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.

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

I sense that we're on danger of a derail here. Whilst the question of whether TWAW and whether they are a physical threat to us is interesting, it's not the subject of this thread. I'm interested in understanding how a theory of feminism that includes TW and women but not TM or men can work in real life situations. Connie has already mentioned abortion rights and equal pay. Can you please explain how these are womens rights issues? Why is abortion a feminist issue? What is the basis for pay discrimination towards women? Since being a woman has nothing to do with biology, please do not make any reference to female biology in your answers and also explain how these issues affect TW and why. Thanks.

yes this nails it for me!

somehow I dont think an answer will be forthcoming

I may have Been unclear

Transwomen don't want the right to single sex spaces
They don't want the right that women have, the right to single sex spaces, they have it but don't value it

They want something else.. some want the right to enter single sex spaces even though they are not that sex.

others just want somewhere to piddle and get changed etc that isn't their sex. For those, an alternative is needed.

That's what I mean when I say the needs ( not wants ) are actually different

I've been a feminist all of my adult life, therefore a very long time. I believe feminism is not just for women, but simply to ensure equal rights for everyone. Because we live in a patriarchal society, a lot of the time the focus US on women, because we get a worse deal. But it can equally support men, in relation to rape or child custody for example.

I see sex/gender as a continuum. I know most of society doesn't, but that is my pov. Therefore, it's possible to be at one end or the other (man or woman) but that there is a lot of room between the two polar opposites. IMO, most of us are somewhere between the two. I'm nearer the 'woman' end, some are nearer the middle.

Gender queer people are still people. They need equal rights like the rest of us. It isn't my business what someone's genitalia is or the way they chose to identify.

If someone respects my choices about my life, I don't want to interfere with their choices. If they wish to identify as a woman and respect me/my choices, I accept them in female spaces. I can't reverse that statement because I don't identify as a man. But it would be nice if people who choose to identify as men were welcome in men's spaces.

If someone originally had male physiology, has had surgery, is taking hormones, making a difficult transition, facing ongoing social and emotional hostility, they are likely in the women's toilet to pee, NOT to enforce their 'maleness' on women. CIS men do that everyday, with wolf whistles, sexism, sexual assault, rape et al. They don't need to wear a dress to do it.

NOT to enforce their 'maleness' on women.

I beg to differ.

is it ever possible to discuss this without resoring to toilets?

toilets are the least of my worries frankly

im far more concerned about the legal definition of women being redefined to include men which at a stroke takes away everything designed to be for women, about women and to improve women's lives

Im also concerned at how the word woman is being erased from issues that can only be about female people - pregnancy, cervical cancer, endometriosis while men reamins firmly and without exception front and centre in campaigns about prostate cancer

if trans inclusionary feminsim is about equality between men and women, why is there no push back on the fact that it's quite obvious that the same sexism still remains - women are being shoved over while men havent had to budge an inch

I see sex/gender as a continuum. I know most of society doesn't, but that is my pov. Therefore, it's possible to be at one end or the other (man or woman) but that there is a lot of room between the two polar opposites. IMO, most of us are somewhere between the two. I'm nearer the 'woman' end, some are nearer the middle

I has a confusion. I'm a woman because of my biology. There are men and there are women. How is there a spectrum?

I'm not feminine and I reject gender roles, but I am still a woman.

'Gender' being a 'continuum' also confounds me. Surely it is a social construction? It's not natural and can mean many different things in different societies and cultures?

The bottom line of all this, is do what makes you happy, identify how you want, live and let live.

That does not include forcibly redefining people, removing their spaces to your own better convenience, removing laws that protect them for your own better convenience, and living while refusing to let them live in peace with equal respect for their feelings, needs, inclusion, lived experience and their basic right to be atheist or agnostic about your chosen belief system.

OP if you're interested in how some women reconcile this suppression of other women to advance the freedom of choice and supremacy of feelings and interests of males, then it's worth having a read through the relationships board and AIBU. You will always in any thread find the women who get their feelings of worth and status from being the top woman and supporter of male interests, the dynamic is very frequent. You'll also find the inbuilt socialised training evident in many daily life situations that males matter more, have more freedoms, more exemptions, less responsibilities, and a good woman puts them above herself and meets their needs, their happiness, does the taking care of and supporting.

