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.

You don't appear thick because you are GC, you appear ignorant because you don't understand that you dint have to agree with someone for them to also be a feminist.

That's the bit that makes the room look like a bottom set tutorial class.

You see we've gone back to these faulty analogies again. It's just a basic misunderstanding of feminism.

The fact is that it is a branch of feminism. There isnt any arguing about that.

No, that's a belief, not a fact. Or put another way: who or what determines that it's a fact? Based on what?

Do I have to remind you AGAIN that it isn't 'trams inclusionary' feminism you are referencing here, is is 'men inclusionary'

😆

No its trans inclusionary. Most trans men wont feel safe or embraced by people who don't recognise them as men. They won't want anything to do with you and will view you as dangerous. So you're not including them.

It would be like a bunch of strange men who watch Manosphere shit assuring me to come in their dark cave with them and that they will take care of me.

Feminism decides it is a fact. It is a branch of postmodern feminism. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with it to be a feminist.

And you know that... how?

@Lexibletheflexiblethe people you are referencing here are either ..

A) Straight up prioritising men over women, which is not feminism in any sensible person's view

Or

B) Redefining the word women to make it mean literally anyone, which isn't feminism in any sensible person's view

Yes, that is basically how people who believe in gender ideology see identity. You feel, and so you are

But we are talking about feminism, and you don't need to have any feelings about your gender identity to need sex specific rights.

We have agreed that the law recognises discrimination by perception and that if others believe a man to be a woman he can experience discrimination on that basis, (although he still won't have to deal with the consequences of being female), but a man who is understood by others to be male will be treated as a man, regardless of his personal beliefs about himself and regardless of whether others are politely pretending that they think he isn't a man.

Even this expectation of affirmation is sex specific. No woman would be able to pull off a Pip Bunce and be taken seriously as a man on some days because she is wearing trousers.

So instead of trying to learn some new about humans and our differences, as in, how humans come to different conclusions and interpretations about life generally, you don't even bother trying to learn and you dismiss actual academics who are trying to teach you.

I don't think anyone on this board is unaware of the fact that people have different beliefs. What you haven't done is explained what is shared by the group of people who believe they have a feminine gender identity and why they would need to be protected in law as a group.

As an aside, I think that over the past 10 years 'trans' has become such a loose definition that it could include pretty much everyone, and that also makes it very difficult to explain the need for trans rights.

You can't fight for the rights of a group that can't be objectively defined, and this suggests a lack of seriousness.

I just spoke about what some people believe. As soon as you get a sniff of "blood,", it is like intelligence leaves the body and you all start gnashing. Intelligent discussion becomes impossible.

It's not clear what you think this adds to the discussion. Some people think the earth is flat. Unless you can explain why, that isn't very enlightening.

Exactly. It’s like that one radical feminist, Dworkin?, that claimed all penetrative sex is rape and anyone who didn’t agree wasn’t a feminist at all.

Feminism isn’t some hive mind where we all repeat what a Queen has proclaimed.

You’ll even find feminists who are against abortion. Feminists who are stay at home mothers and firmly believe their babies need their mum and not dad or anyone else to raise children. Feminists who wear a hijab. Feminists who are all for surrogacy.

The basic premise of feminism is the liberation of women to live equal to men. Beyond that, as liberated women we are free to have our own opinions and still call ourselves feminists.

It doesn't matter, they are women and we will fight for them.

What you are arguing for is Male Inclusionary Feminism.

Feminism cannot decide anything as it doesn't have a brain or a mind. So again: who decides what qualifies as feminism? If nobody does, and it's up to the individual, then by definition, it's a personal belief, not a fact.

No one here is arguing that feminism is a hive mind or that all feminists have to think the same thing.

They are arguing that if your position prioritises men over women it's not feminism

If you remember, the OP said things like:

"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"

The answer to this is simple. The reason why trans inclusinary feminists say many things that trans exclusionary feminists like the OP agree with is because they all feminists. Even though they have different opinions on one matter.

What people do in here is argue that trans inclusionary feminists are not feminists, claim trans people and their supporters are ill and/or dangerous and generally mock, insult and demean trans people. They do not merely stick to why single sex policy should overrule gender identity. They simply refute that gender identity exists for anyone.

Many women don't think they need feminism. Some women think it is their religious duty to obey their husband.

We include them all.

Agreed.

The basic premise of feminism is the liberation of women to live equal to men.

Which cannot be achieved when the words "men" and "women" don't have clear, objective definitions anymore.

Right, so as a feminist, if I prioritise men over women in being conscripted into an army then I am not feminist?

You see how your little add on doesn’t work and isn’t really a requirement of feminism?

It's you that is suggesting that trans people should be excluded from feminism.

We don’t need clear definitions for man or woman if we are all free and equal.
I am more concerned with equality and rights than I am with definitions. It’s kind of like quibbling over what shade of skin tone makes a person Black or White when really we should be ensuring that everyone is equal.

While ignoring that the difference in opinion between TI feminists and TE feminists is that they disgree on whether TWAW.

The fact you keep coming back to this idea of centering men over prioritising gender identity is where you give away your motivations.

You see, I do probably lean more GC, but I'm not entrenched in this debate. If I was going to argue for strict single sex provision for something, I'd simply say that I believe sex is more important than gender identity where gender identity exists in the individual. Id say that because I dont believe everyone has a GI but I accept some people very much feel that they do. I have no reason to try and characterise trans people as bad in any way to say that only teenage girls should box against other teenage girls. I can just say that GI is less important than sex in this case.

What I typed 'prioritising men' was short hand for prioritising men's desires over women's rights and needs. Apologies for not making my position crystal clear.

I don't think the situation you've outlined is about prioritising men's desires over women's rights and needs, is it?

Errr, no.

The reason why trans inclusinary feminists say many things that trans exclusionary feminists like the OP agree with is because they all feminists.

Heh. They do it because they believe it's a necessary part of feminism. We believe it's anti-feminist. Again: belief vs belief.

What people do in here is argue that trans inclusionary feminists are not feminists, claim trans people and their supporters are ill and/or dangerous and generally mock, insult and demean trans people. They do not merely stick to why single sex policy should overrule gender identity. They simply refute that gender identity exists for anyone.

Wow, lots of massive generalisations in here. Shall I get into the massive generalisations that TRAs spew about GC women? Or shall we agree that this is not an avenue for intelligent conversation?

You may think you do, but unless said people view you as a safe space who understands them, then you are more like an enemy