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.

It operated as a collective. No changes unless all were in agreement. I'd forgotten how nice that was actually. The good old days.

No EP, you're overthinking my point. My point was, she held an extreme position, but was not static and was open to change.

So female attraction to female is an extreme position?

She taught in 2 of the UKs best universities until she was past 70. Internationally recognised, conferences etc.

All that tells me is that people will listen to any old shite for a free day out paid for by students and research funding.

Admirable woman. Stayed relevant because she has a sharp critical mind.

Mmm. Or could never actually get passed her submission to male expectations. I'm not judging, it's how academics are.

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

OK, next we have an actual list of specifics, so that's great:

• Street harrassment
• job discrimination
• sexual violence
• General sexism

I'm haven't seen the post about managing the email inbox but I assume it fits within the catagory of "job discrimination" and "general sexism". Let's go.

So, firstly let's seperate the catagory "Transwoman" out a bit. Transwomen can broadly be said to present in 3 basic types.

1. transwomen who have made no steps whatsoever towards transition, not even clothes or pronouns. Physically indistinguishable from every single other man. These transwomen are perceived by every single person they meet as male. There is no way of identifying them either as transgender or as women. They do not experience any level of street harrassment, sexual violence, job discrimination, or general sexism, that isn't also experienced by every other man. Feminism has nothing for them.

2. transwomen who have made an attempt at transitioning but are a long way from passing. They may be wearing makeup or feminine clothes or using female pronouns. They may specifically have informed some people that they identify as a women. The average person on the street perceives them as an eccentrically dressed or overtly feminine man. The people they know pretend they are a woman to be polite. These transwomen may experience street harrasment, sexual violence, and discrimination at work but this will be on the basis of them being seen as feminine men not because they are seen as women. It's most often related to homophobia, and has very little in common with the harrasment, sexual violence, and discrimination that women face.

1. A Transwoman who is very well passing. They have identified as a woman from a young age and taken all available medical steps. Many people on their life have no idea that they are trans and the average person in the street perceives them to be a biological woman. They will experience much of the same street harrassment, sexual violence, and discrimination as women. This discrimination is sex based however. They are only experiencing it because they are mistaken for actually belonging to the female sex. The root of the discrimination is still female biology. If a "cis" man took the same steps to present as female in this way, they would experience the same issues. A trans man who had taken no steps towards transition would also experience the same issues. It has nothing to do with identity.

So, clearly the first 2 types of transwomen do not share these issues in common with women. The first actively still enjoys exactly the same male privaledge as any "cis" man. The second faces discrimination of a similar type but vastly different aitiology to women. Feminism may benefit them indirectly, but no more so than it would benefit any other feminine men.

The third Transwoman shares some of the same issues as women. She will be helped by feminism, but since the discrimination is based on false assumptions about her biological sex, feminism will only help her if it focuses it's activism on women as a sex class. Feminism is useful to her in the same way as antiracist activism is helpful to Rachel Dolziel, or Pride is helpful to straight people who are mistakenly perceived as being LGB.

OK, so, in summary, transinclusive feminism is:

• education, campaigning platforms, and the celebration of anyone who self identifies as having the gender identity "woman".
• Activism to prevent harassment, violence, discrimination, and "general sexism" towards anyone who is believed to have, or perceived social as having, female biology.

Thanks. As you can hopefully see, transinclusive feminism is hopelessly limited in both its scope and practical value, and ultimately still relies on a sex based understanding of "woman" for most of its efficacy. So on balance I don't think I'll be adopting it any time soon. But I really appreciate finally having some answers to my question.

Excellent response! I need to copy this if you don't mind

It operated as a collective. No changes unless all were in agreement.

Very glad to hear it.

A debate does not involve shutting down other perspectives.

Nor does it involve ignoring them.

I'm quite prepared to spend all evening harping on this point. The acceptance of tw as women contributes to and worsens gender dysphoria in females.

An actual lifelong sufferer of gender dysphoria is right here telling you you are making it worse. For the born-female. For the sake of the born-male.

I have yet to see, on this thread or any other, a so-called trans-inclusive feminist acknowledge this point.

No EP, you're overthinking my point. My point was, she held an extreme position, but was not static and was open to change.

So female attraction to female is an extreme position? Not since the 19th century. That isn't the point I was making. Her extreme position was female separatism, moving on to being accepting of t women. If you want to debate, debate the point being made, not something totally different.

She taught in 2 of the UKs best universities until she was past 70. Internationally recognised, conferences etc.

All that tells me is that people will listen to any old shite for a free day out paid for by students and research funding. Shows no understanding of how international academia works. She is a respected and as I said, very well published writer in her field.

Admirable woman. Stayed relevant because she has a sharp critical mind.

Mmm. Or could never actually get passed her submission to male expectations. I'm not judging, it's how academics are. Lesbian separatists don't submit to men. The clue is in the phrase lesbian separatist.

Sorry EscapePlanning, but you clearly don't understand the points I made. Or you're being obtuse and spoiling for a fight.

So Joswis that would be a no , you have no meaningful evidence that shows having males in female only spaces is not detrimental to female safety. Good to know.

She taught in 2 of the UKs best universities until she was past 70. Internationally recognised, conferences etc.

I will expand. I've been very entertained watching the socialist haters of capitalism in academia spending shed loads of students cash on so called conferences in attractive locations every summer. Boggled but not surprised at the hypocrisy. I bet the travel industry will get a boost in summer 2021 when academics demand double the amount of flights and hotels.

