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?

So do those "academics" believe the women living under the taliban could just opt out, identify as men? Or do they acknowledge that actually, the oppression those women face, is based on their biology, not because they like pink and kittens?

Sounds like a set of privilaged, luxury beliefs to me.

That’s not feminism.

Thats not to say it isn’t important, but men’s mental health is not something that women’s rights campaigners should be foregrounding. That’s for other campaigners

Parental leave for fathers might have a connection with feminism, but the rest is just ... a different thing!

Nah, they are big enough to fight for their own rights. Why is it women’s job to fight for men’s rights?

These are men's issues and there are some active men's groups addressing them.

They are not women's issues. They impact women but they aren't our issues. Feminism is for women.

"Academics the world over" is a funny way to put it. There might be academics in more than one place who think what you think, but "the world over" suggests a homogeneity in academic thought on this which really doesn't exists.

Gender has EVERYTHING to do with feminism, what are you on about?

If the patriarchy hadn't created gendered roles, biases and stereotypes in the first place, there'd be no need for feminism. Women weren't kept out of work, politics and money because of their chromosomes, they were kept out because of what society decided women were for. That's gender.

There's an idea that there is a group of men who look or behave so much like women, it would be farcical or dangerous to not include them in feminism and in women single sex spaces.

But this isnt as sensible a compromise it appears. For a start, a man who looks like a women is still a man. He has had opportunities women can never have, the option to change his appearance to look male, and lots of issues that women will not share with him.

Men who look or behave like women can still have testicular cancer. Would feminism need to acknowledge that, or just pretend its not true? Is feminism going to be based on a lie - that everyone included is female or the truth and spend time on male issues?

Including men in feminism means that either have to move resources to men, or pretend these men have, have always had and will aways have the same issues as women.

If we acknowledge men can be women, and feminism works for both men and woman, what are we doing? Why be feminist?

The idea that we can include men, but they are going to sit quietly at the back, is delusional. They have shown is this isnt going to happen by creating the word cis to describe women and removing female words from health services.

But it was, essentially, based on their biological sex ie their chromosomes. Or do you think the concept of “woman” sprang fully formed from the lady brain?

Are there any situations whatsoever, where you believe a transwoman shouldnt be treated as women? For example, if a rape victim requested a female nurse or doctor for an intimate examination, because she has PTSD, would you be happy to send a transwoman to perform this?
Or if a man rapes a woman and then before hes sent to prison, claims hes trans, would you put him in a womans prison?

At what point does the man become a woman, in your mind? As soon as he says it?

I also don't understand the cowardly framing of "trans women are women, but only sometimes", that some so-called feminists indulge in either. For example, I think the argument that only male people who have had their penises inverted to create a facsimile of a vulva, should be allowed to be in spaces where women and girls are in a state of undress or performing private bodily functions, is absolutely illogical, and the more I think about it, actually insane, because women are not dickless men! Should a male person who has lost his penis through injury or illness be allowed to enter female only spaces? Why or why not? Why should access to female spaces be predicated upon the thoughts of a male person, simply because he declares himself to be a woman?

I was arguing against the assertion that it doesn't have anthing to to with gender, which is factually incorrect and remains so. Don't be so patronising

A boy without a winkle is a girl, @solerolover

(Nursie on Blackadder, should any TRAs think I'm being serious)

Women weren't kept out of work, politics and money because of their chromosomes

And how did they know which humans the women were? Was it based on who wore dresses? Who had long hair? No, it was based on biology, gender was just the weapon they used to oppress us with

So they deny you are a feminist by calling you a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF)? Sounds likely.

It doesnt matter who wants to try and deny it, trans inclusionary and exclusionary feminism are legitimate models of feminism. That's just a fact. Either side that deny that just look stupid and it is why nobody with serious credentials will ever listen to you.

There's a GC group on Facebook who talk about the anti intellectualism in here and how it hurts their cause. They don't want any association with MN or the staff here because they say it's all AI bots and questionable men.

I am an atheist Marxist.
TWAM.
Hope that helps.

Can you answer the question? How is it not to do with biology? Gender is just a framework for biological sex, no? What else is it for?

Posts like this amuse me so much. "Somebody said they didn't like you"
I couldn't care less if it hurts their cause, whatever that might be. I don't even know who they are.

Gender is applied differently to men and women.

A man cannot opt into women's gender and claim oppression. Being able to jump in and out of gender isnt how gender works for women.

A women might not get a promotion because her employer thinks she will have a child and become a carer and lose focus at work. A man might get the promotion after having a child because he is now seen a breadwinner and provider. She is seen as less reliable, him more.

It doesnt matter if they both wear suits or summer dresses.

How can a man opt into women's gender in this scenario?

If gender was really about the superficial things we can change - like clothes and make up and the size of breasts, women would have become men years ago.

Oh no, not a Facebook group that doesn't agree with me! Whatever shall I do!

I think you're aiming for sarcasm there but I've seen a very recent example of the line 'TERFs aren't feminists' from an 'academic'.

You don't know my 'credentials' but I will say that in an argument where I was trying to position myself as one familiar with academic discourse, its rules and its tone, I wouldn't use phrases like 'that's just a fact' about something which is eminently open to question.

I mean some randomers on Facebook?

Who cares? 😂😂😂

But we are supposed to be A HIVE MIND and agree on everything

You lot are really letting the side down

Just a teeny weeny bit ignorant, that post.

Disproportionate influence? The women who don't want men in their changing rooms?

😂🤣😂🤣😂

I’m amusing myself by ordering my list of whose opinion I care about least as offered on this thread. A random Facebook group who hate read MN has to be near the top, but it’s a crowded field, in this Ambassador’s reception of a thread.

This thread has been 100% worth it for ‘ham is sociological kale’.

A little touch of genius there

😂