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?

With phantom limbs, the limb once existed.

How is that relevant to this scenarios where the body has never been the opposite sex?

It is quite interesting to see some extreme transgender rights supporters talk about male people with transgender identities as ‘identifying with’.

we have seen on this thread that some transpeople might describe their identifying as the opposite sex as the brain mapping the body differently. We have posters using terminology like ‘identifying with associations to social categories’, we had one male poster in the past as telling us he simply ‘was’ and that somehow he was passive in the experience where people identified him as a woman while ignoring all the effort he took to present as female.

What all of these types of soundbites explanations miss is that those male people who claim to be female are using their person perceptions and their personal interpretation of what they believe female people to be. The logic can only ever be that they are overlaying their personal expectations of being female over their experience and they decided that they match.

But they only ever match to their interpretation of what it is to be female never what materially it is to be female. So, they do indeed ‘identify with’ and I think that these soundbites highlight the dissonance.

It is another appropriation of language and terminology to attempt give a concept that is impossible, credibility and that gives it power.

No male person ever can know that what they perceive as being ‘female’ is anything like what is materially experienced by any female person. They just want it to be so, and some people will believe it even when it is impossible.

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'.

You have some lack of self awareness there calling me use of the fact of human biology "juvenile".

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

Correct. Women have a number of sex based rights enshrined on law in this country. Men who believe they can change into women are campaigning to share those hard won rights. It's your right to campaign in that way. I sincerely hope you never win because by doing so you would remove the existing rights of women to have single sex spaces, single sex shortlists, single sex clubs and single sex sport, all of which were granted because of circumstances that made them right and circumstances which have not changed.

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

I've never made that claim. I don't know anyone who has ever made that claim. You claim that we are unreasonable and then demonstrate that we are not unreasonable by describing the demands that we could make but we don't make because they would be unreasonable.

And then you have the nerve to call my level of argument incoherent.

You begin to sound more and more like a group of little boys stamping their feet and crying "it's not fair!" because you can't get what you want.

You keep banging on and on about proportionality.

In what way is it proportional to demand that the very, very many women who do not want to share (or cannot for religious or personal reasons) changing spaces with people with a male physique or who went through male puberty should be forced to do so because of the wishes of a tiny number of female identified men?

Correct. Women have a number of sex based rights enshrined on law in this country. Men who believe they can change into women are campaigning to share those hard won rights. It's your right to campaign in that way. I sincerely hope you never win because by doing so you would remove the existing rights of women to have single sex spaces, single sex shortlists, single sex clubs and single sex sport, all of which were granted because of circumstances that made them right and circumstances which have not changed.

Firstly, I not a man. I'm a cis woman.

Secondly, that you assume disagreement can be only sex based is what's called internalised misogyny…& that's hardly feminist.

Thirdly, explaining how rights are apportioned which you finally acknowledge isn't a repudiation of current law or anti feminist. On the contrary its feminist to believe in sexual equality not sexual superiority when it comes to how rights are apportioned.

I've never made that claim. I don't know anyone who has ever made that claim.
Indeed you have repeatedly where you have assumed biology decides rights when in fact it's disadvantage that does.

So trans women are categorised as a sub group of women based on their social association to the concept of woman.

Only in your world. The heart of your "social construct" of women is gender stereotyping that socially advanced societies reject.

Women are not a construct.

Women are a biological group with two X chromosomes.

A man cannot know if he feels like a woman, because he isn't one.

Rights balancing (proportionality) requires a disadvantage. While some may consider discomfort a justified disadvantage, discomfort works both ways as in trans women may feel discomfort in mens toilets. It's also a very subjective term because individuals have different perspectives on discomfort. I personally feel discomfort as many do changing in front of any strangers regardless of sex. Does this common view entitle us to private cubicles? How does that work practically.

Discomfort being so subjective makes it a logistical nightmare impossible to cater for so as a standard/principle its not practical that gender critical feminists don't seem to understand the consequences of in that once a principle is established it also needs to apply broadly.

Jesus yes, sorry, I forgot you were actually a woman.

Do you have trans relatives? Women with the strength of conviction that a man can turn into the sex you are generally seem to.

Secondly, that you assume disagreement can be only sex based is what's called internalised misogyny…& that's hardly feminist.

Again, not a term I have ever used.

Thirdly, explaining how rights are apportioned which you finally acknowledge isn't a repudiation of current law or anti feminist. On the contrary its feminist to believe in sexual equality not sexual superiority when it comes to how rights are apportioned.

Believing that some sex based rights need protecting is not a belief in sexual superiority. That's a bizarre clam to make when it's for in physical inferiority and vulnerability.

I've never made that claim. I don't know anyone who has ever made that claim.
Indeed you have repeatedly where you have assumed biology decides rights when in fact it's disadvantage that does.

That is tautological nonsense when it is biological sex that creates the disadvantage which require additional rights to be enshrined in law.

