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?

I was a particular fan of "A group on Facebook" says.

Hehheh!!!
I love that stripy jacket

But at the time that happened that "gender"was entirely synonymous with "sex". The gender differences were based on sex. Feminism is about sex, not gender, otherwise it includes all men who have adopted a female gendered presentation and of course it doesn't because they are men.

It is possible for very bad people to have some correct views. Hitler and I both supported a ban on fox hunting with hounds. I don't support invading other countries or people I don't like.

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.

Oh the delicious irony in a discussion about feminists supporting male trans people's rights.

Okay, I think the dominant oppressive concept of "woman" sprang from man brain.

I never said it had nothing to do with biological sex at all in origin. Women's bodies, and their differnces from men particularly, were the excuse. Pregnancy, periods, being physically smaller on average: all of that got used to justify keeping women out of work, money and power. But the oppression itself didn't come from biology, it came from what patriarchy decided that biology meant.

Can you link this group? I could do with a laugh. I’m also intrigued by their definition of “GC” which I suspect isn’t that simple.

I bet they're a right laugh

That’s semantics. At base, it came from the fact that biologically men and women are different. We basically agree here, just because people don’t lionise the concept of “gender” and think it’s basically dependent on sex, doesn’t mean they support the patriarchal system.

Ok chipping in as another trans-inclusive feminist who usually stays out of this, it's not true that women's oppression is or was entirely centered on biosex. They used to say women shouldn't read books because their tiny little brains get overstimulated. They said women shouldn't ride bikes because their wombs would bounce around. They say women can't be world leaders because their hormones make them emotional. None of this has anything to do with how the body works. That's not biology, it's "biology".

I think some posters can't cope with the concept of women on the Feminism: Sex and gender discussions board being anything other than right-wing, ignorant, ill-informed, sheltered bigots.

The reality - that as a group we encompass many different identities, religions or none, qualifications, sexualities, political persuasions, opinions, lifestyles, experiences, etc. etc - doesn't seem to get through to them.

You are an atheist Marxist StandingDeskDisco - that's at least one synapse blown.
I am an atheist radical lesbian feminist - whoops there goes another one!

I can't even

So please can you explain in what way biological men who think they are women are actually women and therefore should be included in feminism please?

Not just me then?

All those things were based on what they believed about women's biology at the time.

No

You know, I've actually got some sympathy with Flexible's GC group on Facebook who talk about the anti intellectualism in here. Maybe they're not entirely wrong.

Feminism is the belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.

So no, feminism isn't inclusive or intersectional, it's exclusive to the concerns of women and women = adult female human.

Women arent a concept, they're a biological reality, and none of them are male.

EDIT: Sorry quoted the wrong poster, this was meant for @totino

It's probably the Actual Gender Critical Left group.

I see what you're saying with biology vs 'biology', there were some daft ideas in the past. There still are...😏

Two thoughts: what originally distinguished the group who said the other group's wombs would catch fire if they read books, or whatever, from the group whose wombs would allegedly catch fire?

And biology has come a long way from the inflammable womb theory - but it can still distinguish clearly between the group who have wombs as Standard Issue, and the group who don't.
In fact, it's never been easier - a simple cheek swab suffices.

You have a blind spot as to what you believe women here are actually saying. Also why do you support the idea that men can be women, based on that?

You are muddling fact with opinion.

I was wondering that.

If respected academics think that centring men - transwomen - is any sort of feminism they are talking out of their...hats. Feminism centres women, is for and about women being discriminated against on grounds of sex. Transwomen are men, and are not only not included, but cannot be included in feminism. It's for women, the biological kind who can't identify out of their oppression.
Academics need to learn this and read some proper philosophy, not Judith Butler.

So you think saying “women have vaginas and wombs, can get pregnant and may be raped by men” is “biology” on a level with the examples you give? Or a bit different, maybe?

It's biology, not 'biology'. All the discriminations you quote are based on women being the sex that bears children, whatever the understanding of biology at the time. You can't get round that, over it, under it...it's a bear and it will eat you up if you are not careful.