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?

Not nice to say all those fine, upstanding “trans inclusive feminists” are “echo chambers”, I guessed you’d read it wrong. Did you think they were social media platforms? Odd.

Why wait, I don’t 😂

There's a loud significant body of trans activists as well, you've been reading their posts.

There is also a respectful disagreement between feminists as to just how much men can and cannot be involved in feminism.

I don't think you understand the meaning of echo chamber.

And I don't think you understand that the majority of people in this country don't believe that a man can change into a woman.

yes in a brief glance I did actually, it’s late, I’m tired - does that make any big point to you ?

I often quote my credentials as a women’s right activist in terms of where i come from, all over this shop, but just want to say i walk amongst giants, and and am grateful for you all holding the line, whilst i and others slept.

No, I idly wondered if you were using AI, but on balance I accept your explanation.

Allowances for tiredness aside, their presence means no echo chamber. As indeed does sosomewhereelse's.

Agreeing that trans women are women isn't a negation of rights

No, it's biological illiteracy.

The rest of your argument falls apart at that point.

You want the right of a man who identifies as a woman to be in women only spaces to override the legal rights of women who don't want him there..

That is not feminism.

You’ve walked the walk, I’m more of a “slacktivist”! 😂 hopefully I’ve helped by writing letters and funding court cases and going to meetings. Also I did my bit in the background in the public sector when I could.

I think it is a negation of rights. As if you lump them in with women, women have no right to spaces away from men, and they are men.

Exactly.

An echo chamber is a place where you hear no voice that disagrees with you. This forum is not one. There is constant argument, and you don't get banned for arguing per se, though you can for personal abuse.

I believe there are forums on Reddit and other places where you can get banned for posting anything, however politely, that doesn't follow an approved line on certain topics. That would fit the definition of an echo chamber.

That would be never. Ole Mouldy doesn't believe it any more than we do.

I'm interested in your mining community background but it's a conversation for another time so as not to derail this thread.
Also we have to bear in mind the AI bot scrapers

You don't understand the argument or don't want to understand it because if you did you would explain how it falls apart….but you can't so that's why you are pivoting to the juvenile retort of 'but biology'.

Again, sex isn't an automatic entitlement to rights because rights are circumstance dependant.

If you actually believed what you claim that the female sex trumps all 'cause male violence/advantage GC's would be demanding separate spaces where all instances of potential male violence & disadvantage might occur but they don't AND can't because competing rights management underpins our social structure.

Your argument is incoherent at best.

That's self evidently false given the restructuring of sports & proportionality exemption law that is widespread in western nations.

Oh dear me.
That's the cue for me to leave this echo chamber for tonight😴

Owwww my brain hurtz…..

Really? Actually that move towards sanity is because women were losing rights, the right to female sport and that needed to be rectified. By doing so, the acknowledgement is that TW are not women.

Rights had been lost, we're now getting our stuff back. Bit by bit.

What is self evidently false?

”it’s a negation of rights”

“If you lump them in with women”

”women have no right to spaces away from men”

”they are men”

?

Has anyone got a wet paper bag for Chopping to fail to fight their way out of?

By doing so, the acknowledgement is that TW are not women.

It does no such thing all it acknowledges is rights balancing where disadvantage occurs.

I don't reply to nonsensical posts from the peanut gallery

So, if they're women, why is there a disadvantage occurring? There only is because they are men.

Come now, you know this.

She does.