TransMen Inclusive Radical Feminist (TMIRC)

[lurker33]

Do you think that those who throw the usual 'Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist' slur realise that actually they are the ones who are being exclusionary?

When feminists want to talk about menstruation or pregnancy or breastfeeding etc, because these are singularly female experiences, transmen are automatically included in those discussions because they are female?

Shouldn't the counter argument be that, actually, GC feminists are TMIRCs (TransMen Inclusionary Radical Feminists)?

What’s with the C? Surely it should be TMIRF?

It’s just ‘feminist’

All feminism is gender critical, it’s a cornerstone of feminist theory. This is sociology 101

Lol, you're right. Too much probably.
TMIRF.

Yes cantankerous, I agree. But I think it may need to be spelt out to some that GC feminism does not equal trans exclusionary.

And trans exclusionary doesn’t equal feminism.

Not all GC people are feminists.

most people know the difference beteeen boys and girls without being feminists.

I think we may have got off on the wrong foot here camel, are we talking at cross-purposes?

I'm referring to the slur recently banned by Mumsnet, and a counter argument to that.

I don't like the word 'transmen' so it's not for me. Transgender females.

TFIRF Transgender Female Inclusive Radical Feminist then Prachet?

I think we need someone with a more talent to come up with a better acronym 😀

Ohhh I see.

Can we say trans identifying female?

No, that is no longer allowed.

It always makes me sad to type 'transmen'. For the most part I feel very sorry for what they have done to themselves, or want to do. Instead of becoming feminists, and fighting patriarchy, they seem to have the "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude.

And yes, frustrating no tango india foxtrot allowed any more. I think there was wording in the rules not to refer to sex, so 'transgender female' seems out the door as well?

Quite aside from the acronym debate, I thought rather less of Justine that she’s allowed herself to pander to these men quite clearly seeking to devoice women.

I think this site may be going down the Netmums censorship rabbit hole (I was censored on there for asking Gordon Brown about whether he could only afford to be a serious politician because his wife had a private income, an example of high level politics increasingly being the domain of the wealthy).

By erasing trans men's identity and claiming they are women, you're the opposite of trans inclusive.

Tell me you didn’t really ask that Boffin ?

Yes, I did. It’s a question of whether cabinet positions are really available to those without significant independent means. I think it’s democratically important it’s more inclusive and not having a seven figure sum to derive a second or third income from shouldn’t preclude high office.

Being a TIRF makes sense to me - trans inclusionary rational feminist

The 'rational' being including trans men who need sex based health services and trans women who need the same protection from men as women do.

By erasing trans men's identity and claiming they are women, you're the opposite of trans inclusive.

What does “erasing trans men’s identity” mean? And in what way are they not women?

I would add that the next post to mine wasn’t censored and it said words to the effect of ‘these Somalis coming over here and taking all our jobs, what are you going to do about black people then Gordon’ (with more text speak). At least she didn’t call him ‘hun’.

the

That is strange? It’s such a non-threatening, descriptive term

FtM people are included in FEMinism because they're FEMale, Widow. The clue is in the name. Women suffering from sex based oppression cannot "identify" out of it.

Women are not human shields.

I don’t think being a trans person is the same as being someone whose sex or gender has remained obvious and constant, and healthcare needs are going to be different, as are social ones. That’s not to say trans people aren’t of equal value, but you clearly can’t simply morph into another sex or gender in the equivalent way that’s been suggested. And I don’t see what is wrong with saying that. In an ideal world sex and gender would matter a lot less than they do anyway.

Here’s another unpopular opinion. People are unduly worrying about which gender they relate most to because a. Our society is hyper-sexualised, and b. We haven’t got more important things to worry about, for example whether foreign powers are about to invade and slaughter our children, or whether there will be a total crop failure causing wholesale starvation and death. Everything is, after all, relative.

But he was Shadow chancellor in a government in waiting when they met?

I grant you that it’s a reasonable question about politics for the wealthy though.

I think Boffin makes an important point, I did not know that about GB. I guess the question is whether he would have made high office if he had only his own means to depend on (and he may have done so, I have not read his autobiography).

Fighting the patriarchy is exhausting. But I think the spike in rapid onset gender dysphoria among young women is about a number of factors when girls are at a vulnerable stage. Huge academic pressure combined with gendered barriers, toxic heterosexuality (pornified expectations from young men) and a transgender movement which says here is a way out.

Although the best people to comment on cause are gender identity clinics, the interesting question is where (medically speaking) the concept of gender identity came from (a minority with body dysphoria) and why it has taken hold as the condition du jour.

What is society doing to young women that opting out of being a woman is the preferred option?
And in my next thought I remembered the point made by an academic recently that women could meet and talk about their rights in the early 1900s without fear, and that they cannot now.