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 strongly support Trans rights.

As in rights to be Trans & right to not face discrimination or be at a disadvantage. There should be very harsh penalties for hate crimes against trans people. Bullying or threats by men against trans women in toilets etc should be treated very harshly.

I just don't accept that trans women are women. Trans identified males shouldn't be treated any less than women or men but also shouldn't cause women to be at a disadvantage. It's not a hate crime to stand up for women's rights & women's safety. You can support Trans rights &at the same time support women's rights to female only spaces.

Apparently that makes me a TERF, bigot, homophobic & responsible for suicides.

Oh, back to the OP and my post on perspectives, I forgot to include this one:

Principle vs Immateriality. For some women, they don't really think TWAW but assume there are only a few TW and that their behaviour will be respectful towards actual women, so in practice they just ignore that TW are taking the piss a bit with their idea of what being a woman is because there are better uses of women's time than making it a big deal. Kind of like the rules that allow for trace contaminants in food before it counts as contaminated.

While on the other hand, you have women who think if you make it acceptable for even one male person to count as a "woman" because of how they think, feel, or act, you have fundamentally underminded the core Feminist point which is that women do not all feel, or act in certain ways and it's reducing our agency and possibilities to treat us or make decisions about us as if we do.

Well, I've read most of this thread, and I think for a bunch of amateurs rather than proper respected academics (yes, I know. I'm just being facetious) in proper institutions (Lexibletheflexible, this thread page 1) there's been some bloody good argumenting going on here.

@FlirtsWithRhinos , thanks for the point that allies can't compromise. That's a really useful insight that's going straight into the toolbox.

It does make a point, yes. The mistake is neither here nor there, we all make mistakes. The problem isn’t that you assumed they were social media platforms; it’s that you declared they were echo chambers. So you were willing to make a judgement about social media platforms that you’ve never been on because they don’t exist. That marks you out as somewhat dishonest. (Or at the very least, unwilling to check evidence and resources before making a declaration about something. That would make me take the rest of your posts with a pinch of salt).

The question is really "can you be a partially male inclusive feminist?".

And that really is the heart of the matter for me. Decent men don’t make women uncomfortable or violate their boundaries. Men who don’t care or even worse, get pleasure from it, do.

Wait what! Gender critical feminism serves to undermine egalitarianism. Please explain your understanding of 'gender critical feminism' that causes you to make that statement?

Or indeed egalitarianism.

It’s just nonsense burble to manufacture engagement.

Here's something that is only just dawning on me ...

Many of us have started from a position of 'I'm sure these men are well meaning, let's give them the benefit of the doubt'.

For the GC posters on this board, as the penny starts to drop in terms of what some of these men are really like, then the urge to push back, protect women, defend their rights, kicks in.

I always assumed that would be the case for everyone, but I'm realising that it can prompt a completely different reaction in some people. When the penny drops for other people, they are even more inclined to give these men what they want, at the expense of women. This is motivated by fear. They realise what these men might be capable of and they think the best strategy is to try to placate.

This ties in with what I've suspected for a while, that 'be kind' as a moral framework is fundamentally quite a cowardly position (or it can be).

Rather than do the hard work in terms of assessing what is morally right and standing up for that, 'be kind' allows you to give in to the biggest egos in the room and feel good about yourself while doing so.

Yeah, same.
A lot of Genderists like to tell GC/sex realists what we believe instead of actually understanding what we believe. Some even on this thread.

We're not a hive mind, obviously, and we've all got different levels of tolerance. But we have one thing in common: men's rights do not override women's rights.

Yes, I think that’s definitely a motivating factor for some women.

The point/observation I was making was that OP knew that opposing views would inevitably be met with snark, derision, insult, dismissing them as ‘word soup’ with no other engagement, intentional obtuse misrepresentation and mockery by a large number of frequent posters - which is evident throughout- coming from those who share OPs opinion, which makes the original post seem disingenuous in it’s pretence that it actually wanted to hear another viewpoint. Fine, I misused the word echo chamber (unintentionally), although some but it doesn’t change that pint .

My other points are not invalidated by this.There has been constant incorrect conflation between inclusion and prioritisation, as well as other misreadings an example: I said in one comment “I am not a ‘fully trans inclusive feminist’” and someone responded later saying ‘you said your not a feminist’ , that is not comprehending.

In terms of women only spaces “inclusion” (your mealy mouthed little fig leaf word) is prioritisation, because the introduction of a man means it is no longer a woman only space and no longer fit for purpose for the majority of women who want a woman only space for certain purposes.

The “opposing views” are, as always, goady and poorly articulated self righteous nonsense. Why would you expect anyone to take them seriously? I have as much right to my opinion, and yes it is an opinion, that “trans inclusive feminism” is a contradiction in terms.

@Choppingwoodcarryingwater

I have read your posts with interest and make the following observations:

'Socialogical woman' has no more meaning than 'socialogical cat' or 'socialogical bicycle'.

Neither 'proportionality' nor 'balancing of rights' appears in the Equality Act 2010. You are inferring these from the phrase 'proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim'. For example, if you provide toileting facilities for your mixed sex customers, providing these facilities separately for each sex for reasons of dignity for all would be a legitimate aim. Providing a single user facility for women and a multiple user facility for men would not be a proportionate means.

Proportionality and rights balancing does exist in law but it is concerned with the power of the State over its citizens. Again, for example, the State has a legitimate aim to prevent riots but the use of lethal force is unlikely to be a proportionate means.

So as a “partially trans-inclusive feminist”. Under which circumstances would you include TIM? Or do you mean that you include TIF in your feminism as they are female she exclude TIM as they are male?

Inclusion is a word that has been completely misunderstood/weaponised.

Inclusion doesn’t means letting everyone who wants into a certain group. Inclusion is about looking at the wider ecosystem and ensuring all are represented/catered to. Sometimes (often) that involves excluding certain groups from some spheres if they are already well catered to elsewhere.

Which is why the idea of centring men in feminism is oxymoronic. The entire point of feminism is to advocate for women, within a system that has historically prioritised men’s needs over their own.

This is the main comment you made that you’re complaining that people misunderstood, I think. What you are doing here is suggesting that a thing called “gender” exists which is distinct from biological sex. Why else would you have said (paraphrasing) “men’s oppression of women is nothing to do with chromosomes.”

of course it is! That’s just the reality of biology.

And to clarify, yes of course I include TIFs and NB women and girls in feminism. But that is because they are women/girls. It has nothing to do with the separate concept of transgender identity. So I wouldn’t call myself a “trans inclusive feminist” and I think the term is oxymoronic.

Bravo.

What's is so disappointing is not only the absence of good faith but dumbed down reactionary narratives but I suppose that goes with the territory they are attempting to defend which is to exploit very legitimate grievances of natal women & distort them into far right oversimplifications of supremacy, illiberalism & dehumanisation.

One might easily drop this intellectual desert but that would be abdicating responsibility. There are so few serious discussion on line forums for everyday women its our duty to not to let the garden waste.

Special exemptions for legitimate aims in law that underpin egalitarianism covers the "woman part".

Next.

Fascinating. Genuinely.

That’s one point I’ve made, yes. that was incorrectly conflated to me saying that there is NOTHING to do with biology.
Another point I made being that some mens issues are and should be included as and by feminism. I was met with comments saying a) ‘so it’s women who need to solve it and advocate for men’s issues’ - didn’t say that , and b) ‘so men should be prioritised by feminists?’ Nope again, and reading it as such is lack of ability to understand written words, and another example of the automatic and incorrect insertion of the word prioritised in place of inclusion.

Isn’t that just people disagreeing with your framing of it?