Is using TRA rude and dismissive (a bit like how the word T**F) is used?

[dyslek]

I was wondering if using the term TRA to describe people is unhelpful. Does it entrench the idea that there are only two positions, and that we are not nuanced?
Obviously its not the most important point in this debate but it just struck me that maybe its not helpful and plays in to their hands.

Sorry that was a real diversion!

I suppose my main point is that

Too many men see women they don't personally know as 2D cutouts of a handful of 'types'

Too many men have been really strongly influenced to connect woman/ girl with trappings (clothes hair makeup etc) to the point that that's pretty much all they see, not even recognising that it's a person not an automaton designed to look sexy to men (sexual harassment of younger schoolgirls being a good example)

So many to men it makes sense to say. If I put on these trappings then I will be seen as a woman
If I put on these trappings then I'll be seen as a woman even if I only do it on Mondays and Wednesdays. The rest of the time I present as male. And anyone who misgenders me on a lady day is just being mean
If I put on these trappings then I am a woman because that's what a woman is

I am growing increasingly angry tbh.

Female people are half the population of the world. We are still oppressed horribly all over the world because of it.

The words female, woman, girl. Have well understood meanings. Yes there are social expectations overlaid but these words relate to sex.

And lately. Just lately. We get.

The word woman has always been an identity. Nothing to do with sex. Prove otherwise.

Sex is very complicated. On a spectrum. Not important in society. Gender is the important thing. Prove otherwise.

Opening sex segregated up on a self known gender is fine. And in fact how it's always been. Prove otherwise.

Women and girls are not oppressed on the basis of their biology. Prove otherwise.

Etc etc.

It's so insulting. Some person on I think it was UN women Twitter said women were a formless entity. Or something.

Wtf?

Yes I'm sick of it tbh.

And the way the people who use 'inclusive' language do not do so consistently... Shows that they don't really believe any of it, not in the end.

Oh and men are waaayyy worse to other men when it comes to short/ overweight etc. Let's not forget that.

No one is threatening TRAs with rape and death threats, creating memes with nooses, baseball bats studded with nails or wrapped with barbed wire, making videos of having their backs broken, or being beheaded, guillotined, and garrotted. No one is cancelling or deplatforming TRAs, the police isn't arresting them for the hate speech that they produce, collude with, or remain silent about.

I could go on, but you get the picture. No one uses TRA with the same violent or insulting qualifiers that are typically used with the words b!tch, c*nt, and wh0re.

So some people are mildly dissatisfied with the implications that comes with TRA especially when their 'allies' behave like the above.
This is not a problem. This is a reflection of what they have allowed to happen in their name.

I've started using 'gender extremists' to refer to those pushing the madder edges of the ideology.

(Longstanding poster here btw, just had a LoD-inspired name change.)

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral, in the sense that gender critical feminists literally do not think trans women are women, so they exclude them from their feminism.

However people are mortally offended by the term TERF, and it's been thrown around as an insult. "Gender critical feminist" is a term that people who don't think TWAM use here to describe their position, so I use it, too.

Trans rights activists is a fair description of those people who are fighting for transgender rights, even if GC feminists dispute that it's rights they are fighting for. The conflict is that transgender people should have the right to have their gender identity accepted, and be included in spaces which match their gender, while GC feminists dispute that gender identity is even a real thing, and that all spaces which benefit from such segregation by should be separated entirely on the grounds of sex.

However, like TERF, TRA is only used by people opposing the position, and unfortunately I don't know of a term that trans rights activist use. Transgender-inclusive feminists is a reasonable description, but I don't know if GC feminists would accept it.

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral, in the sense that gender critical feminists literally do not think trans women are women, so they exclude them from their feminism.

But include trans men and females of all gender identities so not trans exclusionary.

The conflict is that transgender people should have the right to have their gender identity accepted, and be included in spaces which match their gender, while GC feminists dispute that gender identity is even a real thing, and that all spaces which benefit from such segregation by should be separated entirely on the grounds of sex.

Sex segregation is based on different biological needs. What would be the purpose of gender segregation?

@jellyfrizz

The conflict is that transgender people should have the right to have their gender identity accepted, and be included in spaces which match their gender, while GC feminists dispute that gender identity is even a real thing, and that all spaces which benefit from such segregation by should be separated entirely on the grounds of sex.

Sex segregation is based on different biological needs. What would be the purpose of gender segregation?

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of it, just trying to summarise the GC position in a way that both sides would agree.

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral, in the sense that gender critical feminists literally do not think trans women are women, so they exclude them from their feminism.

