Trans [male] inclusive feminists, help me understand - Part 2

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

I think this is an important debate and the first thread filled up over-fast with a couple of giant derails, so I’ve taken the liberty of starting a continuation thread, hope that’s ok with you thinkingaboutLangCleg, (OP of the first one).

I’ve amended the title to include [male] as - as many on the previous thread pointed out - the issue here is not about including trans people in feminism, as those of us questioning this do automatically include biologically female trans/NB people, but about including biologically male people in the movement which most understand to be about the fight for women’s rights.

If anyone has a less clumsy way to word that, please let me know and I’ll ask MNHQ to edit the title.

Link to first thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4077998-Transinclusive-feminists-please-help-me-understand

I am always amazed at the sheer lack of arguments from those who do include males in their feminism, and the endless need to build a straw man to take down.

Joswis you come across as highly educated and articulate so I was disappointed by the level of your arguments.

For example, you said:

Due to cancer, I have no female reproductive tissue of any type left. If being a woman is biology, I'm no longer a woman, I'm a husk

Only TRAs/allies have ever suggested that women with disorders or cancers of the reproductive system are not women. It is so nonsensical it isn’t even an argument. Only women can have female factor infertility. Only women can have disorders of the female reproductive system. Only women can have hysterectomies.

The GC argument is categorically not that in order to be recognised as a woman you must have a perfectly/still functioning female reproductive system. I don’t even know how someone could come up with such an absurd notion. As a post menopausal woman myself - again, only women can go through the menopause - I know that whether or not a woman is ovulating, able to give birth, menstruating etc, is immaterial. The only thing that determines whether someone is a woman or not is if that person is an adult who is of the female sex class.

I’ve always loved this quote (from a black radfem, now suspended, on Twitter):

Imagine lacking the intellectual capacity to understand having a class defining characteristic is not a reduction thereto

But you don’t lack that intellectual capacity, Joswis. And yet you choose to conflate having a class defining characteristic with being reduced to nothing but that characteristic.

Why?

If anyone has a less clumsy way to word that, please let me know and I’ll ask MNHQ to edit the title.

I can think of many less clumsy ways but they would probably get you deleted.

Well, yes...

The GC argument is categorically not that in order to be recognised as a woman you must have a perfectly/still functioning female reproductive system.
I never understand how people making Joswis's "argument" can really believe it or not see how insulting it is. Humans are bipedal. Do they also argue that humans who lose a leg are no longer human?

I never understand how people making Joswis's "argument" can really believe it or not see how insulting it is.

The reason they do this is because they don't have a reply to the actual argument, so they have to pretend the argument is something else.

Or they suddenly have to rush off because they have a life and we're so mean. That's their other tactic.

The reason they do this is because they don't have a reply to the actual argument, so they have to pretend the argument is something else

I dont think I've ever seen the argument put across on its own. It seems to always be tied to something else. Be it race or intersex or sexuality.

The aim being obviously to liken it to racism or homopbia in order to prevent any further discussion as no one wants to be seen as homophobic or racist.

Ironic given stonewall definition of homosexuality being re defined as same gender attraction. And jo Swindon live on the radio insinuating that the definition of woman is so clouded by the inclusion of butch lesbians and black women that allowing those born male into the definition is the next logical step

I never understand how people making Joswis's "argument" can really believe it or not see how insulting it is. Humans are bipedal. Do they also argue that humans who lose a leg are no longer human?

It’s awful, isn’t it. Really dehumanising.

I wanted to comment on the old thread but couldn't be arsed to get derailed. This is what I would have said.

Firstly, as many others have said, my feminism is not trans exclusive. I include transmen in my feminism. Even if they don't think of themselves as women.

I think those feminists who consider themselves transinclusive, by which I mean those feminists who are consider fighting for the rights of transwomen as a part of feminism (note I have no problem with fighting for the rights of transwomen, I just don't think it's part of feminism), can only do so if they either (1) genuinely believe TWAW; or (2) believe that freeing men from traditional gender roles is an important part of feminism; or (3) both.

I have never had a logical explanation as to why TWAW. A year or two ago I read a long paper by in so called transinclusive feminist philosophers (I can't find it now) which basically said TWAW because they experience male violence. I don't think it is good enough to define women by reference to their treatment by men.

I would love to see men freed from gender stereotyping, and women too. But what no "transinclusive" feminist has demonstrated how transgender ideology achieves this.

If any "transinclusive" feminists can come and explain the logic of their position I would be very pleased to hear it.

Maybe we just need to some how remind people thats exclusion isn't always a bad thing.

We can't fix problems we can't see.

Its no good needing to know the effects of say medicin on 20-35 year olds then include results on 60 year olds.

We can't address failings in the education system on say males from ethnic minorities if we include all the white girls in it.

And we can't solve male violence which is also a huge problem for other males if we hide it in the womens results or offload the males seemingly most at risk onto women.

That doesn't benefit any body. In fact with many things that's what got us into this very mess.

Like ppe being made for the male body

Like women being treated as just small men in medicine

Like omitting the truth abiut sexed bodies on medical records. Didnt turn out so well when it not only nearly killed a patient it also resulted in a baby being still born.

If any "transinclusive" feminists can come and explain the logic of their position I would be very pleased to hear it.

I always thought that once the legal cases got to Court then we'd hear the argument very clearly and I'd then think "ahhh, so that's where they are coming from".

Instead, so far, we've had:

• intersex is a third sex
• A GRC changes your sex for ALL purposes (ignoring that the GRA itself lists many exceptions)
• White people can identify as black
• Non-binaries being misgendered is a sackable offence even when nobody knows they've started identifying as NB
• It doesn't matter if teenage girls are made infertile with no sexual function as some adults are asexual.

