Can you be a fully trans inclusive feminist?

[Imdunfer]

Inspired from another thread where it was out of place so I brought it here.

Someone seemed to claim that it was possible to be both be a feminist and to be trans inclusive, where by trans inclusive they mean males in women's spaces and shortlists (the attitude to sport wasn't stated).

I don't believe that you can truly be both, do you?

It actually makes you Trump.

Just to be clear 😂😂😂

Trump, it is then! 🤣🤣

Exactly. Being called an bigot by that person is a badge of pride, frankly.

No.

Men are men and always will be men

To be 'inclusive' always harms a woman in some way.

That doesn't mean you can't be a feminist and support transwomen in equality.

We are all equal. Equality doesn't equal inclusion.

I've been a vegetarian since the age of 11 and can confirm those who say "I'm a vegetarian but I eat chicken" are seriously annoying.

I've never yet encountered anyone who excuses them by saying but actually ham is just sociological kale, and meat-eating is just a branch of vegetarianism, and some academics say so, so it must be true.

@RedToothBrush “We are all equal”

Equal doesn’t mean “identical.”

American academic thinking is obsessed with race. They also think that the rest of the world sees race through their very particular lens.

There are plenty of people who think their bigotry isn't bigotry because they can't possible be bigots - after all, they support other people's rights.

You are so, so close.

If you believe that trans women are men, then people who put their needs above the safeguarding of women and girls are not really feminists.

If you believe that trans women are women and they should have full access to single sex spaces then you don't really believe that women and girls should have safer spaces provided. Research shows that trans women are just as high a risk to woman as men (prison data shows that a much higher proportion of trans women are in prison for sexual offences than men, so it it could be argued that trans women pose a higher risk) . This inclusive stance doesn't seem to be a good thing for women and not very feminist.

Either way, the whole thing does seem awful lot like pandering to men and dismissing what is best for women.

You're thinking of legumes

No, I don't think you can.

You can be trans-inclusive of trans-identified women, and you can adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to trans-identified men, but I think feminism has to centre women, and men are not women.

Nope.

Your bigoted framing aside, I can only agree with you.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/anti-trans-rhetoric-homophobia-trans-rights

Trans activity have to accuse women of homophobia and racism in attempt to shame us because they cannot explain why men can become women.

If its possible for men to be women, they would be able to explain it, and we could all see it.

Quoting Shon Faye from 2018! This thread has it all.

No. Feminism that is inclusive of men who say they're women, makes just as much sense as chickens who insist that some foxes who identify as hens, should be part of their coop. It's completely illogical and I laugh at these lib fems, who prioritise the wants and feelings of mainly white, middle class men who say they're women, but in the next breath, will complain about how terrible the "patriarchy" is.

There are billions of women on this planet, which means that there are billions of ways to be a woman. We are not a monolith, nevertheless, the only thing that ties us together, is our sex class.

Janice Raymond refers to this as "a historical reality about what it means to be born with XX chromosomes."

The full quote captures everything these discussions are about:

But in some very real senses, female biology shapes female history—a history that men don’t have because of their sex—including the history of menstruation, the history of pregnancy or the capacity to become pregnant, the history of childbirth and abortion, the history of certain bodily cycles and life changes, and the history of female subordination in a male-dominant society. Note that I keep saying history. To deny that female history is, in part, based on female biology is like denying that important aspects of Black history are based on skin color. As with biological skin color, female biology doesn’t confer an essential femininity; rather it confers a historical reality about what it means to be born with XX chromosomes.

Males are outsiders to female history and the material reality of existing in a female body, they always have been and always will be. End of story. Anything outside of that is woo-woo.

We chose not to enjoy our erasure.

Ham is sociological kale.

Best line ever 😭😭😭

When Frank Maloney put his hands around his wife's throat in 2005, an assault only stopped due to their children walking in, was he a woman?

🤣

It's even more disgusting and galling to me as a black woman, considering the fact that "if black women can be considered women, then transwomen can also be women" and "this is just like the Jim Crow laws in the Deep South", "biological male is a slur akin to the N-word" are just some of the talking points that are spewed by transactivists. They don't give a shiny shit about us, unless it's to use our pain as a cudgel and rhetorical talking point to get what they want.

The far-right, Trump Republicans and Christian fundamentalists are not my allies. I am gender critical. They are not. They have far more in common with the genderists than they do with me.

That's rubbish. Recognised scholars (whatever I might think about their work) regularly mouth off online and indeed in their published writing about how 'TERFs aren't feminists', for example.

Ok. Fact. TIm are men. They do not belong in female spaces because they are men. Even if they’ve had their penis cut off. Simple

Men should be included in feminism; paternity leave, mens mental health