Gender critical feminism, radical feminism, second wave feminism all exclude males including transwomen. Not transpeople en masse. Any woman, regardless of how she chooses to present, is including in feminism. Transmen may have specific health or other needs based on their female biology and feminists will fight for their right to access whatever support they need accordingly. So 'TERF' is a factually incorrect term, and is mainly used in a derogatory fashion to try to shut down debate. Far from neutral.

@jellyfrizz

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral, in the sense that gender critical feminists literally do not think trans women are women, so they exclude them from their feminism.

But include trans men and females of all gender identities so not trans exclusionary.

This is sophistry. If you exclude trans women from your feminism, then you are trans exlusionary. Trans men do not consider gender critical feminists to be their allies.

jayhulme.com/blog/transmen

@VeryLongBeeeeep

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral, in the sense that gender critical feminists literally do not think trans women are women, so they exclude them from their feminism.

Gender critical feminism, radical feminism, second wave feminism all exclude males including transwomen. Not transpeople en masse. Any woman, regardless of how she chooses to present, is including in feminism. Transmen may have specific health or other needs based on their female biology and feminists will fight for their right to access whatever support they need accordingly. So 'TERF' is a factually incorrect term, and is mainly used in a derogatory fashion to try to shut down debate. Far from neutral.

I don't use the term, because gender critical feminists is a term accepted by both sides, and (with some exceptions) using it doesn't cause offense.

Trans men don't want GC feminists as allies.

www.huckmag.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/why-are-trans-men-always-left-out-of-the-conversation/

Gender critical feminism and radical feminism are two different things.

Whether or not transmen wan to be included by GC feminists is neither here or there. Feminism is for all women of the XX variety. And GC feminists are not a monolith either. Some will personally feel that transmen are included and some will not feel that way.

This is sophistry. If you exclude trans women from your feminism, then you are trans exlusionary. Trans men do not consider gender critical feminists to be their allies.

How is this sophistry?

The claim is that we are 'Trans Exclusionary'. Yet not all trans people are excluded - so how does that make any sense?

It is not really relevant as to whether transmen (or non-binary, aromantic, agender, cloudgender etc) wish to be included in gc feminism or not - we are not including them by force, they are free to do as they wish but they are not being excluded on the basis that they are trans.

I do find this whole part of the conversation interesting. The first time I came across the term 't*f' was a picture showing an effigy of a woman with a noose around her neck being carried along at some sort of Pride event with the caption, 'Ritual hanging of the T*f'.

Which, I must say, shocked me somewhat.

I would be interested Dadjoke to know what term you would use for the transsexuals who support women's rights to single sex spaces? In general these people very much support the gc view. They can't realistically be called t**fs as that sounds utterly ridiculous but what do you call them?

I am very much a fan of live and let live. I am also a fan of not letting any male people decide to use single sex facilities, spaces and provisions that are intended for female people.

However, like TERF, TRA is only used by people opposing the position, and unfortunately I don't know of a term that trans rights activist use. Transgender-inclusive feminists is a reasonable description, but I don't know if GC feminists would accept it

It's been said before, but not everyone who is critical of transgender ideology identifies with the label 'feminist'. I don't, even though I do centre women and girls/females in my thinking on certain issues, Gender critical is all that is needed.

• Trans men don't want GC feminists as allies.

We've had transmen posting on here who do... who are 'GC feminists'. As they're female, they're part of feminism if they so wish.

Your silly generalisation leads nowhere useful.

The concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism I think is neutral

It isn't, because it is creating a term that is only meaningful if you accept transgender ideology. If focuses on 'exclusion' rather than on being critical of gender constructs.

Feminists and other people who are critical of transgender ideology are focused on protecting the integrity and the reality of the female experience; and on protecting the spaces, services and sports that have been set aside for females.

Being 'included' in feminism doesn't mean being sent a badge, coming to special meetings etc.

ALL women are on the minds of feminists when issues are discussed. Not just the ones who are in the gang.

EG fighting for abortion rights will help trans and non binary females.

That's what feminism is for all women means.

It also draws a boundary. The things we are focused on are thinks that impact women. Some of the things agitated for will also help males, as a by product.

To say that feminism will work for what male trans people want, expands the scope of the remit. If some males are included why not others? As males have a lot of the same problems irrespective of gender ID.

And how and why should we be excluding trans men, when they need some of the same things as us?

It doesn't make sense. Especially given that our sexed bodies are the root of the enormous amount of oppression women and girls are under all around the world and for millennia.