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?

Another question that @Choppingwoodcarryingwater has never answered is - what are women supposed to have in common with ‘transwomen’ (but not other men) that makes us coherent category?

Much less a category so important that it supersedes sex?

Because I can’t think of a single thing

I have no trans family members. I simply enjoy discussion & debate about current affairs.

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

Is used to justify why single sex provision is needed.

If it isn't the service has to be mixed sex.

You seem to be saying that the provider need to justify why it should be single sex, then justify why trans identifying men should be excluded? But you acknowledge that these men are male?

You seem to believe that these men are male, but sometimes dont count as male for single sex spaces?

Great post.

I think Chopping has an old copy of EHRC guidelines because that’s very much what the line was in the past. Not now though, the SC judgment clarified that.

Mmm hmmm. You’d think you would be better at it in that case.

@Choppingwoodcarryingwater

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.

Numbers don't come into it? Of course they do. I don't understand how you can live in a modern society and not see that. But it's a convenient way of failing to answer the question, I'll give you that.

It isn't only a tiny inconvenience. The legal right of any one man who may go into one changing room once a year affects every woman in every town who doesn't want a man there every time she wants to use single sex facilities with a guarantee there will be no man in there.

FlirtswithRhinos posted a great post on another thread:

"Yes absolutely draw a difference.
A long time ago, but probably in the depths of FWR somewhere, I noted that danger of taking on someone else's cause for them is that you can fight for them, you can amplify their voice, you can hold the line for them, but you cannot compromise for them because it's not your fight to say what they can or can't accept in the interests of finding a solution. So, allies tend to be more extreme that the people for whom they are fighting.
And in a movement like Genderism, where you have I guess at least 1000 allies shouting about trans rights for each actual trans person, that becomes a big deal. Because most of the people driving this on the Genderist side now are only empowered to fight, not to compromise.
And then if they have also put a heavy slug of their own identity into being "a person who is compassionate / sophisticated enough to truly believe that TWAW / TMAM"... well. Those people have every reason to dig in and no reason in the world to soften."

Do the circumstances you describe meet this condition? We don't know yet for sure because these cases haven't been tested in court

Why?

Are you simply enjoying the debate or do you actually believe what you are writing?

I find it almost inconceivable and fascinating and disappointing that there are women with no close association to trans people who are so prepared to disadvantage other women as your arguments would suggest that you are.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. The other thing that acts on allies is a lot of them are scared of saying the wrong thing. Of being called out as not sufficiently supportive. Of being accidentally “transphobic”. They have seen what happens when women say no to these men.

But choppy doesn't talk about the GRA or even a diagnosis, just social women.

I think they mean if we can't tell they are men, or can guess that they are trans, we treat them as women, but cant say that.

Those 'tiny numbers' do make a hell of an impact don't they?

What I’ve learnt in the course of this debate is that misogyny (both externalised and internalised) runs very deep in our society.

Depressing beyond belief

That would apply even if they weren’t “trans”. Hardly any man can truly pass as a woman.

Both. I believe in egalitarianism & the principles that underpin it. As a woman, a child of immigrants & poverty Im very grateful for them & believe in defending them particularly against gender critical feminism which serves to essentially undermine it & enable authoritarianism.

Well it's not. @totino is making up their own/ borrowing someone else's pseudoscience nonsense based loosely on real science. It's a bit like "intersex means there are more than 2 sexes because chromosomes." Utter rubbish.

More word salad 😂

Yes, agreed

Women wanting loos kept to their own sex enables authoritarianism?

The kind of authoritarianism that in other countries has put women through criminal courts and heavily fined lesbians for not wanting a man in their club and women for referring to someone born male as "he"?

Ah, so same old same old.

Arguments that men are very very very important and feelings matter - but women's don't.
Framing the absolute naivety, ignorance and lack of care for women as 'its just a tiny inconvenience' to have men in women's spaces.

Sexism on crack. And a lot of enjoyment of seeing women run around giving attention and emotion in response to the provocation.

I sadly can't find a gif of the magic roundabout but the theme tune is about all I can hear in my head.

'As a woman'

Do they not realise that thanks to the Gender Addler Grievance Gerbils this means NOTHING?

Indeed. People used to post a link to an episode on YouTube. Or the song “Let’s Go Round Again”.

i guess “authoritarianism” is kind of like “bossy” when women are assertive ?

actually the phantom limb is interesting
would people take away the crutches of a one legged person because they claimed they could feel both legs ?

Genderists come up with this nonsense purely to justify why they want to prioritise men over women. Both women and men do this, with men it’s generally because they just don’t give a fuck about women and it doesn’t occur to them that women might have a say. Women do it in a more internalised way, we can see how they justify it on Mumsnet. “I’m a good person, I have empathy”, but they think women should put themselves second to these men. They’re as sexist as the men are.