Feminism vs Women's rights: why the division?

[TheTERFnextDoor]

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

Does anyone know why many women in the gender critical movement refer to themselves as "women's rights campaigners" (or a variation of this) and reject the term "feminist"?

KJK is one of the women who does this. I always find this surprising as, to me, she's one of the best feminists in the UK! I understand feminism as someone who stands up for the rights of women and girls. Therefore, to me, the terms are synonymous?

I'd appreciate some explanation from others.

Indeed

@Walkingtheplank what has KJK achieved ?

Nah, soz mate. Nowadays, feminism includes too many men for me, personally. But you crack on with that if it's how you prefer it.

@Baldieheid, do you mean includes as in some men support women's equality, or "includes" as in feminism is unisex?

I'll give you one guess which option is okay by me 😂

I think feminism means different things to different people but women's rights is much easier to understand.

IIRC it was other people telling KJK she wasn't a real feminist (can't remember what for - being a SAHM? Having right wing people attend her rallies?) that caused her to decide it was easier not to be one and bow out of the purity spirals.

Given she's the one actually creating a successful platform for ANY woman to speak publicly - giving all women a voice not just those in ivory towers - it's hilariously ironic, really.

@GarlicGrace

Here ya go.

Yes, this.

If it is OK to tell women to like it or lump it, it should be OK to tell trans women to like it or lump it.

Why isn't it?

What is it about trans women which means they must be accommodated whereas women can be ignored?

I wonder...

🤔

They say they just want to be treated like women, but they don't actually want to be treated like women, do they? If they were treated like women, society would not give a flying fuck about how they feel or what they need or how they identify.

@Signalbox oh if you go on her you tube channel, it's all there ,love. H.T.H

No it doesn’t help. There are hundreds of videos on her youtube channel. At least name the “far-right men” she has interviewed if you can’t be bothered to link.

The "compensation" part sounds worryingly like 'equity' which is the new buzzword in critical social justice circles.

It is, though? I understood Buzzword Equity to mean making things equally possible, like that illustration of three kids standing on different-sized boxes so they can all see over the wall.

Only necessary because so many people take 'equal' to mean 'the same' and then turn the whole thing into an argument about whether feminists say women are the same as men 🙄

I watched a discussion about this topic of diversity, inclusion and equity yesterday - between Peter Boghossian and Tabia Lee. Equity, in practice, often means reverse discrimination:

https://www.youtube.com/live/3He1B0ZM50s?si=fg0GWd0e7XqRctyD

Equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome - for the reason that people are different and all is not equal - so equity installs a system of compensation in order to achieve perceived equality.Both equity and equality are theoretical constructs applied to the reality of messy, human affairs

Once you get into equity however, you will start dealing with the wangling of it that this means it's ok to knock women back and punish them for the privilege of being born female in order to provide equity for male people with TQ+ identities who identify as the most oppressed group.

I'll go for equality of access. If male people need additional resources when they have TQ+ identities to those normally provided for male people, great. Their equality of access to resources, facilities, health care etc should be provided for. It cannot however be done by removing access for women who can only use a service if it is single sex. And whose barriers to access are not affected by how a male person explains their perception of their identity at the time.

It is the removal of access from women and excluding them in order to 'include' male people in women's resources that is the problem. Answers need to work for all, or they're not answers. Harming women to boost men isn't equity, it's male supremacism.

The whole concept that society can or should create equity is pretty insane, if you stop and try to envision what that would look like.

So what would your solution be if the rules cannot now be changed?

Because embracing oppression and subordination isn't going to be happening.

'dude'? Gonnae naw?

You said : 'it's simply impossible to restart the rules of the game' not 'the rules can't be changed instantly'.