Pro-trans and feminist

[niadainud]

How is this possible?

I genuinely don't understand how you can believe that biological sex isn't real and believe that people can identify as whatever they like, but also claim to be a feminist.

You claim to support women, but you don't agree with there being a biological definition of "woman".

Please can someone explain to me how this works!

I've just read that the Women's Equality Party voted for self-ID. Again, very confused.

The trouble with anyones free choice to live how they wish is that sooner or later, one person's wish will collide with another's, and then what happens?

What do we do when one person's wishes infringe on another's rights? Who gets to decide whose wishes trump whose, or what boundaries are reasonable?

Everyone just doing whatever they like is literally anarchy and it's naive to think that unscrupulous people selfish people or even just misguided people wouldn't take advantage of others. That's why we have laws.

Equality for who?

No feminism isn't "about equality," it's about women's rights. Which includes equality in some situations but specific rights, due to our sex and specific sex differences to males, in other situations.

Treating people equally does not mean treating them in the same way.

Womens rights are needed purely and only because we are physically different to men.

People seem to have evolved feminism into a different concept of social justice for perceived "minority" groups.

That's not feminism. Feminism centres female needs and rights. All females. Including trans men through sex specific laws, services and rights and regulations.

Of course that should never happen and is unforgivable. But even if it were officially accepted in all spheres - science, law, etc. - that TWAW (and TMAM), would that actually stop that sort of attack on trans people? Perhaps it would, I don't know.

Exactly. Which was the whole point of starting this thread - and is shown in my cat/mouse analogy. You can't just let everyone do what they like and expect some sort of utopia to result, because it won't.

Totally agree. It's utter naivety.

I feel im to old fashioned or old school for this nonsense.
Im only 37 i believe im an old sole.

I don't think it would and, to be clear, I don't think letting biological males into women's changing rooms or women's sports would help either and is absolutely not fair on womenm

This particular person avoided places where she'd have to undress with others like changing rooms because she didn't want to go in the men's or women's. She would have loved a third space. I there's something quite sinister about the transwomen that are against this.

Yes, it's always struck me as odd that a third space isn't the solution being pushed for. I mean trans-women might want to be exactly the same as biological women, but they aren't and never can be. I can't have children and I just have accept that's the case - I don't expect the world to change how it functions and uses language in order to accommodate that.

If the shoe fits...

But for a straight man to have a directly conflicting beliefs about two groups of people (trans-women and women) when he belongs to neither group (so is disinterested)...

I'm going to disagree with your premise there, @niadainud , I think.

A striaght man and a transwoman belong in the same group (males). If a straight man sees a male who wishes to be perceived as feminine, that straight man can have empathy -

"Hey, this man isn't happy being like the other men I know, so let's call him Her from now on and let him into women's spaces. This is because I personally don't see any risk from this feminine guy, and I can see that masculine guys might be mean or aggressive to him. Budge up women, he's just like you now."

Plenty of straight men seem to code Not Like A Man as equal to A Woman. They are wrong.

Plenty of straight men seem to code Not Like A Man as equal to A Woman. They are wrong.

Thisis the crux of the problem, isn't it?

Men who suffer under patriarchy are made to feel less of a man for not being Alpha male.

The idea that not alpha male = other
And
Other = woman
Is the problem.

On the subject of straight men who believe TWAW and should be accepted into women's changing rooms, sports etc - it would be interested to see how many would be open to having a sexual relationship with a transwomen. If they truly see them as women then surely they would be open to that. If they are not then I would question why they are allowed boundaries about this but women aren't.

Quite.

I mean really - what was the point of that?

Yes, another important question.

I also want to ask the man I have in mind how he would feel if his wife or daughter were raped and wanted to be medically examined specifically by a biological woman. Obviously that's quite an aggressive line of questioning, but it's a fair point nevertheless.

To clarify, I was teasing the previous poster for saying she was an "Old Sole"

(not Soul)

Thank you for putting across this view. This is exactly the sort of thing that helps to make sense of a behaviour which at first glance appears to be illogical and pointless.

I hadn't considered things like this, or a previous poster's point (@Betweenthe2 I think it was) that it is (or could be) all about your perception of yourself as a lovely, liberal person who just wants everyone to get along and be happy (so long as they are fully aware of and impressed by what a lovely liberal person you are) - see above points about resultant anarchy.

And thats the issue with "be kind". If know a person who identifies as female, doesn't barge in somewhere like a swimming pool changing room, is generally a nice personal non threatening... saying "be kind" is easy.

Meanwhile... if you were to know someone like Isla Bryson... you likely wouldn't want to accept them. You would want to get as far away as possible.

However self ID or TWAW treats both these people the same.

Absolutely.

And wishy-washy "be kind" thinking has no place in legislation, politics, safeguarding or science (I know there's some overlap in that list).

Sorry, my fault entirely for not being clear. I meant there was no point to lambhotpot's post, not yours. And I did get your pun!

From many people’s perspective, feminism is about overthrowing the patriarchy, which harms men as well as women
This, thank you

"Feminism" has never been a monolithic entity and so its not that anyone has evolved it for different minority groups.
Depending in your definition of feminism, that will affect what your outlook on different things is.

1. Including men in "feminism" to make sexist proposals seem inclusive and palatable IS the current battleground. Without it makes the attempts to remove female only spaces look exactly like what they are; regressive men's rights campaigning.

2. Feminism centres females. Biological ones. Not bureaucratically created ones. Or fantasy ones.

3. Anyone who argues to the counter of point 2 should refer to point 1.

Feminism" has never been a monolithic entity

Yes it has at its core, it's purely about woman's rights.

Women had / have fewer rights and need specific protections and provisions and that is what the movement began as.

It's evolved into all sorts of stuff but at its core that is why it exists.