Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

[spannablue]

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

Enjoy!

I can't stay up all night chatting.

My baby can offer coaching in this. He’s available for consultation 12-1 am, 3-5am and 6:30 am onwards. His rates are reasonable.

Genealogy?

I’m smiling. Was that deliberate?

Thanks for the link to the article about Ben Barres in the Atlantic, spanna. A transman who transitioned in his 40s, and was very aware of how sexism affects women, having seen it from both sides.

“By far, the main difference that I have noticed is that people who don’t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect,” he wrote in Nature. “I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man.”

As a transman he continued to speak for women. Unlike Stephen Whittle and James Morton.

I can't see anything in that article about him denying biology, though.

This might help to explain the genealogy of this kind of thinking:

Keep up OP.

Hilarious article
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3415244-hilarious-article

Has the word 'chatting' been redefined as well now?

For anyone who's not read my posts before, I'm a woman, assigned female at birth, and a lesbian.

You weren't 'assigned female at birth' FFS. The doctors saw that you had a vulva and not a penis, and noted your sex.

This whole 'sex isn't binary' thing is just laughable. How have we evolved this far as a species of sex isn't binary? How did people know what to do to make a baby? How did they know which people to shag?

Also, like PP said, if there is no such thing as binary sex then what are trans people transitioning from and too?

For anyone who's not read my posts before, I'm a woman, assigned female at birth, and a lesbian.

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. (Thank you, The New Yorker, for that excellent cartoon.)

Why am I a trans-inclusive feminist? First and foremost, because trans people are people, and trans women are women.
It's hard to debate with someone who can't explain what a woman is. I understand it is Alice's belief that trans women are women, it's my belief that there can be no definition of woman that includes trans women and women and excludes trans men and men. So I stick to the tried and tested definition of woman = adult human female. It's factual and observable. It covers one group of humans (cunty ones of all backgrounds, sexual orientations, ability etc) while differentiating them from another group (penis ones of all backgrounds, sexual orientations, ability etc). The fact that myself and Alice disagree on the fundamentals (what is a woman) means I'm unlikely to be able to follow her argument, much less agree with it.

I’m a trans-inclusive feminist because feminism should be inclusive of all women
see above, all feminists think feminism should include all women but it is dependent on ones definition of woman who this includes. I would love to see examples of feminism that excludes some group of cunty people.
That's not to say that I don't recognise the issue of white feminists not seeing their privilege and so not always supporting black women in the best way, for example. But that's ignorance, not exclusion.

rather than centring financially stable, cishet, abled white women who do jobs that society deems “respectable”. I’m a trans-inclusive feminist because exclusionary feminism ignores nearly all inequality and injustice, and focuses instead on getting rich white women into the same spots as rich white men. (This is how you end up with ridiculous thinkpieces like “golly gee, isn’t it such a huge victory for women that Theresa May is PM?”).
This is bullshit virtue signalling. Not prioritising specific needs of trans women in our feminism, on the basis that our definition of woman is adult human female, is not excluding them any more than excluding males is.
It certainly doesn't follow that means we exclude women from certain backgrounds, or black women, or lesbians etc. This is emotional blackmail, manipulation and a very lazy argument by the author.

Until the author can 1) define woman in a trans inclusive way and 2) produce a cogent argument rather than hyperbole, I'm not going to be able to engage with her viewpoint.

Well it's sorta well written, I mean she doesn't sound stupid, just naive.

Self-ID has nothing to do with access to gendered spaces, because those are covered by the Equality Act 2010.

Wrong. EA actually does allow spaces to be segregated by sex. Trans just keep telling people it doesn't in the hopes that if they say it enough times, people will believe them.

Self-ID means that, instead of having to be medically diagnosed and spend two years living as their real gender before they can get a gender recognition certificate, trans people can make a sworn statement and then get a GRC.

