The feminist case against anti-trans feminism

[spannablue]

Sorry to have been away for a bit- work got busy and my DS3 had flu.
Anyway I thought this might be interesting

www.versobooks.com/blogs/4090-i-m-not-transphobic-but-a-feminist-case-against-the-feminist-case-against-trans-inclusivity

Don't worry, we've all been busy with the consultation, and I can say hand on heart I have not missed you (or indeed even noticed your absence).

Yeah...

1. There's no such thing as "anti-trans" in feminism, because what we're for is women's rights. We're not "anti-men", either - unless they seek to erode and eradicate women's rights to safety and privacy.

1. Therefore, there is no "feminist case against anti-trans feminism".

1. Feminism cannot include men who claim they're women, especially if those men want to impose themselves on women's safety, privacy and right to compete in sports against other women (and not men claiming to be women).

You're flogging a dead horse, spannablue.

I'm too busy with Bunbury to read.

LangCleg

Bunbury has a response for everything, doesn't she?

That piece is embarrassingly poor. Read it last night.

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’,

But they're not. They're a group of adult human males. HTH.

I would read it, but I don’t like fiction.

But yes Bunbury's arguments about making vacuous appeals to female socialisation are definitely compelling.

But yes Bunbury's arguments about making vacuous appeals to female socialisation are definitely compelling.

I assume you're referring to her article "Why asking women to 'be nice and move the fuck out of the way for men' is asking for a smack in the gob".

I work with a guy who always asks if we missed him when he turns up for a shift. And everyone always makes eye contact with each other and their eyes roll up.

Btw, spannablue the reason people often asked where you were on threads is because of your habit of dropping down something mildly contentious and strawmanny, ignoring the responses, poking us a bit and then starting another thread with the same MO without actually engaging with anything said to you.

It wasn't because we were so very eager to have you around. Soz.

I would read it, spannablue but I am currently just too busy with finishing the book: 'Why it is pointless to talk to people who can't define the words they use.' authored by one Germaine Bunbury.

Oh Hai spannablue

still waiting for you to come back and engage properly on these threads which you started and walked away from

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3394077-Intersex-people

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3393106-Obsession-with-transwomen-fetishises-sex-difference

planning on actually speaking to the people who engaged with you in good faith, or are you just here to educate the proles?

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’

but why the heck would i do that when transwomen are in fact men?

who are all these people who want us to think 5 impossible things before breakfast and why do they want to train us to swallow absolute nonsense?

Is @spannablue just going to plop someone else's blog and run again?

I've not read it but does it say we're all shit feminists for not believing the overlords when they tell us men can be women?

I assume you're referring to her article "Why asking women to 'be nice and move the fuck out of the way for men' is asking for a smack in the gob".

That's the one!

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’,

Jesus, this argument honestly makes my eyes roll so far back into my head that it's painful.

Can I be a black woman? No, because I'm not black.

Can I be a disabled woman? No because I'm not disabled.

Can I be a Muslim woman? No because I'm not Muslim.

Can I be a transwoman? No because I'm not a man!

I've not read it but does it say we're all shit feminists for not believing the overlords when they tell us men can be women?

That's about the size of it!

If, on the other hand, trans women men are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’

That's how much sense it makes to me, spannablue.

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’

Bunbury's suggested response to this is also our new rallying cry: eppur si muove.

Having put down my Bunbury book for a minute, the takehome message of the article is:

'I could not be arsed to read the peer reviewed scientific work that statistically demonstrates that males transitioning does not change male pattern criminal behaviour, including violent criminal behaviour, therefore, I say that these data do not exist, and if data existed they'd show something different.'.

It must be one of these Pomo principles: 'what I have not read does not exist', or something.

Men as a subset as women is a bit like when as a child you think all dogs are male and all cats are female. Just because they look similar, doesn't mean they're the same thing with the same anatomy or needs. As you get older, critical thinking needs to replace ignorance.

You know, apropos of nothing at all, I made a library card for Bunbury so I could issue out all of our stock in rotation so it didn't get withdrawn. Certainly gets around, that Bunbury.

Charming! What a bastion of reasoned debate.

Here's another one- this is Sara Ahmed
feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-us/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

You know, apropos of nothing at all, I made a library card for Bunbury so I could issue out all of our stock in rotation so it didn't get withdrawn. Certainly gets around, that Bunbury.

I gather Germaine is busy writing new material as we speak - the recent revival of interest in her work has given the guru renewed vigour.

You start the debate and we will join in. Use words, not links.

Ready when you are.