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?

The thing is, you didn’t read carefully enough to realise that it was posters’ names rather than social media platforms, so how could you have been being truthful in any way dismissing the “social media platforms” as echo chambers? Not constructive dialogue, is it?

Mens health and the way the patriarchy effects men is nothing to do with feminism
Feminism is about the effects of the patriarchy and misogyny effects women and our rights.
If your feminism includes men and their issues then its not feminism

No, my biggest problem is that the trans debate is the biggest ‘problem’ for feminism and women . I have the same critique of many feminists on the other side

That’s because this poster is a very sexist individual.

My visualisation of sex and gender is of a woman's body with a load of junk accreting onto her, covering her, hiding her, limiting her movements and weighing her down. The body is herself, simply a human of the sex she is, and the accretions are the gender expectations society layers on top of her body because she is female and these are the things society believes and expects of female people.

So the idea that because most of the (modern) expressions of sexism sit in the Gender zone rather than the directly biological, biology is no longer a factor in sexism or even in the definition of a woman, and that we can look only at that accretion and not acknowledge that it is something women experience because of their sex and how others react to it, is wild to me.

The idea that a woman, who was born into that accretion and has been limited by it her whole life, and a transwoman, who was born outside it and desperately wants to be allowed it, are somehow the same thing rather than direct opposites, is wild to me.

Ironically, as opposites we could work so well together, us throwing the accretions off and trans women picking them up an enjoying them. Us pushing, them pulling, facing different ways but working for the same thing.

It is forcing the idea that we are the same that fractures Feminism, because it tries to force two opposite visions of womanhood into one shape.

Thats mens work women and feminism are not here to do the work of men

You think the biggest problem for feminism and women in society is the trans debate?

You could not be more out of touch with the lives of ordinary women if you tried.

Domestic violence.
Rape.
Unaffordable childcare.
Increasing maternity related death rates.
Medical misogyny.
Increasing use and availablity of extreme porn.

I could go on but the fight of men to be seen as women is not even in the top 10.

I’m sorry but you anre wrong. Misogyny and patriarchy plays a huge part in the detriment of men’s mental heath, toxic masculinity and the mental health conditions that exacerbate violence against women. If these aren’t addressed and highlighted by feminists (don’t need to be women), then there will be no reduction in harm to women.

The mistake, I think, is to start from a position that there are broadly two types of feminism- trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive. So called trans-exclusive feminism excludes no one on the basis of being trans, just on the basis of being men. There is no blanket trans exclusion.

That leaves us with trans-inclusive feminists. If they are including all transpeople, either they see transmen as women or they connect feminism with being female. If that is so then why include transwomen? Maybe they would argue that it is about being female and/or being a woman, which then raises the same old questions about where the commonality is and what differentiates transwomen from other male people.

As you say though, in practice the majority of so-called trans-inclusive feminists do accept that there will be times that transwomen will be treated differently. They are not fully trans-inclusive, which sounds a lot like ‘only a bit pregnant’.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but a service can be single sex just because it would be reasonable to object to the presence of somebody of the opposite sex. Discomfort is very much taken into account.

Changing rooms are increasingly mixed sex, which I suspect is driven more by the need to supervise opposite children than anything else. However toilet provision is generally single sex or unisex (i.e. enclosed from floor to ceiling including wash basin).

What are you arguing for? Mixed sex toilets?

Agree.

I think the question is more whether you include women in your trans inclusive feminism or men.

If somebody includes men, you have to ask whether they really understand what feminism is.

I think she agrees with you. She’s bemoaning that it takes up so much of feminists’ discussions.

Men may want feminist women to do the work for them but they don't need them and feminist have enough to do trying to sort out women's rights without adding mens issues.
Feminism is by women for women not men nor should any of our time be spent on mens rights or issues

Thank god someone can read in this instance

Right with you. Great post.

It doesn't, though. She's only looking at the trans feminist discussions and of course they are going to focus on trans issues.

There are feminist discussions going on about feminist issues day in day out.

Also she didn't say anything about time, she called it the"biggest" problem.

It's high profile because it is contentious.

They may argue over the use of resources, but no political party is pro domestic violence or pro unaffordable childcare.

On the other hand a significant number of MPs want to remove the concept of sex discrimination from legislation.

Can I refer you back to your complaint about insults?

I can read. You did not mention time. You mentioned only size. The term you used was "biggest" which would usually mean "most important" in that context. It seems now that's not what you meant and we were supposed to read something other than what you wrote.

Aaagh, this thread!

Back in the mists of time, teachers used to say "if several people aren't understanding you, there's a common denominator. You."

Or femimenism

Tough luck for men then as its not a womens job to do that work.
Men need to recognise toxic masculinity and how it harms them and fix it themselves as its men who created all of these issues.

But as always, if someone has a personalised definition for words, sentences become essentially meaningless because the intention of the message is not going to necessarily be the message interpreted by the receiver.

It will continue to be this way while others misuse words by changing the meaning. Such as ‘woman’.

Yes. I've made the point a few times. We get Genderists, whether through bad faith or simply lack of critical thought, complaining that we spend far more time on FWR complaining about trans women than [insert deeply sexist/misogynist thing].

To which I always reply that if people turned up to defend [deeply sexist/misogynist thing] as much as they defend the sexism of treating trans women as women, they would see one hell of a pushback to that as well.

As it is, very few people are claiming [deeply sexist/misogynist thing] is actually ok. The issue is usually that society is not doing anything like enough to stop it happening in practice. And that means the Feminism isn't happening in the realm of ideas where the fight is broadly won, but out there with practical supports and actions where the ideas aren't matching reality.

Genderism, however, is being fought in the realm of ideas. It is based in the idea that some men are really, or as good as, women, or at least different enough to other men that we might as well treat them like women. Without that idea, the whole thing just falls apart. And that battle is not won. Hence, that battle is more visible here.

Remember some posters describe themselves as super feminine while their behaviour probably doesn’t fit that description in many people’s ideas of what super feminine would mean.

It’s also high profile here because there are a limited amount of spaces to actually take through the issues.