Transinclusive feminists, please help me understand.

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

Genuine question. I recognise that some men suffer from gender dysphoria or truly believe they were meant to be women, and some want to live out their fantasies. So I understand why they want access to women’s single-sex spaces and facilities, to validate themselves.

I understand why they want language and culture changed to include them in the category of women.

Some men will take advantage for personal gain (eg taking ‘women’s officer’ roles or sports prizes), or to harass women and girls in intimate spaces eg toilets, or to be transferred from a male to a female prison. Women and girls lose out, obviously, with no corresponding gains to compensate.

I can understand that women who aren’t feminists may not be concerned about the effects on women and girls.

But how does a feminist reconcile her feminism — centring women’s rights and needs, including the right to privacy and safety —with supporting transwomen’s actions that necessarily impinge on these?

This is a genuine question, as I wonder if I’m missing or misunderstanding something.

Feminists aren't exclusionary though. I mean what we want or are fighting for isnfir eveeyone born female even if they don't identify asbsuch because one day they will.probabky need it. Access to health care that understands womens bodies and doesn't just treat like smaller men. And access to safe spaces I mean no transmen or NB people with female bodies aren't asking to go to mens prisons either so they understand the risks even if it clashes with their beliefs about themselves.

We all want transwomen to be safe and not discriminated against thats a given as no one should be treated badly .

But I don't see how not knowing what a woman/female is, is compatible with feminism.

I think the sooner the clash of rights is acknowledged the sooner we can work together ti solve the issues

I believe, as a feminist, that transwomen are not my concern. Asinsuch, they have no right in female spaces and it's not women's problem to accommodate them or worry about their mental health or validation problems.

Feminism cannot centre men, no matter how they identify, in my opinion.

But how does a feminist reconcile her feminism — centring women’s rights and needs, including the right to privacy and safety —with supporting transwomen’s actions that necessarily impinge on these?

I think many people will argue that "centring women's rights and needs" is not their interpretation of feminism. They will probably argue that their interpretation is that "men and women should be equal".

This interpretation can lead you to the conclusion that this means men and women should be indistinct. That anything labelled "for men" or "for women" is innately sexist and old fashioned. Which leads people to question why we need women's sports, women's toilets, women's prisons etc. at all.

But how does a feminist reconcile her feminism — centring women’s rights and needs, including the right to privacy and safety —with supporting transwomen’s actions that necessarily impinge on these?

Presumably with the logic that TWAW.

Being a feminist would not stop someone subscribing to the belief that pink brain/blue brain exists. We often see on here women backing up their TWAW beliefs with “science” to show brain differences, or that liking pink and sparkles is innate and how you’re born.

So if you believe TWAW, they are included as women.

Trans inclusive feminists are inclusive of all females - irrespective of how they identify.

Should a TM go to a woman’s prison - yes
Should a TM be on a maternity ward when giving birth - yes.
Should a TM be in women’s sports - yes. And yes - adhere to all rules re doping - which is about fairness and not transphobia.
Should a girl who identifies as a boy (no such thing as a trans kid) be in the same toilets/changing rooms/dormitories as other girls - yes.

Exclusion is based on sex - not trans status.

Men - nope - irrespective of how they identify - not welcome or my concern.

The TRAs are trans exclusive - they are interested in males - and exclude females.

@twoHopes

But how does a feminist reconcile her feminism — centring women’s rights and needs, including the right to privacy and safety —with supporting transwomen’s actions that necessarily impinge on these?

I think many people will argue that "centring women's rights and needs" is not their interpretation of feminism. They will probably argue that their interpretation is that "men and women should be equal".

This interpretation can lead you to the conclusion that this means men and women should be indistinct. That anything labelled "for men" or "for women" is innately sexist and old fashioned. Which leads people to question why we need women's sports, women's toilets, women's prisons etc. at all.

People who don’t believe feminism is about centring women’s rights and needs have every right to fight for equality of the sexes in everything if they so wish.

I don’t believe they have the right to redefine feminism to fit that definition. Why would you want to erase a centuries-old movement for women unless what you’re actually aiming for isn’t equality at all, just good old fashioned sexism?

I don't think that it's necessary for transwomen rights ( by which I mean any additional rights we should give transwomen to overcome discrimination and enable them to participate fully in society) to actually impinge on women's rights

Firstly I think that there may need to be different additional rights ( and they may differ in different societies) . They really need to right to have both sex and gender recorded on medical records to ensure correct medical treatment.

