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.

I think youre so caught up on trying to figure out who believes what you believe that you're missing the point.

The whole point is this : Trans Inclusive and Trans Exclusive (GC) Feminists are all Feminists. Feminism has different approaches/branches/types.

When you keep arguing why you think trans women are or are not women, all you are doing is highlighting what feminist approach/branch/type you subscribe to. You aren't disproving that the other branch isnt Feminism because it still is.

Just because you are all so interested: I really don't know what I believe about the topic of trans people being the gender they identify with. I think i am inclined to believe that for some people, it is best for them to transition and that might be the most important thing. I don't believe trans people are inherently dangerous and I don't believe men are dangerous enough for us to need to treat trans women as predators.

I think you sre so entrenched in the argument you want to have, that you can't see the wood for the trees. You just want to talk about whether trans women are women. I am talking about the existence of different branches of feminism. All as real as each other as feminist approaches.

You can debate why you think that isn't the best approach, just like Socialists debate the merits of Marxism in the context of Socialism, but Marxist Socialists are still Socialists and Socialists who are not Maxists are still Socialists.

The analogy doesn't work. It's more like debating the merits of Libertarianism in the context of Socialism. It just doesn't compute, and Libertarians are most definitely not Socialists.

No you dont need to because it would verge on being off topic. All the things you believe won't make it untrue that trnas inclusionary feminism exists as a branch of feminism.

No. I said upthread you cannot call yourself a feminist if you prioritise men over women.

Which you are arguing against via the mechanism of TWAW.

They aren't. You know that. Everyone knows that.

It does work because trans inclusionary feminists see trans women as women. So the idea that they are centering men is non-existant. They arent centering men, they are centering all women, including trans women, who they see as women. And that is broadly what feminism is about.

Its not about true feminists. Its about people thinking they are 'feminists' whilst also thinking men are the oppressed ones, which puts them in the category of completely the opposite to feminists. Trans feminists if you like. Or totally upholding the patriarchy.

As I said before, you are using the term 'trans inclusionary feminism' incorrectly here

What you mean to say is 'men inclusionary feminism'

Some females will never have pregnancy as a risk to them

Is your argument really that some women are infertile so these rights don't matter?

Fertility treatment is sex specific, and a far greater burden on women than men, so should a woman want to become pregnant (regardless of her feelings about her identity) she will need sex specific rights e.g. to attend appointments and to receive appropriate care.

You could argue that women are privileged to be able to bear children, and that men are at a disadvantage, but then you get into the rights women need to avoid exploitation e.g. if they are used as surrogates.

And even if a woman cannot have children and doesn't want children, take away general rights to birth control and society assumes that it is not worth employing women.

You can put forwards all the points of why you believe trans women aren't women, but that doesnt detract from the topic of the thread.

I actually think that your main problem is that you can't define 'trans women' because 'trans' is such a vague term that it could include anyone. As previously explained, it's impossible to fight for the rights of a group that can't be defined.

But if you see TW as W, you aren't centering men. You're centering all women.

The thing that is in dispute is whether trans women are women which is a whole separate debate to whether trans inclusionary feminism is feminism which is kind of where this whole thread started. The OP.ponderimg why they resonate with trans inclsuinary feminists. Answer: because they are feminists and typically cis women, too.

If so, they are utterly wrong.

So their political principals are based on make believe. Which I'm sure you'll agree is not a viable starting point

Broadly about...centering men. Gotcha. Well done you.

Transfeminists. Love it 😄

So I suppose you would say that Libertarian Socialism is a perfectly congruent and reasonable stance to hold?

In effect, the are centring everyone because nobody can be excluded, which is lovely and fluffy, but it's a meme on instagram, not a serious political philosophy.

I'll say it again

The term you are using is incorrect. GC feminism is not exclusive of trans identifying biological women.

The term you actually need here is 'men inclusionary feminism'

No Im saying that some women will never have pregnancy as a risk to them because of the relationships etc they choose. I mean, yes, they could in theory be raped and conceive, but not many people live their lives based on that traumatic unlikely event occurring.

I dont think all that many trans men would feel comfortable in the folds of GC feminists who see them as women. Some might. Many, many more would not. Why would they?

And MAGA Feminism too.

Yeah, that's the thing, isn't it? If men are women and women are men, then everybody is already equal and feminism as a concept doesn't even need to exist, so what are we arguing about?

No, people who identify as men can be excluded.

They still haven’t worked out that “trans rights” is just a men’s rights movement yet.

I think I'm going to revive the Whigs. I can't rremember what they believed, but from now on it's going to be about fighting for thicker chocolate on biscuits.

Because they are women and GC feminists are the only ones who make sure they retain their female sex based rights, such as maternity leave and so on.

Because we know merely the thought that you are female negatively influences your outcomes and interactions in many ways. The other person doesn't even have to be right for their assumptions to start affecting you. So by that merit, identifying by a typically female name can start the cascade of miscoraggressions before it goes into full blown discrimination.