There is a hell of a lot of inbuilt internalised misogyny, a lot to do with how women gain a sense of value, a lot to do with the need to be needed and to see themselves as unselfish and caring and protective of the vulnerable, and all based on the same bottom line: that someone born with a penis is intrinsically more valuable, important and of higher priority than someone born without.

I find it constantly wryly amusing that those who live most passionately by this belief will usually claim they don't believe in biological sex and can't see it without chromosomal analysis.

Religious tolerance is what is needed here. It's what GC women are pleading for. The right to be atheist or agnostic, for the creation of as many extra words and spaces as wanted, but not to be forcibly converted to a belief they do not hold which will harm the interests of those born female in the better interests of those born male.

Presumably with the logic that TWAW.

I think that's true but then it begs the question as to what definition of 'woman' we are using as unless this has some substantial meaning we've just eroded the concept of gender in all meaningful senses. Which given that women are disadvantaged because of their gender (TW are disadvantaged for other reasons perhaps?) we have also eroded all meaningful protection to vulnerable people.

Because they are 'feminists' in the same way TWAW - its a fantasy.

Thanks Connie, however unfortunately you seem not to have answered the question that I asked.

I agree that the human right to bodily autonomy is important, and that it affect both men and women in different ways, however I am specifically asking how abortion can be catagorised as a woman's rights issue and addressed within feminism. Simply being an issue of bodily autonomy is not enough. The circumcision of infant males is an issue of bodily autonomy, however this is clearly not a woman's rights issue which needs to be addressed within feminism. Or do you think it does? If abortion has nothing to do with female reproductive biology, and can affect both men and women, then in what sense is it specifically a woman's rights issue rather than a human rights issue. If we are standing in solidarity with the people of Poland rather than the women of Poland, then what is the role of feminism in this issue. I have similar questions regarding your example of equal pay. What is it that leads to women being paid less than men, being more likely to work part time and give up work entirely, choosing lower paid fields of work etc etc. What is the basis for these issues? What does feminism need to consider in order to get to the root cause of this inequality. Your answer should describe reasons that are relevent to both women and transwomen but not to men and transmen. Thanks.

I see sex/gender as a continuum. I know most of society doesn't, but that is my pov.

It's not a pov. Sex is categorically not a continuum. As for gender... can you define what 'gender' actually means using examples that aren't simply stereotypes which only apply to some women or some men and are therefore of no use in categorising anyone as a particular gender or sex?

There's no one way to be a woman.

There's no one way to be a man.

The sooner men start accepting gender non-conforming males as men instead of using the same old tactics of calling them girls the better.

The idea that a male is not a man because he does not conform to some standard of masculinity is bollocks.

Furrowed brows here at the suggestion that bodily autonomy means trans rights and abortion rights are somehow the same.

The bodily autonomy aspect of abortion is a female person's right to choose whether or not her body is used as a life support system for a human embryo.

The bodily autonomy aspect of trans rights is a person's right to choose to make cosmetic modifications to their own body.

I'm fine with trans people having that right (though it should be no more NHS-funded than my tattoos) but it's really not the same thing. Cosmetic surgery is not in the same league as forced incubation.

Anyway, to the OP: your title betrays a bias. It uses the usual linguistic flip common to the topic of transgenderism. The behaviour MN feminists are infamous for is trans inclusive.

Our feminism is for all people born as female bodies, regardless of later declarations of identity.

The real question is: how do those who exclude females from feminism in order to include males cope with the cognitive dissonance? I suspect a previous poster was right: by redefining feminism to be male-inclusive.

It isn't my business what someone's genitalia is or the way they chose to identify.

Do you think rapists with penises should be sent to women's prisons?

Of course there's only one way to be a woman: be born female! The rest is èntirely up to you!

Interestingly, I was listening to the Bbc World Service yesterday and they were talking about why many men are boycotting mask wearing and whether it's a way of expressing their toxic masculinity. About 0.3% of the show was people saying "what about Transmen and nonbinary people?! Stop being so exclusionary in assuming all males are men and all men are males!"