If you want to debate, debate the point being made, not something totally different.

As I've pointed out, you did that to me. Practice what you preach.

Lesbian separatists don't submit to men. The clue is in the phrase lesbian separatist.

If she included males as lesbians she wasn't actually a lesbian separatist.

I have yet to see, on this thread or any other, a so-called trans-inclusive feminist acknowledge this point.

Me neither. On any platform. It's all about male feelings.

@334bu

So Joswis that would be a no , you have no meaningful evidence that shows having males in female only spaces is not detrimental to female safety. Good to know.

So 334bu, other than working in an actual lesbian support group where they were included and supported as women. As has been stated on here MORE than once. Which you've made a choice to ignore.

But continue on your fixated path by all means. Reductive thinking.

Lord MEN have held the reins of power and access to the finance to increase and embed that power for millenia, enough time one would have thought to address and solve the issue of male violence. What on earth could be stopping them sorting it out - apathy, incompetence, or just straight old loving of the power and contempt for those against which they use the inherent threat or actual violence? It's a real conundrum.

I’m going to make this my last post on this thread as I don’t actually wish to derail further (but people keep replying to my posts, which compels me to reply).

I read a post ages ago which summed it up pretty well IMO.

A group consisting of Donald Trump and nine homeless men is as a group more ‘powerful’ than a group consisting of ten female execs each earning £100k a year. However, 90% of the first group can’t even afford a sandwich, and the one powerful member isn’t interested in helping the less fortunate.

It’s well documented that a small proportion of men hold the power/wealth, hence the common argument for wealth distribution. The average bloke isn’t really in a position to change the world. Of course, we should call out examples of sexism etc and try to be the best men we can, but where it starts to fall apart is when it’s used as a beating stick against the average guy, who is of course a member of the class of ‘men’ but in reality has little power to change the world and whose first priority is usually providing for his wife/partner and their children in these uncertain times when steady employment is not a given.

It’s this complete (and convenient) lack of nuance which allows people to feel righteous about constantly criticising the vast majority of men who don’t really have the power or resources to change the world.

You could equally analyse it from many other perspectives, looking at classes like ‘white people’, ‘middle class people’, ‘high earners’, etc, but many feminists don’t seem to want to do that because then women fall into the groups that can actually do something to change the world and cease to be in the oppressed group that they are when it’s looked at through a binary male/female lens. So ‘women’ may be more oppressed than ‘men’, but white women may on average be more privileged than black men.

It’s like how feminists have been oh so happy to decry the white male for decades but get extremely offended when POC employ the ‘Karen’ meme to criticise the behaviour of white women towards those less privileged.

And again, how do men stop two out of three million from committing murder (the main example given of ‘male violence’)? How can we police these men, when undoubtedly there are so many already involved with the probation service etc. Do we need some manner of predictive system, or chaperones for violent men?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Lesbian separatists don't submit to men. The clue is in the phrase lesbian separatist.

If she included males as lesbians she wasn't actually a lesbian separatist.

Read the first post. Or don't.

Over and out. Can't be bothered repeating myself.

So 334bu, other than working in an actual lesbian support group where they were included and supported as women.

Funnily enough, other women in female only spaces have had different experiences of males being able to access them. Some of them quite negative. Do you accept that your personal experience isn't necessarily representative of every woman's experience of MTF trans people in formerly female spaces?

Sorry EscapePlanning, but you clearly don't understand the points I made. Or you're being obtuse and spoiling for a fight.

It's clear what you said. The woman you are presenting here became a proponent of male inclusive lesbians.

I do wonder (and this is the thing that is blowing my mind)

Excuse me I do not have a university education or published papers.

Do people really believe that TWAW? I mean genuinely, honestly?

Do people really believe there is such thing as a male lesbian?

I mean I hear people say it but I really wonder what is the motivation?

My transwomen friends are all nice so all transwomen are nice .....now that is reductive thinking!

Read the first post. Or don't.

Over and out. Can't be bothered repeating myself.

If I've got something wrong, why not explain? I'm listening. Should be easy to refute, if you aren't claiming she's a lesbian separatist who included MTF trans people as women.

It's clear what you said. The woman you are presenting here became a proponent of male inclusive lesbians.

Yes that's what I got too. But apparently that's not true.

"In fact theres quite a few ex GC lesbians who quite openly say they wouldn't date trans women who've been welcomed by trans people"

Interesting, do you have any names here? If a 'few' exist, it should be easy to say who these few are? Just it appears to be hugely rare for people to go from GC to..not GC so I would be very interested in these former gender critical lesbians who are not gender critical now.

@LordLancington Lockdown is hard for all of us, are you feeling okay? Why do you keep posting irrelevant rants on this thread that have nothing to do with the topic of conversation. Its very odd behaviour.

DrDavid. Of course they don't! Most people are firmly grounded in reality although some might pretend not to be.

It's all about male feelings.

Yes and no, in my experience.

Elsewhere online I've spoken about my experiences with trans-inclusive feminists. If I accept the grudgingly inevitable juggernaut of this brave new world, adopt their language, and present myself as trans, some of them can see me.

From this I surmise that, though male feelings taking precedence was programmed in young and is invisible to them, they are consciously aware of the imperative to prioritise trans feelings.

You have to make concession to their words so they can fill in the gaps and see that male dysphoric trans people are being prioritised over female dysphoric trans people.

And then the consciously felt imperative to Do Feminism by actively deprioritising the male kicks in, and for a moment I am seen.

At which point the conversation is always derailed by a male trans person.

Interesting, thanks.