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 don’t think someone with any empathy would. I find a lot of trans pandering women are quite insular in terms of their filter bubble etc. They only care about themselves and their friends.

Indeed.

If men can be women then how can 'we' rule?

If everyone can rule then nobody rules.

It's like walking into a bloody toddler's party where far too much pink cake and sweeties have been eaten.

Oh. Come on people!! Don’t use up the thread .. the revelation about how to test for genuine male people with transgender identities is coming !!!

At last! I am sure that the world health organisations are going to be very happy to have that test too!

@Shedmistress “If men can be women then how can 'we' rule?”

The ‘men who can be women’ rule with us of course because they are ‘women’ now.

And no one has yet made a convincing case for “trans inclusive feminism”. I believe that women can be feminists and also “trans inclusive” but I believe “trans inclusion” is a fundamentally anti feminist project. It’s cuckooing.

Unless it's TiFs, of course, my feminism is trans inclusive in that sense. But not transwomen.

Yes, I said below that they’re obviously included because they’re women. I don’t really do “trans” anything so I don’t feel the need to reference it.

Fair point.

Happy to start another when it's full!

I didn't, when I started this thread, expect to find anyone able to come up with an argument that would persuade me that someone could be a feminist and also support biological males being in female spaces.

That expectation has not been disappointed.

I am, though, gobsmacked that multiple people declaring that they were born female claim to be feminist while being perfectly prepared to support things that without doubt upset/hurt/harm/disadvantage other women.

I am truly shocked by those women. They certainly don't fit into my definition of a feminist.

I write this as a female who personally would have no problem with sharing spaces with post-surgery males of female stature but who realises two things;

• that I have no right to give that permission on behalf of other women, and would not dream of doing that

• that allowing the slight, fine looking man who has been very feminine his whole life into my changing room means I can't keep out the brick shithouse who used to play male rugby and decided in his 40s he's female, and him I really do have a problem with.

Lastly, this thread hasn't yet really talked about what trans inclusive means. I am truly trans inclusive in so far as it reflects the rights of anyone to live presenting however they want to.

That inclusivity for me is total with the sole exceptions of women only spaces, women only shortlists, women's quotas, women only organisations and women's sport. (Children's activities will, I think, vary by context.)

Thank you everyone who joined in with this discussion in good faith and with respect.

You can add to that: being one of those people who might get pregnant and want maternity leave some time in the future.

Lastly, this thread hasn't yet really talked about what trans inclusive means. I am truly trans inclusive in so far as it reflects the rights of anyone to live presenting however they want to.

Whereas some people on this thread seem to have a far more limited idea of what 'trans' means and I think are less 'trans inclusive' than the people who are just concerned about women's rights.

FWIW, I've found slight soft men can be just as problematic if not more so than brick shithouses. (MASSMALT, obviously)

Sadly just because a man happens to be a loser in the Patriachy stakes, it doesn't necessarily make them any nicer or more sympathetic to women. Sometimes, it just means they feel justified in or masculinised by punching down.

Young women especially are not always aware of this.

The difference between you and a transwoman is you're a completely different sex.

The similarity between you and other women is you are the same sex.

Cant believe I'm having to say it tbh.

Who's the "we" here, Totino?

As yours is the "inclusive" version of feminism, you must be confident that there's now a fairly universal understanding that "woman" means gender identity, not body.

Could you just explain how this works in a bit more detail?

Like, when Amnesty referred to Afghani women as oppressed because of their "identity", was this in response to surveys in that country confirming this fit their perception of themselves and their status? If so, it would be useful to know how trans men are treated in contrast. Or was Amnesty risking misgendering by generalising, for simplicity? Or was it rather that they felt that this enlightened concept is the ethical descriptor regardless of what people in the developing world may currently understand or think?

Given these uncertainties, what word should I use if I want to accurately refer to the half of Afghanistan imprisoned in their homes?

Or are they not worth a noun of their own?

After all, We have the words cis and trans to acknowledge that there's a difference.

This.

Yes. There's an immaturity to it I find quite frightening.

Pink-icing feminism, in more way than one: gendered, neatly packaged and happily celebrated as women's rights burn.

Oh, apologies, let me try that again...

I meant cis women's rights.

Gah, shocking omission, very sorry, er... Cis women and trans men's rights.

(Oops. And non-binary people.

The female ones, that is).

Oh yeah - so, better phrasing: female rights.

But, really specifically, adult human females.

Yeah. Yeah, that does it.

Yeah.

Yeah!

That group, that nameless group, they "rule", too.

(Or they would, if they'd been left the language to have a pithy battle cry).

I think the whole movement and most of its supporters are pretty immature by nature.

There's three attitudes working at once. One where vulnerable men need the protection of 'safe spaces'. Not only the physical space but the protections given by individual women and feminism as a movement.

Another seems to be that these men are an asset to women and feminism. They chose it, therefore must be more committed.

Lastly, that anything exclusive with boundaries is wrong, including limiting feminism to females. Its why theres no limited to what is trans, too.

As I’ve said before, there’s a disconnect. Vulnerable doesn’t mean harmless. Many incredibly abusive people qualify as vulnerable due to psychological issues.

I get that FWR. I'm a physically large, older and psychologically assertive female. I get that others would have more of a problem than me. I found short men the worst at work!

No

Interesting, I always thought it
was about equality and focusing on women as we are currently the oppressed

The logic about protecting vulnerable male people also doesn’t stand up to analysis.

There are numerous groups of male people who are similarly vulnerable. Yet they never get the protection of using female single sex provisions.

I'd actually question the last point. I think one of the striking things about this ideology is that this "exclusivity" isn't just promoted but celebrated in a wide range of other contexts. A world in which a Mexican sombrero at a house party could get you cancelled but Ru Paul's a primetime moneymaker is a sexist world indeed. Whatever you think of these examples, the enormity of the bloody great gulf between the reception of each is pretty a damning "tell".