My daughter just told me I am a bad feminist.

[Duffmcstockings]

I am not intersectional enough.

NO "intersectional feminist" would accept the orchestrated shouting down, silencing, and vilification of other "intersectionally marginalised" groups trying to talk about the real-life impact of normalised and unquestionable self-ID into the legal category of "women".

Consider:
(1) Women with PTSD (sex, ability) who can't use mixed-sex lavatories and therefore must stay home
(2) Poor women (sex, class) who have no choice but to use mixed-sex hostels, shelters, and rape crisis/DV facilities
(3) Orthodox Jewish and Muslim women (sex, religion) who can no longer use public baths, pools, saunas, etc. because all facilities "must" be mixed-sex.
(4) Traveller women (sex, ethnicity) who can't risk being in direct contact with natal men in intimate spaces
(5) Woman pensioners (sex, age) who are afraid of being vulnerable in mixed-sex hospital wards and nursing home facilities
(6) Schoolgirls (sex, age) who are vulnerable in mixed-sex open-plan lavatories, showers, and changing rooms and disadvantaged in mixed-sex sports
(7) International development professionals, and those who work with vulnerable populations in the UK and globally, telling us that obfuscated language (vagina havers, uterus owners, people who menstruate) disadvantages these most vulnerable populations in seeking and receiving the info they need in terms of health, hygiene, well-being, etc.
(8) Statisticians telling us that statistical reporting (such as census and crime) on the basis of pure self-ID deprives us of the demographic data that lets us understand and measure the evolution and underlying factors of ANY "intersection" in which sex plays a part.

Even if you throw away the meaning of feminism altogether and just stick with vague "intersectionality": how can one group you recognise as having a compounded set of systemic vulnerabilities (e.g., transwomen) be so uniquely important that we completely exclude - silence, not even consider - another group that also does?

If intersectionality is a tool to better identify and understand (and act to remedy) complex, compound systemically-operating vulnerabilities and exploitations beyond Crenshaw's original focus on black (American) women - then surely this "#NODEBATE!" ideology is the antithesis of intersectionality, by ANY recognisable definition?

Here's Crenshaw explaining yet again in 2017: www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later:

"Some people look to intersectionality as a grand theory of everything, but that’s not my intention. If someone is trying to think about how to explain to the courts why they should not dismiss a case made by black women, just because the employer did hire blacks who were men and women who were white, well, that's what the tool was designed to do. If it works, great. If it doesn’t work, it’s not like you have to use this concept...

... Why is the intersection of maleness and whiteness driving our analysis and not the intersection of being a woman and a person of color?"

@DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

Karwomannghia

I love your name! One of my mates had a battered old karmann ghia when we were teenagers in the 90s. We thought we knew it all and were as cool as fuck (making this comment tangentially relevant to this thread 😂)

That is as cool as fuck! Would have done anything to have a real karmann ghia! I had to settle for a picture of one taken from a copy of volksworld magazine which I carried in my wallet for years and years from age 15 which I still have now!

The ALM re BLM is a good point to argue but BLM as a political organisation is as queer and woke as the rest
The first comment on their manifesto is to centre black trans women who are the most oppressed of all

"But, to be an intersectional feminist, to fight for equality of sex, race, abilities, ethnicities, sexualities, classes, etc., I have to support trans rights too because, as I said before, if I validate oppression of one group, I validate oppression of any other group."

That's basically admitting to be in a cult. It's more important to be 'intersectional' than to make sense. And it implicitly suggests trans rights directly infringe on women's rights.

But, to be an intersectional feminist, to fight for equality of sex, race, abilities, ethnicities, sexualities, classes, etc., I have to support trans rights too because, as I said before, if I validate oppression of one group, I validate oppression of any other group

Its possible to support trans rights and also believe that women need specific sex based rights.

Its possible to support trans rights and also believe that women need specific sex based rights

See the brilliant post by Maduxia above and then explain how that would be possible.

@Guineapigbridge

Cherry Smiley's piece is a 'gotcha' because you can't out-woke an indigenous person. They're at the top of the poor-me pile. So whatever they say, goes. If it's offensive to indigenous peoples to say TWAW, then, okay, let's go with that.

It's all nonsense. Chattery nonsense. My nan would not be amused.

In fairness, indigenous women in Canada are often treated appallingly. Unlike TW.

Just because TRAs are co-opting sex-based oppression doesn't mean we should start pretending it doesn't exist.

But, to be an intersectional feminist, to fight for equality of sex, race, abilities, ethnicities, sexualities, classes, etc.,

At the risk of side-tracking, how exactly do you achieve the equality of classes, and how are they defined once they are equal?

Not disagreeing with anything that maduixa says.

People's rights are restricted if they can't access any public toilet. Their rights aren't restricted if they can't use a particular public toilet.

