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.

You mean 'gay abandon' didn't give it away?

With my serious hat on, though: this idea that tw are more oppressed has an error built in at the start. - it assumes female humans and tw are the same when it comes to our relationship with femininity and masculinity, when in reality we're in opposite positions.

Born male = masculine standards of dress and behaviour expected; femininity-markers verboten.

Born female = feminine standards expected; masculinity verboten.

The argument 'tw are more oppressed' is predicated on the idea that tw and women are in the same category in terms of personal femininity markers and gendered expectations: that both groups want to display them, that both want to be treated the way men treat women.

It's forbidden to them, it's forced on us. This makes us, and our experiences, meaningfully different to theirs.

If someone were to make the case that males who reject the imposition of masculinity are disadvantaged compared to males who embrace it, I'd be nodding along. But somehow no one ever wants to talk about that injustice.

[quote Imicola]@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings I definitely did not say their rights supersede women's rights. I just prefer that in fighting for my rights i also respect other people's rights. Do you think your rights after more important than a trans womans rights?[/quote]
No one’s rights are inherently more important than other people’s. where giving one set of people rights impinges upon other people’s rights (as happens often), you have to have a constructive discussion about the way forward. However that’s not possible in this case because stonewall et all try to merge the right of natal women and trans women and deny the existence of this conflict, and dismiss talk of sex based rights as bigotry.

Other amomoly is that trans people, quite rightly, want stats collected to understand things better eg mental health, experience of crime, health outcomes, you name it.

That's obviously a very good idea.

Thing is at the same time some of them say that another much larger oppressed group cannot have a clear category to have their experiences etc captured statistically.

That in itself is s big big problem with the suggested approach.

Also if biology isn't important then what's all the surgery for?

You literally said that womens rights shouldn't "negate" the rights of TW as a "more oppressed group", meaning that where there is a conflict then the rights of TW should take precidence. But the whole problem is that you have it backwards because it's TW want to negate our rights. Women have the right to single sex spaces. That is our legal right under current equality legislation. TW want to be included in Women only spaces which would render them mixed sex. The only way for them to achieve this is to remove our existing legal rights. You think that they should be allowed to do this because they are apparently more oppressed. I disagree, but even if it was true that still doesn't give them the permission to remove our existing legal rights. Its a zero sum game, you cannot maintain women's current rights and give TW the rights they want. They are mutually exclusive positions. You either have to say no to what TW want, or you have to remove women's rights. Those are literally the only 2 options when it comes to single sex spaces, they either remain single sex (and exclude TW) or they become mixed sex (and exclude many women). My position as a feminist is to advocate for women's rights. As long as TW are making demands that involve women giving up their rights, then I will oppose that. I know this is a hard thing for some to grasp, but males not being given everything they want at the expense of women isn't actually the human rights violation some want to claim it is.

There is also the point that if that's the right thing to do (redefine the words women girl female) and have categorisation by self ID (which can change and leaves a lot of people with no category) then that needs doing GLOBALLY. And I think that people somehow might blanche at that.

Like how all the orgs when talking about UK stuff use the new way but when talking about people are quite happy to use the old definitions.

Either it's got to be done across the board or not at all.

Picking and choosing is even more nonsensical.

You either have to say no to what TW want, or you have to remove women's rights. Those are literally the only 2 options when it comes to single sex spaces, they either remain single sex (and exclude TW) or they become mixed sex (and exclude many women).

Also look at this from the point of view: Is there another way to meet the needs of TW without removing single sex spaces?

Yes. By providing additional gender neutral/mixed sex spaces.

Is there another way to meet the needs of females who would be excluded from single sex spaces?

OldCrone: 'I know better than you silly girls. Stop talking.' Your words, not mine. What I meant was I actually took part in feminist activism before the move away from feminism in the 1980s.

Actually, NiceGerbil's words, not mine. I was just quoting her.

What do you mean by 'the move away from feminism in the 1980s'? Do you mean you moved away from feminism in the 80s? Maybe you have forgotten what it actually is.

No. I haven't forgotten. 2nd wave feminism & 3rd wave had a break between them, whereas 3rd wave & 4th wave segued with just a change to the ideology.