Then Women have the right to same sex space at times. Transwomen don't want that right, but they would feel more included in society if they didn't have to use Male spaces, but they don't have to use women's spaces, they could have their own. Ditto sport.

I can't help feeling that some of this is pushback. Our kids have nothing to rebel against. Critical Race Theory is their disrupter. Trans-inclusive feminism is a part of that. It is a middle class kids playground. The more it annoys, the more active it becomes.

Sorry 'actively stupid it becomes'

This is interesting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_Against_American_Women I remember reading Backlash when it came out. I was about the age of the young women now who claim Liberal Feminism. I didn't really foresee the danger that Faludi did. But it has come to pass in a most spectacular way. The final paragraph of the Wiki page is very telling really.

The lack of differentiation between faith and fact is one of the aspects that I struggle with.

Women's sports are a perfect example of appropriate differentiation between faith and fact. Take combat sports: split into weight categories and age categories. It is not discriminatory, ageist or body-shaming to say that a 12st 22yo woman cannot fight a 6st 11yo girl. It would, however, be discriminatory to say that a 12st 22yo Jewish woman may not fight a 12st 22yo Christian/Hindu/Atheist woman.

Would anyone supporting TWAW argue against this? If they agree that physiological differences are relevant to sports, but not faith differences, how can they support the inclusion of male physiology in female sport?

This is a genuine question, as I wonder if I’m missing or misunderstanding something.

You’re assuming that all women, like you, see these men as men and thus reach the wholly logical conclusion they should not be centred.

These women do not share your clear vision. I assume deep inside, most women don’t really buy the claim that these men are women, but claim they do, presumably due to the widely-sold lie that they are the most oppressed people who must be centred by anyone kind.

So if you claim that these men are really women, and follow it through, because once you begin to lie, it becomes harder and harder to back down (you’re telling yourself you’re good and kind and right, which leaves little room for other thoughts) then it becomes wrong to exclude them from women’s spaces, and anyone who does so must be doing so out of simple prejudice.

For anyone who’s been gaslighted before, it’s easy enough to understand, I think.

I've been asking this question for ages and have never had a meaningful answer. Usually I get no answer at all. One poster directed me to a reddit group called witches vs the patriarchy for a good example of transinclusive feminism. It sounded like a cool name for a group but when I went to look it seemed to be mostly women and transwomen who thought they were literally witches trying to bring down the patriarchy by casting spells and hexxing Donald trump. Sooooo, yeh, whilst I see no reason for that kind of feminism to exclude TW, I don't see it achieving anything either. Another poster tried to explain it by citing the right to vote and own property as examples of women's rights issues which were compatible with transinclusive feminism, but disappeared when I asked how she explained the fact that transwomen were never denied these rights (along with men) but transmen were denied them (along with women). The only other answers I've got center around the fact that passing transwomen who are perceived as really being women are likely to also experience things like street harassment. And yeh, I guess that's true. People who impersonate women may also get treated like women in some limited and superficial ways. Hardly a ground breaking take. I'm sure Rachel dolziel gets mistaken for really being black and experiences racial abuse from time to time. That doesn't mean she's really black or that the anti racism movement should include her. I've had homophobic slurs shouted at me for holding hands with a female friend, that doesn't mean I need a place at Pride. Not to mention the fact that demanding access to someone else's liberation movement because you are choosing to impersonate their protected characteristic, which you can at any point shrug off if it gets too hard and go back to your life of privaledge, is unbelievably offensive. We don't accept it from people who pretend to be black, we understand that that's racism, so I have no idea why we not only accept it when it's done to women but are actively expected to celebrate and centre it within feminism. Well that's not true, I do know, it's because misogyny obviously. Anyway, rant over. Suffice to say I'm not convinced and unless feminism is going to confine itself to dealing with street harassment and making anti patriarchy potions until the end of time I don't believe that it can be inclusive of TW in any meaningful way. But as always I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Placemarking for any answers, as have asked this before and got none so very interested. I just cannot square that circle in my head. But there has to be a way to that I am missing..

Also agree that 'transinclusive' feminism to me would mean all female people included, so yes, transmen and 'non binary' too.

I know 'inclusive' these days though means exclude female people such as transmen and those who say they are nonbinary, and include male people though.

I think the answer is more basic.

They want to "be feminists" because that's what good people do.

