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?

You aren't following the argument. Sex isn't a get out of jail free card. Rights balancing is required first to ascertain the most equitable solution. An example might be women's sports where sports that disadvantage women are more appropriately segregated but there are some that don't like for prepubescent children so sex is not always the defining factor.

Exactly. And no amount of tedious word salad changes that. I’ll check back later, but I’m pretty sure I know the thread isn’t going to advance anyone’s understanding in any way.

The fact that you think trans women aren't women speaks of your branch of feminism. That's what it determines. You don't need to.keep justfying why you think that. It doesnt make you more or less of a feminist. It makes you a certain type of feminist.

So why bring it up if you don’t believe it.

People believe all kinds of nonsense. When it’s obviously false, we don’t need to give it headspace.

The realist type?

Because it exists as a type of feminism. Even if you don't like it.

The point is you are criticising people here for having this debate when this debate is the whole point. “Trans women” are men. Most people know this. “Trans inclusive feminists” centre men.

No just a trans exclusionary or gender critical feminist. No more or less than any other type of feminist.

No. This is not about what I think, it’s about scientific, verifiable, objective fact. ‘Transwomen’ are men. Therefore prioritising them would negate the essence of feminism.

Actually, it just identifies as satire.

Exactly. And when people put the illogical arguments of fringe groups on a par with established facts and logic, I’m interested in why that is.

They don't see trans women as men so you keep repeating that just makes it seem like you don't really understand the subject.

And they are wrong, therefore their position is invalid.

Yes there are women that believe men can be women.

Some of these women believe they are feminist.

But it is an oxymoron to put the words together - it is contradictory to have a branch of feminism that mixes men and women together and claim they are striving for both men and women's rights.

They might believe it. I don't. Further, I think they are harmful to feminism.

You can insult me all you like, I don’t care 😂 they are men, and people who “don’t see them as men” for whatever reason, are simply misguided.

I was just saying I think the whole debate is a bit pointless as you can't stop someone from calling themself a feminist even if you can prove that they are not really a feminist.

Why cant somebody sociologically identify as black when they have white skin?

Why would BLM rejecting the claim of a white skinned person or vlacked up white person to be placed on a black skinned person only shortlist be OK, but women be in the wrong to demand the same of men identifying as women?

Thread title was clear, you don't need to post on it.

Anyone can call themselves anything, including men calling themselves women. It doesn't make it true or unworthy of discussion.

It often turns out that such people are well aware that “trans women” are men, because when someone they are disagreeing with in an argument thinks they are a TIM, they say things like “no, I’m a cis (actual) woman, why do you lot always think someone is a man if they disagree with you.” Showing they know full well.

People call themselves all kind of things that they are not - generally we call that 'a con'

Well no, it’s an identity label. I can’t stop men from calling themselves women, either, but I think it’s ok to interrogate if that actually is the case or if it’s made up bollocks.

Well you can’t stop them, but it doesn’t mean they have any validity.

I could call myself a feminist and believe women should have no education, be confined to the house, be given to men in arranged marriages. But that wouldn’t fit any of the fundamentals of feminism, would it?

’Male exclusionary’ please. Transmen are included. Although presumably not in ‘trans inclusive’ feminism, if they are men.

Exactly. I bet with sophistry you could make “feminist” arguments for a lot of fundamentally oppressive things.

There a group of people who call themselves feminists. That doesn't actually make them feminists any more than a group of people calling themselves patriots while rioting are patriots.