Does GC feminism include trans men?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

So GC feminism does not include trans men?

Yes it does: as women, though.

OK but if you claim your feminism includes trans men, please don't speak over trans men as to why they transitioned.

We don' t speak over them, they are free to say whatever they want about their reasons. We do, however, have the right to have and voice an opinion.

I linked to a post on ovarit where GC feminists wrote in the image

None of the sentences you have boldened claim that trans natal females never pass. They say that, as a category, they are treated as women even if they identify as men. Which is true, given that the image you have linked is a quote from a trans natal male who wants to use "men" to be their uterus stations.

That said, I am sure some of us do believe that no trans person ever passes: I disagree. But I agree with them that, in general, they are treated like women as a category.

I linked to an article on Time magazine where trans men reported they were treated better work once they transitioned. In fact, some trans men didn't know how bad women had it at work until they transitioned. Male colleagues called female colleagues the c-word in front of them, not knowing they were trans.

As I said, I disagree that they never pass. I still don' t understand what this has to do with anything: even if they passed, they are just women presenting as men.

So you can be a lesbian in denial and fetishizing gay men at the same time?

First of all, I was talking for the category, not single persons. Lots of trans men can be described as lesbians in denial. Others can be described as fetishizing gay men. THat said, I don' t really see what is s weird in being a lesbian in denial and fetishizing gay men at the same time. We have people who fetishize anything, but this is too much of a stretch? Please.

They don't have to be included, but it's often GC who say they include trans men even when trans men say the opposite.

We include them as women in our fight for sex based rights. End of. We don' t give a damn about their identity, they are women for us and as such they are included. If they don' t like that we don' t kiss their ass, of course they probably don' t feel included. Still, we are not going to make space for an ideology that we consider nonsensical at best and incredibly dangerous at worst just because of them. Pro-life women are also included in our sex based rights fight and we don' t keep an open mind and a "boths sides are right" mentality when it comes to abortion. I am pretty sure they too would feel excluded under these premises. It doesn' t change the fact that when we succeed in something, we don' t make sure that pro-life women are excluded. Same goes for trans natal females.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

We don' t speak over them, they are free to say whatever they want about their reasons. We do, however, have the right to have and voice an opinion

Technically you can say anything. You have the right to say that. But once you try to replace someone's actual experience with your opinion you're indeed speaking over them. You're also invalidating them by cramming their experience to fit your world view. It's not that different from saying "she's just hysterical".

P. S.: that's the broadest possible application of included I can imagine. To that point its almost meaningless.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Speaking over means silencing them/ignoring them, and replacing their words with yours as the only true narrative, especially in official settings. Which we are not doing. They can say what they want about their experiences, and we can comment and share our opinions on the matter. That' s how I use it, at least.

It's not that different from saying "she's just hysterical".

OP has said it themselves that some of the things we say indeed happen. So no, it' s not the same at all, because "you' re hysterical" is used to demean our opinions, "you' re a selfhating lesbian and that' s why you have transitioned" is used to criticize their ideology more than them as people.

P. S.: that's the broadest possible application of included I can imagine. To that point its almost meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean with this.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Just because your movement isn't big enough to silence trans men does not mean that you guys aren't trying to speak over them. Let's just assume you guys were the dominant force. Then the dominant narrative would be, that trans men want to escape misogyny.

The argument of "im just sharing my opinion" is a tired one. Sure you can share it. Doesn't make it correct. If you want to create a narrative that does not reflect reality, then go ahead. But don't say you include those whose reality your narrative is not reflecting.

How do you know someone is a self hating lesbian and not a dysphoric dude?

If GCs include trans men, then the word includes has no meaning beyond a technicality.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

If you want to create a narrative that does not reflect reality, then go ahead.

LMFAO!!! Sorry I just find it amusing when QT says stuff like this. The irony of it always gets to me.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The argument of "im just sharing my opinion" is a tired one. Sure you can share it. Doesn't make it correct.