I always thought that once the legal cases got to Court then we'd hear the argument very clearly and I'd then think "ahhh, sothat'swhere they are coming from"

Those are the ones that fit to court OCC withdrew guidence after JR was lodged and several other counties followed suit.

Which was great for the kids affected by it but it sadly still left us with no clear legal court enforced guidence. So schools and businesses allowed to continue to do things unchallenged.

It seems strange that something lawful and approved and seemingly harmless has not as if yet proved itself to be so in court.

There was a MN thread a few weeks back also about a woman who has spent the last few years trying to obtain a document that should be available for public viewing, im assuming its like the American or Canadian version of a FOI request for impact assessments

Now I'm a bit sketchy on details I remember so feel free to correct/update etc but apparently there are meant to be gender based assessment on bills that are introduced . When it comes to bill c16 I think it is about trans inclusion , this gender based assessment seems to be very difficult to obtain. Several years later and multiple emails phone calls etc passing the buck onto other departments and people and the woman in question still has not received a copy of this assessment.

Similar happened in Wales I believe ( please correct me if I'm wrong ) where a FOI request was made regarding impact assessments and was unsuccessful. It had somehow been lost or deleted or misplaced and there was no record of it all despite assurances one had been done.

Picking up on this from the end of the first thread..

As in, it's impossible to have a differing view on here.

I do not understand this. At all.

Even if you are a minority opinion, you still can talk about that opinion. I do, on some topics.

GC feminism was at one stage a hugely minority opinion, most on here would be very against posts which said anything but TWAW. I remember this. Slowly over time, as the GC people refused to hide away, opinions started to change, and now it seems to have flipped somewhat. But if its your beliefs, its your beliefs right?! I will never ever understand the view that if people do not agree with you, you are being silenced.

Also the argument saying nonGC feminists are silenced appears to simultaneously be
-noone answers their posts
-too many answer their posts so they feel shouted down

I think it's worth expanding on this point from @CaraDuneRedux -
And no, it's not at all like being gay. After all, being gay doesn't involve children being put on puberty blockers, and a path to cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgery.

There's a history of gay people being put on hormones, or through surgery, with or without their consent.

So by that 'catch the trans' equals 'catch the gay' logic, all gender dysphoria clinics are pure evil, they should be shut down and their clinicians put on trial for malpractice on an industrial scale.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I actually want gender dysphoria sufferers to get the medical help they need.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I actually want gender dysphoria sufferers to get the medical help they need

I'll say what all of us say on other threads

We all want trans people to receive good healthcare. Health care based on facts with scientific proof behind it. Proper records of all the pros and cons and side effects and complications .

Proper followup so outcomes can be documented and considered when making decisions.

What is needed first and foremost is a definition. We have say mermaids who claim its not being born on the wrong body. And its not stereotypes. Then we have the nhs criteria thats based on feelings of having the wrong body and stereotypes such as toys and clothes.

Now if we are going to treat someone who's transgender medically then do we A) not need to know what exactly is being treated.

And B) all the relevant information thats not withheld or denied further investigation because of accusations of transphobia.

The nhs also have updated their guidence on puberty blockers. They are now longer listed as fully reversible

We all want trans people to receive good healthcare. Health care based on facts with scientific proof behind it. Proper records of all the pros and cons and side effects and complications .

I agree with you and think this would be fantastic. But apparently we're wrong, being trans is just like being gay, so we can only conclude that the Tavistock is exactly the same as a clinic for gay teens that puts their "patients" through conversion therapy and lobotomies.

I think actually its a bit if an own goal.

I mean you cant argue people who want good proper evidence based healthcare want your healthcare removed , without in fact indirectly adnitting that the current system is not evidence based scientifically proven health care.

Thanks, Talkingto — that first thread got derailed by, I think, the usual suspects. I’d have liked to hear more from women who genuinely feel (believe?) men can be women. Or is it only, ever, wanting to be kind to men who seem to be vulnerable?

Glad you’ve started a new one, anyway

as many others have said, my feminism is not trans exclusive. I include transmen in my feminism. Even if they don't think of themselves as women.

I agree, Monkey. I was using the language women use for themselves when they say TWAW, because I wanted to be, er, inclusive ofwomen who say TWAW, because I wanted to hear their viewpoint. Iyswim!

@Whatwouldscullydo

I think actually its a bit if an own goal.

I mean you cant argue people who want good proper evidence based healthcare want your healthcare removed , without in fact indirectly adnitting that the current system is not evidence based scientifically proven health care.

Yes. But parts of the last thread went exactly there, and I got a post deleted for saying I want trans people to be able to access excellent, evidence based healthcare (subsequently reinstated, but you have to wonder why someone would report it at all).

But then, if you have been following your queer/critical social justice theory, and you believe that science is a social construct, and it’s all colonial, heteronormative, white supremacist, then none of that old, positivist rubbish like falsifiability, logic etc is necessary, you just have to “feel” it’s right.

But then, if you have been following your queer/critical social justice theory, and you believe that science is a social construct, and it’s all colonial, heteronormative, white supremacist, then none of that old, positivist rubbish like falsifiability, logic etc is necessary, you just have to “feel” it’s right

I'm trying to work out how these options being available and one person choosing one route after looking at evidence available in any way impacts whats right fir someone else. Healthcare is about the patient and the patient only. You cant not do whats best for you because someone else feels it invalidates their choices.

People make decisions all the time in medicine. They decline drugs or surgery or whatever. It doesn't mean that drugs won't be the right choice fir someone else.

For example a woman being offered and choosing a c section for number 2 after a c section for first child, has absolutely no affect or is in no way a statement on someone else's choice to try fir a VBAC

Similarly surely uts possible to have more than one thing wrong, you be transgender and still need counselling to deal with other things in your life. Its not instantly saying you need therapy to make sure you are no longer trans