You are confusing 'female' with 'woman'. Female is a sex category. Woman is both a sociological & sex category because of social associations.

The heart of your "social construct" of women is gender stereotyping that socially advanced societies reject.

But they don't really on the whole because if they did they wouldn't continue to perpetuate them by expressing sex typical behaviours & most men & women do this to some degree. That you are in denial of this reality doesn't do your credibility much justice particularly given its a centrepiece of gender critical feminism. Do you even understand your own ideology?

If transwomen feel discomfort in the bathroom provided for their own sex, there is zero requirement for women to give up their rights to single sex spaces to accommodate them.

Either you educate men to treat all men with respect in male spaces or you campaign for third spaces.

Lesve women out of it. We are not some lesser beings who only exist to accommodate men 🙄

No women is not a ‘sociological category’ 🙄

Do we need to remind you of the post about non veggies larping as veggies trying to make the point that ‘ham is sociological kale’

Believing that some sex based rights need protecting is not a belief in sexual superiority. That's a bizarre clam to make when it's for in physical inferiority and vulnerability.

Shifting the goal posts now? You alleged sex determines rights repeatedly & as I have demonstrated repeatedly they do not because they are subject to context.

That is tautological nonsense when it is biological sex that creates the disadvantage which require additional rights to be enshrined in law.

Not always which is the point you are spectacularly missing.

Single sex services are justified and designed on the bases of sex.

You acknowledge that trans identifying men are not female.

So what are you talking about?

If you want to lobby for spaces to be justified and designed base on 'social women/social men' go for it. But you will need to define the term, justify why people would need to be segregated, and design the spaces knowing they are mixed sex.

But you dont seem to be able even to define the term.

That's not how rights balancing works. Women don't 'own spaces' disadvantage does & discomfort doesn't qualify as one.

Let's forget discomfort for the moment because it's impossible to define.

There are Jewish women and Moslem women, and no doubt others, who are prohibited by their faith or culture from being semi clothed in areas where there are men. To access sporting facilities, these women need women only changing rooms and women only swim sessions.

There are rape victims who have clinically observable PTSD who require the same thing. They also have a requirement for rape support centres where they know they will not meet male people.

By sticking to the current law, that males should use male or gender neutral facilities, nobody is prevented from those activities.

By allowing males into those places women are disadvantaged.

So I'll ask again why you believe that the rights of a tiny number of men who identify as women trump the rights of those women who would be disadvantaged.

I hope you are putting as much effort into campaigning for gender neutral facilities as you are into trying to push women into agreeing to give up existing hard won rights.

@Choppingwoodcarryingwaterwants us to redefine sex to mean something other than sex so that she can sell women’s rights down the river

There’s absolutely no need to ‘rughts balance’ here.

No one has ever had the ‘right’ to use facilities for the opposite sex.

You should replace the word discomfort with anxiety.

It has the same range but at the higher end it becomes a clinically recognised disadvantage.

Anxiety, sometimes extreme anxiety, is what men who identify as women are causing women by using female only spaces.

He never says, he tells us it has been explained repeatedly presumably to engage in some people going back through the bazillions of his posts to try and work out what the fuck he is talking about but he never ever manages to type out any that he means

Presumably because his brain hurtz?

In the Equality Act, the act used to allow many single sex spaces, a woman is defined as a female of any age. The SC clarified that sex means biological sex, not sex acquired via a GRC.

So the idea that female and women means different things is not true.

You may not understand it, but you are attempting to create a new class of people - social man and women.

Let's not forget that disadvantage is not enough for a special exemption as it must also:

(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Do the circumstances you describe meet this condition? We don't know yet for sure because these cases haven't been tested in court but they seem to be more about personal discomfort.

So I'll ask again why you believe that the rights of a tiny number of men who identify as women trump the rights of those women who would be disadvantaged.

Because that's how rights balancing works. Numbers don't come into & if they did if its only a tiny number of men then its only a tiny inconvenience.

I hope you are putting as much effort into campaigning for gender neutral facilities as you are into trying to push women into agreeing to give up existing hard won rights.

Um, this is a discussion forum not the floor of parliament….get over yourself.

I didn't even use the word female.

Female is also an adjective and "feminine", female-ness, is very much a social construct.

Woman is a biological fact of carrying two X chromosomes and no Y.

You define "woman" as a set of behaviours and feelings, that not all women will share.

I can assure you that the lack of understanding is not on my side of this discussion.

I hope you are putting as much effort into campaigning for gender neutral facilities as you are into trying to push women into agreeing to give up existing hard won rights.
Um, this is a discussion forum not the floor of parliament….get over yourself.

That would be a "no" then.

Can you answer my question about whether you have trans family members, it's your right not to of course, but it's often relevant in these discussions?

Some people experience extreme anxiety being around people in general. Are you suggesting society is responsible to cater for their privacy everywhere?

As I said before, the GC movement doesn’t understand how principles work.