That goes both ways. That' s the point.

How do you know someone is a self hating lesbian and not a dysphoric dude?

I don' t and I don' t care. As I already said, I don' t give a damn about the reasons why they do it, all I care about is that they do it.

If GCs include trans men, then the word includes has no meaning beyond a technicality.

Then they are included as a technicality. You know what they should do to be 100% honest? Give up on the rights that women have fought and gained and start from zero to get their own. That includes things like abortion. If they use them, they are admitting themselves that they are included in GC/radfem feminism.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Sorry I fumbled an the last comment isn't all I had to say. I'll delete it later.

That goes both ways. That' s the point

How does this relate to the issue ad hand. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at.

I don' t and I don' t care. As I already said, I don' t give a damn about the reasons why they do it, all I care about is that they do it.

So if you don't know, why do you assert that someone is? What makes you, who is unknowing, able to speak on these issues in way that deserves to be heard? Why do you care about what they do?

Then they are included as a technicality.

The same technicality by which German nationalists include immigrants. If that's your bar for inclusion, then the democrats include Donald trump. If he became a Democrat theyd probably include him. He is an American after all.

You know what they should do to be 100% honest? Give up on the rights that women have fought and gained and start from zero to get their own. That includes things like abortion.

What does this have to do with honesty? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Is everyone dishonest who profits from something they or their groups hasn't fought for? Are the Harlem hellfighters dishonest for accepting French medals and profiting on the lack of prejudice in the French army? They as Americans haven't done anything to achieve it after all?

admitting themselves that they are included in GC/radfem feminism.

Because GC has a monopoly on abortion? Or is that because you see urself as the follow up to second wave UK feminism? Also GC and Radfems arent synonymous so don't use them like they are.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How does this relate to the issue ad hand. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at.

What I am getting at is that trans men are giving their opinion on what makes them trans men. It doesn' t mean that they are right.

So if you don't know, why do you assert that someone is? What makes you, who is unknowing, able to speak on these issues in way that deserves to be heard? Why do you care about what they do?

So your opinion is that I should shut up about anything that doesn' t come directly from personal experience? Ok, so my experience as a female is that lots of females would do very idiotic things, including transitioning, to escape their status as female. That is 100% allowed according to your standards given that I am talking about a category I am part of, right? Great!

Furthermore, I didn' t say that my opinion is worth being heard, I just said that it' s my opinion. Only you can decide whether what I say is worthy or not. You have decided it isn' t, others disagree.

Also, what exactly is the point you are making? That I should just stop having an opinion about anyone that isn' t exactly like me? Or is it that I can have an opinion as long as it' s 100% in line with what they say? I should just shut my brain off and stop thinking with my own head? Sorry, I don' t work that way.

And I don' t care what they do, I care what I do and say. That includes what I am allowed to voice. Plus, I don' t know if you have noticed, but this is a debate sub that has as a main topic exactly the thing you say I shouldn' t talk about.

Why do you care so much about what I do/say?

The same technicality by which German nationalists include immigrants. If that's your bar for inclusion, then the democrats include Donald trump. If he became a Democrat theyd probably include him. He is an American after all.

Yeah, if someone became a democrat, he would be included in the democratic party. Be that person Donald Trump or anyone else.

What does this have to do with honesty? I'm sorry but I don't get it.

Those services were allowed thanks to those awful radical feminists who fought for those services. And they were/are intended for women. If trans men are men and don' t feel included in our fights and our category, they should start from zero and get abortion for men instead of using the one that was won for women. That' s what I meant with honesty: if they are not women and don' t have any kinship with women, they should detach themselves from anything that was created and intended for women and get their own. Since they are not doing it (as they shouldn' t because they are women), then they are automatically included in our category, our fights and our feminism.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And why would you be more correct? Beeing neither affected not an expert?

your opinion is that I should shut up about anything that doesn' t come directly from personal experience?

