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 actually think Chopping may be the funniest one we've had so far.

Though not the most original.

Your'e almost there. If in a particular context if there's a disadvantage proportionality as in rights balancing occurs.

An example would be sex segregation in elite sports. But that might not apply for sports for prepubescent children. See how sex isn't the the defining factor but evidence of a disadvantage is?

Well no, and we do look forward to a new argument that might convince, but oddly it never comes. It's like Billy Bunter's postal order.

You're almost there. Male puberty confers an advantage, so men have to be excluded, even if they pretend to be women.

So they are men.

How about Imane Khelif?

Unfortunately for that idea, “live as a man” (or “live as a woman”) is pretty meaningless.

In many aspects of life there’s no difference between a woman doing something & a man doing something. Men & women do not live so differently as all that. As Germaine Greer says somewhere, the only job a woman can’t do is sperm donor & the only job a man can’t do is wetnurse.

But when sex matters it really does matter, & women who claims to be trans & women who don’t claim to be trans are alike female.

Feminism is about analysing & addressing the oppression of the female sex as a class by reason of their sex, & works to liberate us from it.

Women who claim to be trans often do not want to be a part of that sex class, for many reasons.

I recall a TiF once telling me she had “identified into male privilege”: about the least feminist thing a woman could believe, besides being of course a fantasy (I think what she had actually done, or tried to do, was to identify into trans privilege, as part of the new sacred caste).

But when sex matters it will matter for them too, & while women may abandon feminism, feminism cannot abandon them.

I just said its circumstance dependant. Do you understand what that means?

If there's a disadvantage rights balancing is required. Its a principle. Now go see if you can join the dots.

We know what you said.

And we know it’s wrong.

Don’t imagine you’re being misunderstood when you’re just being refuted.

Theres so much money for sports - especially womens sports - that all sporting bodies have to do is invent completely new categories to allow the sexes to compete together.
I wonder how that will turn out for women? Its a mystery.

The circumstance of being an adult male or female in this context.

Do you see why this means you are drawing a line between male and female people which puts TW on the male side where they should be?

I’ve seen men laugh at TIFs, I’ve seen them be protective of TIFs (actually the most common reaction) and I’ve seen them patronise TIFs and pretend they think they’re men. I’ve never seen a man who I actually thought was perceiving a TIF as a man.

I don’t need to join the dots.

You think proportionality law is wrong? As in this? Why?

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Well, quite. Everybody knows who the men are, don't they?

i was taken in by the first TiF I knew for a short while, because a beard is a great disguise. But it didn’t last an evening.

It’s why I cringe so much when women fawn over TIMs, because it’s not something men do, because they don’t need to.

I don't understand the point you are making. Can you elaborate what this has to do with rights balancing in the event of disadvantage?

Its not balancing rights if you allow men to step over the line and join the category of women. Its removing rights from the women.

Women are disadvanted by competing against transwomen. Fine. That is because they are men. So the proportionate response is to ban them from female sport. They are being banned form that not from all sport because they are men.

What I am not getting is why when you agree that that this is a proportionate response, you insist on saying they are women when the reason it is proportionate is because they are not.

Technically there are no 'women's rights' or 'men rights'. All there is anti discrimination law based on sex where special exemptions exist that are reliant on a disadvantage which is context determined.

That’s a good question.

'Woman' is a biological & sociological concept. In other words, its got both social & biological associations whether you agree with that or not. So trans women are categorised as a sub group of women based on their social association to the concept of woman. Again, when it comes to structuring society that doesn't mean they get treated the same as natal women because by virtue of not being exactly the same creates differences in priorities. At this point, rights balancing occurs to ensure fairness.

Another example is adults & minors. Whilst they are both categorically human they don't get treated the same because of rights balancing.

Good old “rights balancing”. Shame it never quite happens.

No, they are a sub group of men who happen, sometimes, to wear different clothes and think they are something that they are not based on nothing more than an idea, as they cannot ever have a female experience.