They're not actually wanting to "centre women's rights and needs" - it's not about that. That's not their driver. It's a more basic, fluffy "be nice to everybody".

Because that's all it took for women to get rights, right? People just had to stop being silly and be nice to them.

So, by the same logic, they're now going to be nice to everyone else - including men who say they're women, and either want to mess up women's rights, or just don't care if they're collateral damage.

Linking two of my favourite connected things:

(who, at least from this video, I can't believe aren't a parody site. But it seems they're real).

Louise Perry: Are Contemporary Feminists Too Agreeable? - dumb-sounding title, but very good article, and will give OP most of an answer.

I am also place marking as I really want to hear the answer.

"Be kind" () overrides any ability to think critically about the purpose of feminism.

They don't recognise the irony that they being kind to men. At the expense of women.

The 'pronouns are rohypnol' thing works in these contexts.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Genuine question. I recognise that some men suffer from gender dysphoria or truly believe they were meant to be women, and some want to live out their fantasies. So I understand why they want access to women’s single-sex spaces and facilities, to validate themselves.

I understand why they want language and culture changed to include them in the category of women.

Some men will take advantage for personal gain (eg taking ‘women’s officer’ roles or sports prizes), or to harass women and girls in intimate spaces eg toilets, or to be transferred from a male to a female prison. Women and girls lose out, obviously, with no corresponding gains to compensate.

I can understand that women who aren’t feminists may not be concerned about the effects on women and girls.

But how does a feminist reconcile her feminism — centring women’s rights and needs, including the right to privacy and safety —with supporting transwomen’s actions that necessarily impinge on these?

This is a genuine question, as I wonder if I’m missing or misunderstanding something.

Hello! first off, thanks for having a civil discussion about this!

I think it helps when you know someone who is trans, while trans people aren't supposed to enlighten us, understanding their journey certainly helps.

RE the bathroom debate. I don't see this as predatory. a Man could just don a high vis jacket and a mop and mope around in the toilets if they wanted to harass us. Anyone who assaults a woman in a bathroom should be punished and face the full extent of the law.

I also don't see men en-mass all deciding to become women for their own personal gain, that would uproot their entire lives. I also think policing who and can go in a bathroom is dangerous and hurts all of us, who's to say someone who has more masculine features but is a woman who isn't trans gets bullied out? I don't want people judging my body based on my hands or jawline.

I do think there does need to be more discussion on women's sports. Particularly trans-women who have gone through male puberty, however tarring all trans women as biologically superior to women is absurd.

So in short, I don't see transwomen infringing on our rights, rather the exclusion of trans women in our society seems to go against the right and expression of our bodies.

Trans women make up 1 in 300 of women roughly. I'd rather focus our feminism on equal pay, representation in the board room. The right to access to abortion across Europe (Hi Poland).

I am a Feminist and do not fight for Trans rights - for the same reason The Cats Protection League don’t help dogs

Trans women make up 1 in 300 of women roughly.

Really?

You are claiming that roughly 1 in 300 males are appropriating womanhood for themselves.

Bizarre and unsubstantiated.

It's inevitable that men will try to control and dominate feminism to meet their needs. Why would men leave any thing uncontrolled and dominated. Persuading women that this structure is still feminism is easy, that's why it was called women's liberation in the past, it's somewhat clearer than the rather insipid and easily hijacked notion of "centering".

I think it helps when you know someone who is trans, while trans people aren't supposed to enlighten us, understanding their journey certainly helps

Many of us do know trans people. Often quite intimately.

And, yes, if a group wants others to understand them, then it is their job to 'enlighten' others. Personally, I wouldn't use that term. Enlighten in this context is offensive and diminishing. Inform or teach would be more appropriate.

RE the bathroom debate. I don't see this as predatory. a Man could just don a high vis jacket and a mop and mope around in the toilets if they wanted to harass us. Anyone who assaults a woman in a bathroom should be punished and face the full extent of the law.

Not again. Is this as good as it gets. Pathetic.

@JellySlice

Trans women make up 1 in 300 of women roughly.

Really?

You are claiming that roughly 1 in 300 males are appropriating womanhood for themselves.

Bizarre and unsubstantiated.

ok first off, I don't agree they are "appropriating" womanhood. There's no one way to be a woman.

Second of all around 0.3% of the population are transgender williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/

There's no one way to be a woman.

There most certainly is.