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.

They don’t define women though.

We have never received a coherent definition that properly describes all women plus transwomen’ but excludes other men.

Are you able to provide one?

I mean, if feminism can centre anyone, then all mysogynistic men need to do is found Men First Feminism, and they can declare themselves profoundly feminist. And nobody could say they are not actually feminists, as long as they identify as feminists.

I note that the word 'Feminism' has been hijacked by the genderist movement..in the way that Women's Studies was. The trans movemnt does have this habit of appropriating the words and terms that were coined, or belonged to other groups and movements - leaving nothing for that group of female people known as women. Women cannot be allowed to have their own stuff.

They already did: 14:44 post:

I think some people might accept that even though someone looks male, they are a woman if they say they are.

So, self-ID. Note that they don't say they believe it themselves, just that some people do - including presumably 'trans-inclusive feminists'.

After watching this board for quite a while, I have come to a conclusion: if one person monopolises a thread such that more that half the posts on it are either by that person, replying to that person or discussing that person, he or she may not have technically derailed it but there is an absolute guarantee that he or she is not making any real attempt to address whatever the thread was actually about.

In this case, I can answer the OP question from the Inflexible point of view: some purported feminists feel able to claim they oppose misogyny while supporting gender ideology by pretending to themselves that men are women and that anyone who doesn't agree with this view is Not Feministing Properly, and is probably a Trans Exclusionary Bigot who doesn't earn the word feminist at all.

It has taken me one post rather than fifty or more. Do I get a crap-cutter badge?

Ah thank you. What a perfectly circular non definition which gives us precisely nothing.

Thankfully I think my dds growing up without such utter bilge in their brains and have retained a good level of rational thought. I hope they have enough peers that will see the light or we are all sunk.

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.

Tbf you have admitted that you don't know what you actually believe. I think that it would be more useful for you to address your confusion, instead of debating who can and can't be called a feminist. You've put the cart before the horse. Most of us were confused about this issue once. We educated ourselves.

Why do you think that most transmen are not interested in having a baby? (Not heard of Freddie McConnell?)

Why do you also assume that transmen will have a female partner?

If a woman is a person who says theyre a woman, then woman itself has no meaning. I really struggle with their circular logic 😭

Is a taxi a person who says he is a taxi?

(If someone says he is made of glass, will he break if I drop him?)

We could solve the problem of male violence against women tomorrow, and women would still require sex based rights.

Again, I can only assume that many men are just oblivious to the practicalities of being born female and some women just take their rights for granted.

A woman is someone who says they are a woman.

What is it they say they are? - Let's just fill in the definition (i.e. replace 'a woman' each time it occurs in this definition after 'A woman is ...'):

A woman is someone who says they are someone who says they are someone who says they are someone who says they are someone who says they are someone ... ^^and so on for ever.

Some of us (me included) think this definition a tad, well, awry; it seems unsatisfactory in some way. Can you see why?

When in fact a woman is someone who doesnt have to say they are a woman.

Oh, I agree. Without a fixed reference point, such a self-referential definition is completely useless. I mean, without a fixed definition of the term "woman", what does it even mean to say, "I'm a woman" ? It just means, "Im a person who says they are a woman, with no explanation whatsoever as to what 'woman' refers to." In short: they are Nothing. Nobody is anything, and feminism cannot even exist in the absence of defined "men" and "women".

This is pure Lewis Carroll. Through the Looking Glass, "The Lion and the Unicorn", which I think is chapter 7.

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"

I honestly struggle with the idea that any woman can believe a male person is a woman just because they say they are. I'm sure some men probably really believe they are, but there's no way to tell those people from the chancers.

I do think there is nothing wrong with trans inclusive feminism though as long as it's trans identified females that are being included in the definition of women. Even if they don't want me to stand up for their sex based rights, they still deserve to have them.

Of course - it never is though. I mean, I include "trans men" in my feminism but "trans inclusive feminists" very rarely care about them. Because deep down they see them as 'only' women, basically. As do their male counterparts; they're not really the same demographic at all, funnily enough.

It's all about the menz. Witness the number of usually middle class women fawning over them in menopause and other groups, including endo & infertility, groups such men have no material need of at all except for validation - completely ignoring the supposed purpose of the groups and the material needs of those they are actually for because "mere" women are somehow never as important to SOME women as getting to pander to a man.

It's a pity that "inclusive feminism" is so very shaky on understanding what patriarchy is. Almost as if turning all those women's studies departments into "gender studies" depts in the early 90s, welcoming men in and preaching the Gospel of St Pseudith of Butler and other elitist postmodernist, postfeminist shitehawks, sorry, "intellectuals", with weak knowledge of UK social history & "cool, sex positive pro-porn empowerment" instead of, you know, history, material reality and class analysis, was designed to dismantle feminism , disguise patriarchal ideas and blur the boundaries to make it all much more palatable to the lads. Girl power, eh?

Yes that is frustrating. As I said, these fundamentalist ideas exist on both sides. Its common with radicalists generally.

It doesnt matter if you change the word from woman to female, trans inclusive feminists will still believe trans women are included. It doesnt matter how much you protest, trans inclusive feminists are still feminists. As are you no matter what a trans inclusive feminist thinks.

I am an Irish feminist and i remember how the LGBTQI community stood shoulder to shoulder to woman during the referenda for divorce and Repeal the 8th Campaigns. I amnt tryimg to be a cool girl, but i rememeber my allies. Do you know who never stood up and with women _ its the patriarchial groups claiming that Trans people are obliterating womens rights . Convenient for them that we are becoming more splintered and the talk is not about medicinal mysogony . Equal pay, sexual assault conviction rapes etc..

It's anyone who identifies as a woman basically. The problem is that you wont accept that is their definition because you dint agree with it. You think you need to agree with it for it to be a valid definition. Afraid not.

Because statistics say so. I checked before I said so. Which makes sense if you think about it. Most lesbians I know never want to be pregnant. I havent checked stats on that.

Do you think FWS are a patriarchal group?

Are all transmen lesbians?

No, you're mistaken if you believe that you need to have a firm position on trans people and gender identity to understand what feminism is or indeed be a feminist. Just like I don't have to have a clear view on Marxism to be a Socialist.