Actually I made that up - it was a show about men! Of course there was no debate about what a man is! Of course nobody felt any need to throw in a red herring about identity politics!

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.

Issue with this is, at the same time it would be absurd to say all males are biologically 'superior' (different, I prefer here) to females. So why have segregation at all? Why not just shrug our shoulders and say 'well mstudies show conclusively that men are stronger and faster, but tough women! Just train harder'

Thanks for sticking around a bit though, only up to here so might have gone on a bit, but I see there been a few posts already about it all. Much prefer discussion to head in sand! Usually we get a scolding plopped, then the OP doesn't return. Or returns and loses the nicey nice act once women disagree, usually ending in some misogynistic rant, then flounce.

Not saying you are scolding us though! That was more general tbh

I was going suggest directing the question to Male-Inclusive Liberal Feminists, but that acronym's taken, isn't it?

And in the interests of fairness, balance, equality and inclusivity, everyone should have a comparable and neutral label for their type of feminism, so...

One position is male-inclusive feminism, the other is female-inclusive feminism. Both are trans inclusive, but of different sexes of trans persons. So using 'trans inclusive/exclusionary' as a means of distinguishing between opposing branches of feminism really doesn't work.

"Male-inclusive feminists, help me understand" is the question. Baffles me too.

This is a brilliant thread. Not having to centre men and their needs (and whims) is exactly what I want from a feminist philosophy.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Equally couldn't any incidents in the mens room just be reported to the police?

Quite. This is the place (or one of the places..) the arguement falls apart. Its good enough to tell women to compromise their safety and if they are attacked, call the police. Suggest male people do this though, you are a bigot!

Also wish I hadn't added the bit about discussion on last post, as I have read further comments which show that no, no discussion was actually wanted, or so it seems.

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'm not a trans woman inclusive feminist, because I don't believe that men can be feminists: they can be allies however.

But from what I understand from non-TRA feminists who are transwomen inclusive, it's because they believe in "Transwomen are women."

A young woman I esteem highly (intellectually, she's brilliant & a deep thinker) said to me "Well, I think there are many roads to becoming a woman."

But maybe she hasn't really met with the basic fundamental sexism I met with, growing up, simply because I"m female. Which is progress of a sort, IYSWIM.

You're completely right. Rape convictions are at an all time low. This isn't ok one bit. We know that Trans-women do not pose a threat to women in bathrooms

The last sentence is debatable. Seeing as there is little difference between men and transwomen except their pronouns, I don't think you can argue men pose a threat but transwomen don't.

Anyway, that was not my point. My point being that some arguments for the twaw and feminism need to include them are very naive and do not center the protection of women. How can you fight for equality for eveyone if you are still fighting to keep safe yourself? It is like putting out a fire at your neighbours whilst your own house burns down.

Also, there was a link in here to a BBC podcast 'Tricky' with 4 young women discussing the issue of trans inclusion. A huge shout out to Bec Wonders (whom I met at the February Women's Lib conference) for putting the radical feminist position (but I always think it's the basic feminist position) really calmly compassionately & cogently.

It's allowed for feminists simply to be centring women.

But it's worth remembering that the feminist movement is a verrrry broad church - I can remember in the 1970s all the internecine disagreements and debates between different kinds of feminists.

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.

Telling use of language. Different does not mean superior. I would like to see transwomen do womens gymnastics. That would be challenging with their male skeleton. Funnily enough transwomen seem to pick the sports that favour men: rugby, cycling, weightlifting, freestyle fighting....

Oh dear, reading back, I seem to have skipped the part where butches like me are suddenly going to be kicked out of the womens in droves. We had that argument not long ago, and the person who was concered for us butches, did not actually seem to concerned with us butches at all (unless butches agreed with his view, of course) and was, oddly indeed, instead using us as a weird way to say men should be able to use female areas. Because of course, being butch is no different to being male. Same as the racist as fuck 'a transwoman is a woman as much as a black woman is' that gets chucked around a lot