Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

[spannablue]

Here: alicenuttallbooks.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/why-i-am-a-trans-inclusive-feminist/

Enjoy!

Well over 49% of people are never effected by period poverty so perhaps it’s a bit of a non issue? There’s more important stuff to discuss anyway that effects 100% of people and funding should go to that really as it has more impact. See also pregnant people, people who want abortions, people who suffer sexual violence, child genital multilation etc. If you rewrite an issue that only effects women to be a people issue then it automatically does not effect half the population. It dilutes the effect and impact of the issue. It makes it harder to make better because any message or funding or law is woolly and unfocused. It also gives men as much as a say about biological women’s issues as we’re talking about people’s issues now and not women’s issues and men are people too!

I don’t understand how including trans women in feminism stops the discussion of sex abortions, FGM

Because feminism then just becomes ‘humanism’, which is all well and good but isn’t specifically about women.

I personally believe they should be able to access services when needed

Agree, but there is no need for biological men to access services specifically for biological women, and it’s not really clear how that would be helpful anyway. That does not prevent any other service being shared where appropriate or additional services being made available.

if we punished everyone by the views of their self appointed leaders then well... where would we be today?

These people aren’t just self appointed, they have been recognised as advisors by Stonewall and the government. You might not agree with Stonewall and clearly many gay and trans people don’t, but they are being listened to by the government and other organisations like the guides.

if someone has statistics of woman being abused by trans women in toilets then I’m sure I’ll be proved wrong.

It is clear that the problem is not trans people but men, and that effectively all toilets would be unisex.

I think in these incidents, biology is effectively meaningless. Vaginas do not define you.

No, because I am a human, but in as far as I experience the world as a female human, that is dictated by having been born with a vagina. Nothing to do with my identity, just a fact, like my blood type or being right handed.

However possession of a vagina would have restricted my right to vote until 1928 and means that I need access to contraception to avoid pregnancy. I have no control of this regardless if my identity.

However, I do not believe that everything needs to be separated based on biology

No - just things that relate to biology.

There are many cases where transwomen and women can live similtaniously without the need for segregation.

Yes, because it’s only very rarely that men and women need to be segregated. After all we don’t live in Saudi Arabia.

I’m entitled to mine and I will not stop speaking my mind because I’m shut down constantly

I don’t think you are being shut down, and it is good to hear somebody expressing a different point of view. However, I am still at a loss to understand why it is necessary to claim that TWAW, when it seems to me that more progress could be made if it were accepted that while our value comes from being human beings, there are clear differences between men and women.

[period poverty no longer being a woman’s issue] which frankly, seems ridiculous but let’s say it is... why does it matter? As long as it’s still recognised as an issue and people are still fighting to prevent it, why does it need a label anyway?

Because these issues don’t just affect people randomly, they affect women, and their combined impact makes it harder for women to participate equally in society.

We’re not talking about some kind of hypothetical discrimination. My grandmother was an adult before she could vote on equal terms with men. My mother could legally have been given the sack when she got married.

This wasn’t because they wore dresses but because it was assumed that they were restricted by their biology.

And you know what? You can have as many inspirational quotes about girl power as you like, but take away access to sanitary protection and birth control and women are still restricted.

Haven't caught up with the thread but would like to offer a peace offering to EarlyWalker.

Maybe you are just one of those women who need to hear (over and over) that believe it or not, I don't hate transpeople. They can wear whatever they like, rename themselves whatever they like, express themselves however they like, and none of that impacts me in any way so I have no reason to object to any of that.

I also believe that trans, while they are doing all the above, should be legally protected from discrimination while getting an education, looking for a job or promotion, looking for an apartment to rent or house to purchase.

The ONLY (2) things I object to, is firstly the way the laws they want to pass, would enable any man at all to claim to feel trans, download a form or whatever with no gatekeeping, and then stroll naked in the women's showers, prisons, hospital wards, athletics, etc -- and no one has the right to chuck him out. The ONLY other thing I object to, is the way that redefining woman to mean "people with penises" would effectively eliminate all sex-based discrimination laws.

The reason I get so "hostile" is the same reason I get hostile when any man wants to literally trespass my sexual boundaries and take away my rights. I honestly do not understand why you find any woman's hostility in this circumstance to be problematic.

If some guy is raping you, are going to be polite about it???

If a white person is racially abusing a black person, would you demand that the black person be polite about it???

When some guy is violating your sexual boundaries, do you need to type out a 40 page disclaimer explaining how you understand that Not All Men Do That and How Much You Love All Men before getting rid of the creepy guy???