I currently very bad period cramps so would happily identify as a man to get me out of this. Is that how it works?!

Last night I told her I had had a drink and had to be up at 6, do I wasn't prepared to discuss it. It always ends in tears when I bring up hostels/ women's sport/ women with religion or ptsd. All things you can't argue with really. I think it is an argument we can revisit in 10 years or so, when she has a bit more life experience under her belt.

Thank you all for the reassurance though x

‘We can discuss this when you grow up’

@Screamqueenz

It's extremely difficult to express the view that TWANW, for a middle aged woman with a very successful career, for an 18 year old at uni I imagine it is impossible.

Sorry, but this is not difficult. I am middle-aged with a successful career. I keep speaking out about this, because I think it is critical that we all do. I have accepted for sometime that I might (probably will) lose friends. Particularly the large number of gay male friends. Most of whom seem to be unwilling to accept that women's rights are as important as trans rights. We are all in our 50's by the way. But if women dont speak out then how do you expect anyone who is perhaps less well informed to understand the issue? This cannot be left for "somebody else".

I can see how teenagers fall for this stuff because it's everywhere and because sexism can be harder to see in the UK, especially if you're not deprived. In some parts of the world women and girls are much more obviously oppressed on the basis of their sex and that's one thing I don't see how anyone could argue against. In the UK just 32 years ago my mum couldn't identity her way out of being legally raped. It's an insult to think we choose this stuff or could identify the way out of it. That is a privilege as far as I'm concerned. I never had much knowledge of things like feminism when I was a teenager, and I didn't care if other people thought differently to me, so I don't really understand the earnest tears and righteous rage over someone having a different opinion.

@SerenityNowwwww

‘We can discuss this when you grow up’

Goodness, if I said this to my dtr she would have exploded Between 18-20 she was full-on twaw, I was a bigot, I should be kind, it costs me nothing blah blah blah. We couldn't even talk about it - it was just so explosive. Now, at almost 21 following the JKR debacle, she is fully GC, we can have the most amazing agreeable discussion. I cannot believe the volte face that has come about. She told me that she always didn't believe twaw but it is impossible to be gc without being ostracised or called transphobic. I knew she would come good!!!

This coming back to see who is on the right side of history is bollocks. History is written by the winners. Being on the wrong side of history doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong, it just means your side lost.

Intersectionality isn't about men at all. You are just assuming that.
It's actually about different women. For example, issues faced by BAME women that get discussed in a feminist group would be considered intersectionality or issues faced by disabled women would also be intersectionality. It how different groups crossover, in the category of feminism its about different groups of women I. E. Race, disability, class ect. So by dismissing the concept you are dismissing some women's voices, not very feminist is it?

Maybe a simpler way of explaining it is the oppression of black women is intersectional feminism. The oppression of disabled women is intersectional feminism. Its understanding the crossover

Im not sure that makes logical sense...How can any feminism be 'the oppression of [whatever subgroup of] women'?

Do you mean the study of that oppression, or working to end it, rather than the actual oppression itself?

Here, I'm sure GreyT will agree with Thomas's take on this. Personally, I just laugh at a man spending 100,000 pounds on his face, hair and make up and being paid to write about it in a right wing newspaper for months on end, as underprivileged.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/transgender-diary-women-have-huge-privilege-compared-transwomen/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter

So by dismissing the concept you are dismissing some women's voices, not very feminist is it?

It's a very valuable concept, but I find some of the ways in which it is used currently to be problematic for me. I don't think it should be thrown away, just used in the way it was originally intended to look at how different axes of female oppression intersect. But the concerns of male people are not part of feminism. So I don't stand for any suggestions that I need to centre them.

[quote FantaOra]Here, I'm sure GreyT will agree with Thomas's take on this. Personally, I just laugh at a man spending 100,000 pounds on his face, hair and make up and being paid to write about it in a right wing newspaper for months on end, as underprivileged.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/transgender-diary-women-have-huge-privilege-compared-transwomen/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter[/quote]
"Well, I’ve experienced the difference between walking down the street as an apparently normal man, and doing so as a trans woman. As a man, I did so unthinkingly, without fear. But as a trans woman, even one with nice clothes, a great surgeon and fancy hair, I never, ever entirely lose the awareness and anxiety that comes with confronting a world that I know can be very hostile indeed."

Good grief, did Thomas really type all that with a straight face?

(And "no amount of oestrogen can damp my enthusiasm for American football" - because of course "we girlies don't do sports... but tee hee, I still like them." Pillock!)

Thomas again:

"I think the problem arises from the fact that while women are underprivileged when compared with men, they have a huge privilege compared to transwomen."

To which I can only reply "bollocks, mate". And once more, what a pillock.

Pure trolling, and getting off on it.