed. It sharpened your thoughts and forced you to challenge your own woolly thinking. It's been said a million times before on here, I know, but this lack of critical thought is just resulting in massive amounts of bullshit being spouted and going unchallenged, and it's hard to find the pertinent, thoughtful points among it all.

All this is a shame, because some interesting questions are being raised. Reading blogs by many trans women, for example, the reasons they give for "just knowing" they're women, are (from what I've read) things like the fact that they always preferred playing with girls, liked dolls, want to wear make up and dresses, etc etc etc. Which sounds like bollocks because it's all very focussed on external appearance and these things obviously don't make someone a woman at all. This is why Danielle Muscato is so interesting, I think; if being a woman really isn't about external appearances but about what you feel inside, she really brings this concept into sharp focus for a lot of people. She seems to result in a lot of people screeching to a peak trans halt, because it seems so ludicrous that she's expecting to be accepted as a woman. And yet, why not? Is she less of a woman than someone who shaves their beard, has surgery and puts on eyeliner? And if it's not about external appearances and really is about an internal feeling, why does any trans person bother changing their appearance at all?

Anyway. Those are my unrefined musings. I'm going to carry on reading quietly.

I totally agree Greypaw. This censorship is both oppressive and intellectually lazy.