You appear to require that I be a simpering polite fool while allowing some creep to sexually abuse me with impunity. This is PERSONAL to me, because I've already experienced creepy doods being creepy, rapey, stalking, etc. I know firsthand these guys exists and will take advantage of transLaw. You, otoh, appear to believe that all men and all trans are angels who would never do these things.

Incidentally even wearing trousers is biology dependent if you observe that women didn’t really start wearing them until indoor loos became common.

Much easier to be discreet in a skirt.

Inability to wee standing up with your clothes on and periods are also reasons why access to toilets is a bigger deal for women.

In a nutshell:

Why should feminism include men?

It doesn’t have to include men, feminists are making it that way by making transwomen the primary focus.

My point is that you can be a feminist and also support transwomen using female spaces.

As long as they do not have a biological advantage over woman (e.g sport) I support this and I call myself a feminist.

Talking about period poverty and similar is not transphobic. No one has actually bought into that except the feminists and their faux outrage at a few comments from a few extremists.

But why listen to what I say anyway? As ohhello pointed out, I just believe all men are angels, clearly.

I just wanted to say thanks for sticking around to chat EarlyWalker. It's really interesting to hear your viewpoint, I appreciate it

I agree bernard

But i dont think that its faux outrage for a lot of people, i dont think thats fair to say at all

I’m entitled to mine and I will not stop speaking my mind because I’m shut down constantly

Just because people are disagreeing with you that does not mean you are being 'shut down', please don't say that. You are putting across an argument and people are refuting it not shutting you down. If you don't have anything to come back with then that might tell you that your argument is not robust.

No one has actually bought into that except the feminists and their faux outrage at a few comments from a few extremists.

Munroe Bergdorf is not an 'extremist'. Munroe has been given a huge platform on which to talk about transgenerism and help to shape policy. And yet it is pretty clear that Munroe is a misogynist. See also Shon Faye, Paris Lees etc etc.

My point is that you can be a feminist and also support transwomen using female spaces

1). Without the campaign for self ID a lot of people wouldn’t care about this issue. Many people on MN support the status quo which is that somebody with a GRC should be treated as a member of their chosen sex in most situations, but nobody has suggested a middle way between self ID and the current system.

The claim is also being made that exceptions to the equalities act are meaningless because the law already makes it possible for anyone to enter any space or compete in any sports event on the basis of ‘gender reassignment’ - not some fringe view but advice that is being accepted by schools.

2. From my POV, if a space can include trans women, it’s not clear why it isn’t including men. I’d rather not have random discrimination according to sex, because a lot of the time it impacts women negatively. Random discrimination by ‘gender’ is even worse.

However instead of really listening and understanding why single spaces are sometimes needed, or really explaining difficulties faced by trans people, the only argument expressed is ‘TWAW’. Men get to keep their single sex golf clubs. Women should just shut up, shut up, shut up about prisons.

No one has actually bought into that except the feminists and their faux outrage at a few comments from a few extremists.

I used to think that people on MN were deliberately selectively choosing people with extreme views to represent the trans argument - and then it turned out that those people were on advisory committees, held elected office in political parties, were paid NUS officials.

Munroe ‘pussy hats are exclusionary’ Bergdorf is not some strange fringe personality but was on the labour party’s LGBT advisory board and had a documentary broadcast on channel 4.

You say you are not comfortable with self ID, but who is proposing anything else? Admittedly some trans people don’t like self ID either, but they are also apparently ‘transphobes’.

Talking about period poverty and similar is not transphobic. No one has actually bought into that except the feminists and their faux outrage at a few comments from a few extremists.

Extremists like Cancer Research who use “people with cervixes” instead of “women”?

Let’s not forget that all major trans orgs want to get rid of the single sex exemptions that protect the right of women to be counselled by a female after rape.

Rape victims become a vehicle to that sweet, seeet hit of validation. Their distress is irrelevant.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

People who criticised the U.K. Guardian for publishing an editorial conceding that concerns about natal women’s rights should be taken into account were not fringe extremists.

and then it turned out that those people were on advisory committees, held elected office in political parties, were paid NUS officials.

This. People who claim not to see this are either being deliberately disingenuous or wilfully blind.

I will not stop speaking my mind because I’m shut down constantly - despite my biology telling me that’s probably what I should do.

You're blaming other women for shutting you down because your female socialisation kicks in when they disagree with you? I think some consciousness raising might be in order, frankly.

Don’t tell me that period poverty isn’t transphobic, tell all the companies and organisations that refer to menustrators or period havers because saying women have periods is not inclusive enough anymore

It’s not possible to say twaw depending... You say you feel you can treat a tranwoman as a woman in certain circumstances and some not but you aren’t saying twaw are you? I’m all for reasonable and I couldn’t care less what individuals choose to do, but I do care that accepting twaw as a premise is being used to rewrite the language of women and female without our consent by people who I don’t believe have the best interests of women or trans women at heart.

