Questions for Trans-Inclusive Feminists

[chaoticgood]

I would be very interested to hear from trans-inclusive feminists in regard to these questions as I have not seen them tackled from that perspective.

I will use the terms "XX" and "XY" to refer to biological sex, because "male" and "female" are now ambiguous while "AFAB" and "AMAB" have been objected to as appropriative by some intersex people.

1. On sex-based discrimination. As a trans-inclusive feminist, presumably you believe that gender identity should replace biological sex when it comes to how we categorise people - and that the notion of sex-based discrimination is no longer valid but should be replaced by a notion of gender discrimination whereby people are privileged or disadvantaged due to their gender identity. So if there are two people, one XX and one XY, who both have the same non-binary gender identity (e.g. they both identify as "genderqueer") then in gender terms they are the same and they will have the same privileges and/or disadvantages. But what if these two fictional people both apply for the same job, and have all the same qualifications etc, but the XX person is passed over in favour of the XY because the boss fears that the XX person might get pregnant? How, as a trans-inclusive feminist, can you account for that situation or even have the language to describe it?

1. On the words "man" and "woman" to refer to gender identities. If "woman" and "man" refer to gender identities, then why is there any correlation between womanhood and XX-ness at all? Presumably only because of sexist socialisation. In an ideal world, there would be just as many XX men as there would be XY men. How could it be otherwise, without falling into the essentialist idea that womanhood, in the absence of socialisation, would normally spring forth from XX biology? However, if that is so then surely the very use of the terms "woman" and "man" to refer to gender identities is extremely sexist, not to mention transphobic! "Woman" and "man" previously meant - and still do mean to 99% of people - exactly the same thing as "XX" and "XY". If you are trying to push apart gender identity from biological sex then naming those gender identities after the biological sexes seems entirely counter-productive. Do you agree, and would you prefer it if instead of "man" and "woman" the gender identities were know and "bleep" and "bloop" for example? Or do you think that "man" and "woman" are the best terms for the job? If so how would you propose mitigating the tremendous confusion of the man-on-the-clapham-omnibus, who still hasn't got his head around the idea that psychology is not determined by sex, when he is told that, now, "man" and "woman" refer to psychological rather than biological categories?

Placemarking in case you get any interesting answers.

Eagerly anticipating all the interesting answers you will get.

Looking forward to getting clarification

I will use the terms "XX" and "XY" to refer to biological sex, because "male" and "female" are now ambiguous

I'm pretty sure XX and XY can apply to either sex now too....

Aww man! I clicked on this thread thinking our liberal feminist friends had tackled OP's questions. I see we are still waiting.
(My popcorn is getting stale.)

Me too evidently.

Ash well, maybe the words to explain it need some clarification or are difficult to spell so they are writing it out on word first before cutting and pasting it in here.

I don't think liberal feminists come here.

But OP I have frequently come across criticism of use of XX and XY to distinguish between the sexes, as this is ignorant and terribly offensive because... DSD and intersex... but you already knew that...

Great questions! I'd love to know the answers.

Is there any way we can find people to answer? Point them here from twitter or something?

Laurie Penny dropped by a couple of months ago. Maybe we could get her back.

All feminists are trans-inclusive. The title of your thread is really annoying.

Feminists don't include penis, is all. They include transgender females, of course.

Also your second question is unanswerable by anyone. If the body has no sex, there is no male or female. I know you know this and I'd love to see someone come up with a cogent response as well. But no one ever will be able to because it's impossible.

I think the answer would be:
"DIAF you bigot! #nodebate"

Yeah that's why they won't go up against a feminist on the telly

The answer to your questions:
-Stop being mean, you're just a hater
-Actually science says there are 4,100 different sexes so all this time you have had no clue and just stupidly assumed there were 2. It's different in the animal kingdom though but that's because of evolution innit.
-When you take hormones, your male genitalia acquire a female appearance, meaning that your question is invalid.
-Stop HATING as people will get UPSET

I have frequently come across criticism of use of XX and XY to distinguish between the sexes, as this is ignorant and terribly offensive because... DSD and intersex... but you already knew that...

I can't tell how serious you are but I actually agree. On re-rereading my post I was wrong to say that "Woman" and "man" previously meant - and still do mean to 99% of people - exactly the same thing as "XX" and "XY". There are intersex cases where these meanings do not coincide.

All feminists are trans-inclusive. The title of your thread is really annoying.

Fair point. But I think you know the people I mean. Can you suggest a better name for them - which they would recognise as referring to them, and which would not insult them?

Also your second question is unanswerable by anyone. If the body has no sex, there is no male or female.

It was hard to write clearly since the language itself, which I was using to express it, is what it was about. But I didn't mean to say that the body has no sex. How did you get that from it?

Fair point. But I think you know the people I mean. Can you suggest a better name for them - which they would recognise as referring to them, and which would not insult them?

Intersectional feminists? Which again can often apply to gender critical feminists, but the ones who use it as a title tend to be the ones who think everything intersects with penis.

Advocates for Self ID maintain that the body has no sex. For example, to be male you do not need a body whose reproductive role is to produce motile gametes, neither does having such a body make you male. Your reproductive role (according to self ID advocates) is wholly incidental - much as a table may be wood, and many tables are wood, but being wood doesn't mean it's a table, and being wood has no relevance to whether or not it's a table.

So the body's reproductive role is irrelevant. That means the principles of being male or female simply don't obtain. There's no 'male' or 'female' for your 'gender identity' to actually be.

The other bit I don't know what you mean, better name for what? For people who know that sex is binary and based on reproductive role?

The other bit I don't know what you mean, better name for what? For people who know that sex is binary and based on reproductive role?

No, people who to a greater or lesser extent deny this. "Liberal feminists", "intersectional feminists" - pro trans feminists who criticise gender critical feminism. OP would like these people to answer the questions based on their beliefs.

"Feminists don't include penis, is all. They include transgender females, of course."

Well done for mentioning this, Charliethefeminist I feel trans men are often forgotten in modern debates abpiy being trans.

Intersectional feminists?

Aren't real intersectional feminists going to be a bit miffed at that - especially as it's a bit of an illustration of how people with intersecting oppressions are at the back of the queue...

Lol at intersectionality. Nah, it does not mean you have to include men in your analysis just because they suffer oppression. An intersectional account of critical race theory could look at how racism is particularly exacerbated for female, LGBT and disabled people of a certain race. Would we say ‘sorry guys, you gotta include some oppressed white peeps in there or you’re being literally violent’? I seriously hope not but who knows these days.

I agree they probably would. I don't blame them. But the OP wanted a name which wouldn't offend pro-trans feminists so that they would answer the questions. Personally I'd stick with trans inclusive or liberal feminists.

Yeah trans-inclusive is probably the best. Some trans inclusive feminists still claim to be radical in terms of aiming to challenge underlying patriarchy. And some gender critical feminists are liberal rather than radical in their leanings- eg they believe in retaining existing social structures but ensuring women have access to them.
I have never understood the automatic link between the trans question and radical feminism that the TRAs make. I suspect that they have no idea what radical feminism is and just think the word ‘TERF’ sounds catchy.

We are trans inclusive. I think pro trans feminists is better. In fact I'm not sure they should be called feminists.

Pro-trans women would do it.

Well we are trans inclusive but we don’t include trans women within the category of women (although we are pro trans rights and the ability for all people to identify how they choose).