If you read my posts correctly, instead of going on the offensive, you'd see that I said I've been a life long feminist.

Determining what female is. Feminine behaviour. What a female should look like, as if femininity is a natural occurence only in one sex, what body parts one has to have to be regarded as female.

What are you trying to say here? Do you think feminism is about femininity? I can see there's a bit of a linguistic trap here, because 'feminism' looks more like 'feminine' than 'female'. But feminism is about female people not feminine people.

@Joswis

No. I haven't forgotten. 2nd wave feminism & 3rd wave had a break between them, whereas 3rd wave & 4th wave segued with just a change to the ideology.

If you read my posts correctly, instead of going on the offensive, you'd see that I said I've been a life long feminist.

So what are you talking about when you say 'the move away from feminism in the 1980s'?

@soontobe60 So in addition to deciding who is a woman and who isn't, you are now also imposing your view on me, telling me I'm not a feminist. Something that I have worked for and supported for over 40 years. How arrogant

I'm still waiting for clarification on that description too Joswis and OldCrone. Joswis has accredited that description the definition of women to *erfs.

Determining what female is. Feminine behaviour. What a female should look like, as if femininity is a natural occurence only in one sex, what body parts one has to have to be regarded as female.

Is female a choice of identity that someone makes based on their personal feelings, behaviours, and coding those to a category they feel indicates femininity? (With these codings varying hugely across time and place?)

Or is female a fixed, physical state from conception resulting in a human who may have any choice of identity, feelings, behaviours and personal codings?

Are the millions of women who don't perform femininity not actually women?

In the 1980s there was an interregnum where feminism became less widespread among the general female population. If you had studied the history of feminism, you would find this

@MichelleofzeResistance, that is such a debatable question (your last sentence). I feel like that could be a PhD thesis.

Oh for pete's sake. You can complicate it all you like. Go write phds, have fun, have a really lovely time. Believe in your higher truths and your utterly superior understanding of the world and how very sad it is for plebs like me still bogged down in plain reality.

Really, I wish you nothing but joy in it. But add things to provision to add variation and stop fucking about with other people and their needed provisions and rights.

There are as many ways of being a women as there are women. But there is only one requirement for being one - it's being female.

Determining what female is. Feminine behaviour. What a female should look like, as if femininity is a natural occurence only in one sex, what body parts one has to have to be regarded as female.

So Jowis? Because I don't think males can simultaneously be female you are certain that I must believe the things above?

@Joswis

In the 1980s there was an interregnum where feminism became less widespread among the general female population. If you had studied the history of feminism, you would find this

Why would I need to study 'the history of feminism' to find out about what happened in the 80s?

170 posts and still not a single example of what transinclusive feminism would actually look like in practise. Can none of the people on this thread who believe in this stuff seriously find even one example, one single thing which is a women's rights issue under the theory that women are a group defined by gender identity rather than sex? Come on, even a bad example would be better than nothing at this point.

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

170 posts and still not a single example of what transinclusive feminism would actually look like in practise. Can none of the people on this thread who believe in this stuff seriously find even one example, one single thing which is a women's rights issue under the theory that women are a group defined by gender identity rather than sex? Come on, even a bad example would be better than nothing at this point.

Transinclusive femininism from the WI is on the basis of equality. That good enough for you? www.thewi.org.uk/about-us/wi-key-messages/equality-diversity-inclusion-policy

I'm still finding the inclusive arguments v sexist and based on stereotyped ideals of women.

And as usual, not much thought for the needs of transmen. Who are female.

Males can suffer under patriarchy, differently to women, but they can be the victims of homophobic attitudes. That's what TW receive.

Only females can experience misogyny: misos means hatred, gune means woman, gynaecology, female.

You can lie about the risks of blurring the boundaries of words and biology to women, sprinkled with 'be kind glitter,' but you're essentially disadvantaging them at best and actively harming at worst. It is misogyny .

Are we really back to jam making and knitting?

Okay. @OldCrone, you ask a question. I answer it factually and you're still arguing. I'm not engaging anymore. Spoiling for a fight isn't debate.