Correct. If trans get their way, then any man who claims to be feel all ladybrained on the inside can claim to be trans, can download a form which is all that is required in order for him to stroll into the women's showers at the community pool, "accidentally" wave his willy around -- and no one can chuck him out. That's why so many women are upset. We know the perverts. fetishists, and pedophiles are coming.

It's like... she's one of those women who must experience sexual harassment for herself before she will accept that other women are telling the truth when we say that rapists exist. I would say "nevermind, she's just stupid" but nobody is that dumb, she's just in denial.

That outline article is a classic of the genre. The way the writer utterly fails to grasp the ways they've proved our point about the pseudo-science that underpins TRA ideology is almost as sad as it is obvious. If you're going to shoot, you need to stop aiming at your own feet.

it's my belief that there can be no definition of woman that includes trans women and women and [yet at the same time] excludes trans men and men

That's a good way to put it Quentin ty. According to trans, a woman is someone who feels all ladybrained on the inside. Well oops then the vast majority of females aren't women. According to the trans definition, the only people who are women are male-bodied trans women and the women in the Quiverful movement.

Hmmm. According to the trans definition, the only people who are women are male-bodied trans women and the women in the Quiverful movement.

Why do trans keep dressing up as 6 yo Lolitas in that case? Their only role model for "true womanhood" are women who wear bonnets, serviceable shoes, dresses long enough to cover their ankles, and spend their days popping out babies and playing maid to some patriarch.

None of these people have thought any of this through, which you'd think they would.

Moving on to biology. There is no biological definition of woman that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women, and no biological definition of man that includes all cis men but excludes all trans men.

I’ve mentioned this often but it’s worth repeating: race is far more a social construct than sex.

There is no definition of black people that includes all black people but excludes all white people, and no definition of white people that includes all white people but excludes all white people - yet we don’t accept white people in black face as black people and we don’t accept white people are oppressed because society now frowns upon the Black and White Minstrels.

Interesting read but very confused logic

Two thoughts though: XY cis women, some of whom have given birth to XY AFAB babies, exist and are just as valid as literally any other woman this bit is surely AMAB cow manure? Any XY women are infertile?

Secondly: the OP saying they were AFAB is now meaningless as we have multiple trans women with proveable male histories claiming that they are female and always have been. So saying AFAB just now means we don't believe / don't know what sex you really are.
Isn't this misuse of language helpful?

There is no biological definition of woman that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women, and no biological definition of man that includes all cis men but excludes all trans men.

This statement makes no sense. What is a "biological definition"? Does it mean biology as opposed to dictionary definition?

Any XY women are infertile?

They can sometimes have children via donated egg IVF if they have a uterus.

So they can’t have their own biological children?

Thanks for the laugh. Just a pile of word salad that doesn't actually say anything. I would take it more seriously (as always) if the author col,d define what a woman is, as it comes across as if they dont actually think women are a real thing, and fuck knows how one can be a feminist without a definition of woman!

Have we done the obligatory ‘Stop appropriating intersex conditions to the trans cause’ but yet?

Can anyone define human beings in a way that includes all human beings but excludes all chimps, and vis-versa?

I’d normally reference the number of chromosomes but since TRAs think there isn’t a normal number for human beings that one’s out.

Speech? Not all humans can speak. Intelligence? Not all humans are smarter than chimps? Climbing trees? No, humans do that too - and if they are female they need to be put on puberty blockers ASAP.

I don't understand why someone would persistently communicate their ideas on a message forum by just posting links to things other people have said.

The women here have expended months of energy writing responses to the things you post, spannablue, and you have made no attempt to engage with the effort expended with effort of your own.

It's perfectly fine to post here to demonstrate another view, but you don't, you post here to demand that others read articles you like.

I'm trying to imagine another debating chamber where people don't debate with each other, they just hand each other articles every couple of hours.

So they can’t have their own biological children?

No.

Would having human DNA cover it Aspie?

There seems to be an increasing tendency to co-opt other groups' interests and difficulties, in particular black women and sex workers. All in the name of intersectionality of course.

Oh, and disabled women, too.