Thread derailment

[Temporaryusernamefortoday]

Wondering if I am the only one that’s noticed more and more thread derailments. I’m not talking about TRA taking a TWAW stance but an individual being deliberately obtuse or missing the point of an individuals posts to create an argument about a tangential element. It just seems rather insidious and designed to prevent proper conversation.

This is not a TAT but a thread about a phenomenon.

Exactly. It’s one thing to feel there are discriminatory perspectives within feminism, but feminism is for all women, I’m not less of a feminist because I’m not oppressed in other ways. This is the problem people have with “intersectional” approaches. That they end up being “the Oppression Olympics”. No one woman’s perspective on being a woman is less or more important than mine.

That's an admirable stance in my opinion. I work in a field where people can be very reluctant to accept new information and change their conclusions based on what they now know to be true. They'd rather reject the source or use what power they have to dismiss it. It's soothing for me when people are not that way inclined.

And men of any identity certainly shouldn’t be calling the shots, ever. They can only be allies.

Let's say I recognised that TMAM. Do you think that means that I should ignore them when it comes to any feminism because they are men?

And I didn't point out that many brands of feminism don't exclude men, I was commenting on your assertion that only GC feminism excludes men.

Feminism should centre all woman no matter how they identify of what political views they hold.

GC feminism includes understanding that gender constrains men as well as women, that one cannot free women from cultural oppression without also changing things for men, and that demolishing society's myths of gender will ultimately benefit men as well. To that degree it certainly includes men.

It does not, however, include men in the definition of women.

This is not just a passing detail, it is fundamental.

If your definition of women includes men, you have switched the group you are actually fighting for under the name of "feminism", and the feminist analysis and understanding based on the experiences and history of the people with female bodies, while probably still relevant to the degree that it informs the social identities you group togater as "women", is no longer the fundamental basis for and insight of your "feminism"

HTH

I find that odd for you to say but maybe it is how you define "important". Odd because I don't think you feel the perspective of a woman who has anti-GC/pro-trans views is as important as yours. But again, maybe it is how you define important and how I differ with that.

Okay the definition of women is different to what you were talking about before which was feminism.

Ignore, no. But part of recognising that TMAM would be recognising that some girls will grow up to be TM and thus adjusting how we approach several aspects of child rearing and education to acknowledge that. Again, people differ in the best way to approach this even when they agree that TMAM.

I hope you tell them how wrong they are, in the same way that you have decided to take over this thread and tell everyone here how wrong they are. Or are you actually trying to argue that white women are not women in the same way that men are not women? (Please, no faux innocent 'where did i say white women' - its clear what you meant).

Or are some feminists more wrong than others?

Honestly, what is your actual point? You've been wanging on for pages now, people have engaged with you politely and respectfully but many pages in, Im still not sure what point you're trying to make - except perhaps that one posters derail is another interesting discussion? If that's it, that point has been made and mostly accepted.

Other threads/ boards are available if you don't like this one.

Its like going onto a science discussion board and going on about creationism on every single thread, just to make sure those scientists know that not everyone shares their views. But guess what - they know!

Could you explain what point you're trying to make? Because it sounds very much like there isn't one, this is all just an exercise in goal post moving, false equivalence, gaslighting whataboutery.

I think you need to read my post again.

Feminism is the political and social movement to remove the ways society limits women simply because we are women. So the definition of who "women" are is pretty fundamental to Feminism.

Not just because it changes who we are fighting for and what we woudl consdier a "good" outcome, but also because it changes the understanding of why women are disempowered, abused and marginalised in culture in the first place.

Her perspective on our shared femaleness is important, her support of an anti feminist movement not so much (I’m sure we agreed I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you and we’re going to have to agree to disagree that pretending men are women is a form of feminism).

I haven't told anyone that they are wrong. Why have you brought up white women?

Even if I was talking about a race/ethnicity based subgroup of feminism, the analogy wouldn't work. If white women were excluded from a non-white feminist group, it would be because they are white, not because anyone doubts their womanhood or their feminist allegiance.

It’s all just sophistry, in my view. I take it as seriously as I take people who claim that biological sex doesn’t exist.

And Bingo! My point is proved.

I have absolutely no issue that women with other shared protected characteristics have their own more granular feminist groups. If they centre women and girls, but find that general feminist groups are not suitable for them, that’s up to them and I’m sure they have good reason. If they centre men, I feel exactly the same as I do about any such group.

God I miss the Bunbury days 🤯

Yes, of course.

When I see anti-GC women talk about what makes (them) a woman, they often use very similar language to what a TW might use to describe womanhood. I can't imagine you feeling much of shared femaleness with someone who thinks that way, I suppose. Maybe I don't know enough details to such views but in my mind, they'd say that they could just as easily have been a man despite being female bodied, so their experiences of vagina=woman won't be aligned with yours.

Ideally, it would be good for these perspectives to be shared so people can tackle any discriminatory behaviour within feminist groups but I absolutely realise that’s not always easy or possible.

I was talking to the other poster that I quoted.

I feel shared femaleness with any other woman or girl. It’s my sex, nothing more or less. I don’t have it with any men and the suggestion that I do is alienating.

Lol no you think your point is proven.

Who suggested that you do?

Absolutely.

But I would have a problem with them labelling is as for 'proper feminists only', because the rest of us aren't proper feminists/women (or whatever nonsense the other poster claims happens at her very intersectional feminist group).

There seemed to be a poor analogy being made that excluding some men from feminism is no different to excluding some women.

Clearly those 2 things are not the same unlessyou believe men can be women.

You questioned that I would feel a sense of shared femaleness with someone who calls themselves a trans inclusive feminist. I said, that’s nonsense because femaleness is about sex, and I share it with all women and girls and zero men and boys.

Agree, I got that impression too.