Why do some feminists oppose misogyny but support gender ideology?

[Doodwhatareyou]

I recently ended up in the man hating side of tiktok, which is a place I tend to be in agreement with. I’ve seen several women bravely battle stupid men in the comments who manage to reinforce everything being said.

I’ve seen a pattern though that these women, who seem to be very up on rules of misogyny, and aware of how problematic too many men are, usually have pronouns in their bio, and occasionally will complain about being bullied by terfs.

I’m baffled.

How can they be so up on patriarchal nonsense yet miss the fundamental misogyny in gender ideology. How can they deny the evidence that trans identified men are just as much of a problem for women if not more as they want women’s rights and spaces.

They can make endless videos about how hateful men are because of the way women are treated, and how women have to budge up and make room, yet trans identified men are women, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive bigot. I don’t understand.

Calling yourself something which you are not by definition is not the same as being that thing. As men who call themselves women have discovered.

Women who centre men are not feminists. It’s quite simple.

For what it's worth, I felt much more radicalised before, when I had to reject as a block everything that wasn't "TWAW and TMAM, period!" Now I'm not asked to believe anything at all, just to recognise biological reality, which is much less radical; one could even say it's dreadfully mundane 😛

You've moved onto a different perspective. I wasn't discussing male centred views. Obvs having those would mean someone wasn't a feminist

so you're saying intersectional feminists who centre men’s rights to access female spaces to the detriment of women not feminists. Totally agree. Right on sister!

Exactly, knee jerk narrow mindedness does not help feminists

If that's what they do.

Great, I’m glad we agree. 👍

Centring men who identify as trans is definitely not feminist.

True, that's why we need to say things as clearly as you just did

Cool 😃

I guess where we might differ is on whether you think that transwomen are men or women?

Dear me, I'm not 'confused' at all. A point of view put across with confidence and not in an inflammatory way is always better put.

This hasn't been about what I think. I just prefer we say what we say with polite authority and recognise not all feminists have the same focus.

On one particular issue.

A rather fundamental issue for feminism, though...

Which feminist issues do you think GC people are not addressing?

You haven't answered about what other forward movement you want to see

A particularly important issue don't you think.

Obviously, but it doesn't alter the fact that some on here use language that doesn't help the cause

Intersectional feminism is about race, class and ability. Trans inclusive feminism is argued to be a part of intersectional feminism, but is its own branch.

Many intersectional feminists will be GC.

The trans inclusive feminists who argue that you cant be a feminist if you aren't Trans Inclusive with your feminism are just as wrong as trans exclusive feminists who think you can't be a trans inclusive feminist.

I'll say again, it doesn't matter how much you all argue, you are all feminists if you strive for equal rights for everyone, irrespective of their anatomy. You can disagree about whether your approach to equality is flawed, but it doesn't mean that you arent a feminist. No more than the fact that a Marxist Socialist is still a Socialist irrespective of whether all Marxists believe Socialism is the way forwards. You don't have to be Marxist to be a Socialist or a Socialist to be a Marxist. It's just one approach to Socialism.

It does feel we never discuss anything else at times

What language in particular doesn't help the cause? Would that include calling transwomen men?

Lordy, I'm not on trial. There's more than one topic for feminists to address and a lot of the time only this topic comes up

No, that would include putting views across in language that sounds horrendous

Not every woman will feel the effects immediately but they are still there. They go about their daily lives and then they turn up to the gym and there’s a naked man in the changing room or a male nurse being creepy when they have specifically requested no male nurses due to rape trauma, then the private hospital refuses their life saving surgery. And as I said, some of the brainwashed just don’t have the cognitive function to understand at the moment.

So something that might happen very rarely in the far off future should be the centrepiece of modern feminism. No wonder young women disavow feminism in droves because of its irrelevance. As I said, who needs the patriarchy when GC ideologues will do their dirty work for them.

As has already been repeated upthread, GC's effectively silence issues that do impact women at scale.
Which issues for women are improved by including men in our spaces and definitions?

Depends on the spaces. I take a more nuanced view where exceptions like sport, hospitals, refuges & prisons are legitimately justified. However I believe bathroom exclusion only imposes policing of women's bodies.

In terms of definitions there's this thing called a 'prefix' like 'trans' that points to distinctions that only a moron or wilful misunderstanding denies exists.

I’m ‘wokey’ for listening to transpeople? I thought that’s what trans activists are always telling us to do.

That doesn't mean people without 'lived experience don't get an opinion 'Lived experience' works in terms of inclusion. They get a voice that they never had before that should be taken into consideration but not as final authority. Are you seriously suggesting only people with lived experience should adjudicate societal standards?

Are you struggling with the fact that a transpersons view agrees with my reasoning? So you feel at absolute liberty to dismiss Seethlaws lived experience out of hand and that’s ’disagreeing’ but I am ‘weaponising’ those views because I agree? You are consistently hypocritical, I’ll give you that.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? Seeth's opinion isn't the issue here, its that you are attempting to elevate their authority on this issue because their 'lived experience' happens to agree with yours. Of course 'lived experience' can take a flying leap when it doesn't in your world.

It’s not mocking to state facts btw.

But your personal subjective opinion isn't a fact.

You can't discuss women's issues if you can't even define the word "women"...

@Baileyonice

In terms of definitions there's this thing called a 'prefix' like 'trans that points to distinctions that only a moron or wilful misunderstanding denies exists.

"Trans" literally means "across", though: so trans women are across women, aka men.

White women are a subset of women. Abled women are a subset of women. But trans women are a subset of men, not women; that's what the trans is there to indicate.

That's ridiculous, making a decent argument by putting views across well is just helpful to the cause.