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?

Could someone from the intellectual fertile crescent explain the inclusive feminist position on Eddie Izzard standing on an all-women shortlist? I understand he's very keen to enter politics, and identifies as a woman.

Perhaps you need to be clearer in those written words if so many people are misunderstanding you?

According to what I can make out on here, because he said he sometimes identifies as a woman, he was never a man to start with?

Because he identifies as a woman he is one and we should therefore be delighted that there is an all women’s shortlist he can use

and because only a teeny tiny number of men will do that only a teeny tiny number of women will be affected so they should just be glad to be supporting the better woman

once you get over the stupidity of believing a man is a woman it’s all perfectly logical

Why did you handwave biology away as “chromosomes” as if the reason men decided to oppress women has nothing to do with it but instead some nebulous “gender” made them do it? Where do you think gender roles came from?

Given he only does sometimes, he's going to be on and off the shortlist like he's doing the hokey cokey.

I'm sure he'll do the maths so voting day is a Suzi day, the massive bellend.

Surely he won’t be allowed on it now, after Labour changed the rules about their women’s conference?

He wouldn’t be if they had them. I think the point is moot at the moment as the shortlists are only used if the number of female MPs fall below a particular level.

He'd not get in anyway, surely. I remember his failures in Sheffield, then Brighton. Failing in Brighton would be hard, you'd think, but even they noticed he literally used the same speech as he had for Sheffield just changed the city name. Lazy man.

With respect, unless you have name changed you are a very new poster who has spent almost no time yet on FWR.

I think before you start judging the use of terms like "word soup" you read some of the threads recently and going back years.

You will realise there is a small group of what are clearly the same few posters, each with a very distinctive and frankly often very rude or patronising style, who have been prolifically trying to drown out Gender Critical Feminist points and views with their own bad takes and sexist assertions about what it means to be a woman in this world. They don't engage other than to insult and misrepresent. Eventually one learns no to bother trying to discuss, but simply to highlight and demolish the false claims and incoherent demands.

Frankly being accused of "word soup" is like being dusted with rose petals compared to the barrage of insults and patronising women face on FWR.

I actually really appreciated your first few posts on this thread about the importance of Feminism in recognising the impact of patriarchy on men. I had that in mind when I posted about Feminist Analysis vs Feminism.

I was very disappointed to see you later go down the "it's just an echo chamber with no other perspectives allowed" route, and if I read your more recent posts revealing a "we might as well treat some men as women" position.

My view on this is supporting men expressing elements patriarchy devalues for being of, or associated with, women is Feminist and one in the eye for patriarchy right up until there's a suggestion these men actually are somehow women rather than men, or even just more like women than other men, at which point it instantly flips over into just basic Patriarchy again.

By ‘not fully trans inclusive’ do you mean you only include some transpeople, ie transmen, or do you mean you only include some men, ie transwomen, only some of the time? Because they are very different things.

@FlirtsWithRhinos

”Unless”

Ah ok, good point. Labour has tons of female MPs. Not managed a female leader yet of course.

You seem to be arguing about the thread as a whole and how you feel about the original post, rather than responding to my point that your mistake wasn’t a problem but your lie was.

I can see why in a tired state you might have thought those were social media sites. But I can’t understand why you said that they are echo chambers. That wasn’t just you giving an opinion on some actual social media platforms, it was you telling a fib, and that’s why I won’t pay much attention to any of your other posts on the thread.

There are also the TRAs who shout that TWAW but accept that they should be excluded from female sports & rape centres so their rather incoherent position is that TWAW except when they are not.

No I was being totally genuine. People name change a lot on MN for different reasons. I just wanted to acknowledge I might be treating someone as a newbie who actually has a lot of prior knowledge.

If they aren't a newbie they can skip the background and start at the paragraph beginning "Frankly", the point still holds.

Is it ‘far right’ to point out when someone is fibbing?

That’s actually a good point I hadn’t quite thought through @Waitingfordoggo

You are reading a very different thread from the one the OP, that's me by the way, started and has been reading.

The thread I'm reading has a robust exchange of views back and forth with snark and insult generally happening as a result of the snark and insult posted by the trans inclusive posters.

I had not been rude in any way to anyone before my intelligence was called into question. That's typical for these threads.

We have had disagreements about what constitutes feminism between the non trans-inclusive feminists on the thread with no personal insult whatsoever.

I've found the thread very interesting. I started it in good faith and most posts were made in similar good faith.

If you can't cope with this type of discussion then I'm afraid that your problem is with joining in forum discussions in general, on any topic, because the level of debate on this particular forum on all topics is far higher and more civilised than that of very many others.

To be honest it comes across that your biggest problem is simply that we won't agree with you that men can turn into women.

Its why Starmer stated to talk about safe spaces rather than single sex spaces.

He was priming everyone to see some spaces as safe, and therefore under different rules. A refuge can literally have someone on the door, and its difficult to argue men should be included.

Whereas by not talking about toilets or changing rooms, the implication is that they are not important or are unmanageable.

So instead of talking about which men should be included and why, he talked about a subset of spaces.

This was a very dishonest framing and I’m glad it was nipped in the bud

Do you know what unintentional means ?

If you mean including trans-identifying males, of course not. Feminism centres female needs and concerns and is inclusive of all those born female. If men want a movement that centres the needs and concerns of those born male, they need to get busy organising it themselves. Women have other things to do.

The "safe spaces" thing is still repeated by some posters on FWR though (not on this thread, I don't think)

That's why it's important to challenge it every time

TW are simply identifying with associations to social category that are group based so it doesn't apply to individuals.

Sounds very much like sexism.

The general idea of the Equality act is that discrimination is unlawful and only permissible in a limited circumstances.