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?

transmen.

ok a very quick google shows
Merriam-Webster definition -* belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes *expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.
Oxford English dictionary - Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this (see note below). Cf. womanism n., women's liberation n.

Biology matters, sex matters. Gender identity is something that is changeable according to the whim expressed by an individual. Sex is immutable, determined at contraception and fundamentally affects the relationship between men and women.

This.

Because there needs to be a justifiable reason for the association to man or woman (gender categories not sex) & the reason in the case of trans people is gender. Gender being a socially constructed set of roles, behaviours expressions, and norms that a society associates with being a boy, man, girl, or woman.

If your feminism includes or centres the wants of men however they identify then its not feminism its male supremacy

Well not if you see trans women as women and not men. You can't both see a trans woman as a man and rationally include them in your feminism so you'd have to believe that woman and man is something one determines for themselves. An internal identity that may or may not align with your external body.

So the first way that it is a different branch of feminism to Trans exclusionsry feminism is because trans inclusive feminists believe you self determine your gender. It isn't determined for you by your anatomy or physiology.

That might be how you wish it was.

I don’t believe that I have strayed from the question posed in the OP.

And the two points are inextricably linked given the definition of “trans inclusive” posited in the OP.

You cannot believe yourself a feminist and believe men should be included in women’s single sex spaces and categories unless you also truly believe that TWAW.

How can you support the rights of women to have women only shortlists if you support allowing biological men to be on those shortlists?

That only makes sense if you believe men can change sex, and even then I don't believe you can truly be a feminist if you are prepared to disadvantage large numbers of women who don't believe that is possible to change sex.

It is like asking 'can you truly be a vegetarian and eat meat'.

Erm, no.

Even if your Auntie Sue's neighbour calls herself a vegetarian and hosts hog roasts in the garden and virtue signals her 'vegetarian' credentials by ripping the legs off a pig and chomping down on them slurping about how lovely and meaty they are.

Inclusive of transmen? Sure. Transwomen are men, so no more included than other men.

What if someone thinks that the traits that society assigns to female people don't apply to a large number of female people?

It seems like a poor proxy between the groups of people to work on the basis that people who are traditionally 'feminine' are female and that people who are female are feminine.

Surely better to say your sex doesn't dictate what you're like, and what you're like doesn't dictate your sex (actual or otherwise)?

Oh boy, that's just fabulous.

We agree that you can't be a feminist and completely trans inclusive so we'll invent a "new branch of feminism".

It is not for men to redefine feminism so that it can include them.

I'd agree with that and that is why it makes no sense when someone keeps repeating that they are including men. They don't see them as men so the point is moot. That is why they are labelled post modern or trans inclusive feminists. They're including trans women who most with that school of thought see as women.

It doesn't make them more or less right by acknowledging that it is a feminist approach. It just makes you seem like you know what you're talking about and any arguments you do make seem more rational and robust.

Feminism has always had different branches as it has evolved. There's something like 9 different types now. All with a slightly different idea about how to achieve equality.

It's a fact not a wish. Women are discriminated against because of our sex not some notion of gender identity or gendered stereotypes. Gendered stereotypes are the way we have been oppressed over the centuries and are what many men are reinforcing so that by dint of preforming those stereotypes they can claim womanhood. That is misogyny write large and a males supremacist model ie the exact opposite of feminism

Transmen are biological women who identify as men.
Its transwomen who are biological men who identify as being women

I think we can be feminists - ie want female exclusive spaces/right protected - but also have a society that is empathetic and tolerant of the issues faced by trans identifying persons; one where we all work together to ensure that there is no harassment, bullying or infringement of actual human rights (ie no discrimination from access to employment, rental properties etc). But I thought, 15 years ago, that we had that?

The tension came when that was not enough - when a vocal and very dominant section of the trans community, whose drivers and motivations seem to be less about surviving individual trauma/distress and quietly getting on with normal life along side the rest of us, made it about indoctrination, erosion of women’s rights, and the express harming of children and vulnerable teens. Once it became about subverting societal norms, eroding the rights and safety of women and children and LGB people, about policing language and thoughts - then, no. It became impossible to be both a feminist and generally trans inclusive.

And I don’t think we can ever ‘rewind’ the clock to return to that original position because not only has the damage been done now, but it has irreversibly and irreparably destroyed families, children's lives and individual livelihoods. That harm cannot be unseen.

It doesnt change the fact that trans inclsuionary feminism is a type of feminism as agreed by academics the world over.

Just because you find it distasteful, it doesn't alter its existence at all.

Someone's "internal identity" is not relevant here. Being one sex or the other is not something a person determines for themselves.

Feminism, and women's liberation, aim to fight against female inequality in society stemming from our sexed bodies. That's what our foremothers were fighting for. Not for someone's nebulous "gender identity" and most certainly not for the inclusion of male-bodied people.

But why is self defining as female justifiable and self defining as 10 years old not?

After all age also confers a “socially constructed set of roles, behaviours expressions, and norms”.

Why can a man self identify into women’s legal spaces, and I can’t self identify to being 10 years old and apply for a space at my local primary school?

Feminism can have different ideas about how to improve the lot of women.

It can't, by definition, include a branch to have ideas about how to improve the lot of men (unless that is achieved by improving the lot of women) because that would be a total contradiction.

Your whole argument on this issue is predicated on believing that men can choose to change sex.

They can't, so do you have any other explanation than that one as to how a genuine feminist can be completely trans inclusive?

Exactly. I think most of us on FWR are aware of that change, but there are still plenty of well meaning people who aren’t. Less every year though, which is why support for men in female spaces is on a downward trajectory over time.

trans inclusive feminism: otherwise known as fun feminism. Otherwise known as men’s rights activism.

It's nothing to do with gender.

The UN use 'gender' as do many interpretations probably as a result of the usage of man/woman rather than female/male in dictionaries like Cambridge.
But in any case, that doesn't change the over arching point that feminism is about equality not superiority.

https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/what-is-feminism

And it's nothing to do with "superiority", it's about equality for women in an unequal world.

Yup that's what I said. Claiming self determination should only apply to natal women & not trans women is superiority not equality.

How can feminism be inextricably linked with the bodily autonomy of men to self determine as women and take women's places in society?
That's an oxymoron.

Places or spaces aren't enshrined in stone to anyone. That's for rights balancing to adjudicate. Equality iis kind of 'funny' that way.