When the shit hits the fan it will be the transwomen friends and relatives everyone cares about that will suffer, the men currently enjoying sheltering under the umbrella will quietly wipe their lipstick off and slink away. I want everyone to live happily and peacefully, this requires compromise on the groups trying to rewrite what women are, not on women to shut up and play nice. That’s not compromise, it’s coercion.

I’m usually shut down on these threads. Comments such as I’m blind, think all men are angels that have been said Just in the last few posts are deliberately shutting me down. On others comments such as ‘we see you’ ‘your a TRA, a handmaiden and a man’ are examples of others -It’s not really debating is it, it’s just ‘you disagree with me so you’re an idiot’, it’s usually a man thing really - thinking you are superior and your view is the only real and acceptable view.

The cancer ‘people with cervix’ campaign did annoy me, however in the scheme of things i don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about. You know if you are a biological woman that needs a smear, you also get a letter from the doctor. If anything isn’t it just adding a trans exclusionary label? Saying that it’s not just for if you see yourself as a woman, but if you have a cervix. My sister was born without a womb and cervix, it excludes her too, she’s very much a woman.

So organisations such as stonewall are using these TRA as advisors, that is not the fault of trans people and it is stonewall whom you should be angry at. If parliament elected a hate preacher as an advisor on Muslims, you wouldn’t start fighting Muslims - you’d fight for them to be removed and ask wtf parliament are thinking - just as Muslim people themselves would.

Perhaps not faux outrage, that was maybe strong - some comments are of course, an outrage but I do think views of a few people are being inflated into building an argument against a small group and making them into a huge enemy - some comments relating to trans people in general are uncalled for on these boards.

You ask what the alternative to self ID is? The current GRC rules are it, the rules that many trans people support and that are currently law.

I always love the quote ‘turn a deaf ear to those who shout the loudest for an honest man need not raise his voice’ it’s very apt in these arguments, those shouting do not represent the majority - and those that tar a whole group with one brush need to think that woman were once that group imo.

So organisations such as stonewall are using these TRA as advisors, that is not the fault of trans people and it is stonewall whom you should be angry at

I think that's how the vast majority of people here operate. we do get some that turn up thinking this is the place to be transphobic, but they very quickly get shown the door.

instead we have people here who see what organisations are doing and oppose some of those things. they see what individuals are doing and oppose some of those things

I don't tend to see posts on here from people who object to others simply for what they are. It's what people do that draws comment

You ask what the alternative to self ID is? The current GRC rules are it, the rules that many trans people support and that are currently law.

In many circles you would be seen to be transphobic to have that view and standing in the way of trans rights. Groups who are campaigning to keep the status quo have been branded as 'transphobic hate groups'.

so I think the prevailing view, certainly what I've picked up from here is be trans if that floats your boat, but don't do things that contribute to the oppression of women, such as campaigning to remove single sex toilets. if you do that, I will oppose your actions.

The cancer ‘people with cervix’ campaign did annoy me, however in the scheme of things i don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about. You know if you are a biological woman that needs a smear, you also get a letter from the doctor.

Did the fact that 'people with a prostate' were still referred to as 'men' in similar literature not annoy you?

So organisations such as stonewall are using these TRA as advisors, that is not the fault of trans people and it is stonewall whom you should be angry at. If parliament elected a hate preacher as an advisor on Muslims, you wouldn’t start fighting Muslims - you’d fight for them to be removed and ask wtf parliament are thinking - just as Muslim people themselves would.

But these TRAs aren't seen as 'extremists' or 'hate preachers' and if you criticise them you are a 'transphobe'. And people are angry at Stonewall. But it's not just Stonewall, it's the government, other political parties, the media. Munroe Bergdorf made a whole documentary called 'What Makes a Woman' (or similar bollocks, I can't remember the title now) on Channel 4. There was a woman on that show during a debate who didn't toe the 'transwomen are women line' and she was publicly shames and suspended from the Green Party.

So don't tell women to be 'angry at Stonewall'.

Not all women know they have a cervix, or that they need smear tests.

Earlywalker
The cancer ‘people with cervix’ campaign did annoy me, however in the scheme of things i don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about. You know if you are a biological woman that needs a smear, you also get a letter from the doctor.

Some women (many women) don't know what a cervix is or are unaware they need a smear test. Some women who need a smear test do not speak English and may require their husband to read and translate any letters from the doctor. If he doesn't understand what a cervix is he might tell his wife (who also may not know what a cervix is) that she doesn't need to worry about the letter.

Clear, plain, easily understood language MATTERS.