If you aren't either that or educated your opinion holds almost no weight. You can have your own opinion. But once you put your opinion above those who are more familiar, that is the issue. Not sure what tantrum you're throwing. So let me ask again. Why is you're opinion more deserving to be heard than those affected or those of experts? Why can your opinion push for legislation over these? Incidentally this is the reason why I care. Your opinion wants to change something. That's why I care.

if someone became a democrat, he would be included in the democratic party. Be that person Donald Trump or anyone else

Would it then be reasonable to say he is included now?

Your conflating GC and radical feminism. These two aren't the same. You can be radical and include trans women in your feminism. Just because a lot of UK feminists went down the GC route does not mean it's the only one.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you aren't either that or educated your opinion holds almost no weight. You can have your own opinion. But once you put your opinion above those who are more familiar, that is the issue.

Can you list any kind of official decision I have made in which my opinion was put over experts' s. Thanks.

Because let' s be honest here, I am giving my opinion on a public forum. You have the right to decide whether my opinion is worthy of being listened to or not, and so do trans people. Their opinion is as valid as mine: I may not live in first person what they are living, but I am not biased towards "ACCEPTANCE AT ANY COST" like they are.

So let me ask again. Why is you're opinion more deserving to be heard than those affected or those of experts?

It isn' t more worthy, as I have already said, and they are not experts. Just because they live it, they don' t know anything objective as much as I don' t.

Why can your opinion push for legislation over these? Incidentally this is the reason why I care. Your opinion wants to change something. That's why I care.

THeir opinion is helping the constant stripping my category of their rights. That' s why I care. They are too want to change something, specifically the meaning of words like "woman" and every law that was written around that word.

Would it then be reasonable to say he is included now?

Of course not. And? If trans men actually became men, then it wouldn' t make sense to have them in our movement. SInce that' s never going to happen, they are included.

Your conflating GC and radical feminism. These two aren't the same. You can be radical and include trans women in your feminism. Just because a lot of UK feminists went down the GC route does not mean it's the only one.

Nope. Radical feminism is about fighting against discrimination by sex. Its basis is class analysis based on sex and gaining rights for females as a sex. If you include males in that analysis as fellow women, you are only "identifying" as a radical feminist.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If this forum existed in a vacuum then the merit of your opinion does not matter. But it doesn't. Both of us are part of movements. These movements push ideas, with the goal of legislation. That's why it's important to discuss wether an opinion matters. Once you're part of a movement, this stuff gets important. This isn't about you personally. It's about your movement.

SInce that' s never going to happen, they are included..

This would make sense if GC feminism was the only branch of feminism. It is not. So saying that you include them because they are female, while distancing from feminism that includes them as females and transsexuals is hollow.

What does the world radical mean then?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you care what other people do so much?

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If GCs include trans men, then the word includes has no meaning beyond a technicality.

But if we include all female-born people, that means even the ones who don't want to be associated with us. What's the difference between GC including trans men and GC including conservative Republican Trump-loving women?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The big difference is that, while if GC won conservative women would still exist trans men wouldn't.. We're talking about a group that sees the very existence of transsexualism as a human rights violation. It's not that trans men don't want to be associated with you.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you figure that? GC is for gender abolition on the social level. No one that I've seen has proposed making it illegal for adults to have alterations done to their bodies. If there are people saying that hormones and surgeries should be outlawed, I definitely would not support it. If a woman can get breast implants, a trans man should be able to get a mastectomy, as long as both are of sound mind and intellectually capable of making that decision for themselves. I've never seen GC say they're against plastic surgery, except on minors.

We're talking about a group that sees the very existence of transsexualism as a human rights violation.

I mean, I don't see how it could be a human rights violation if we're talking about adults who are deciding for themselves. What's happening in Iran is a human rights violation because the poor people there are being threatened with violence and death. That's not happening in the Western world. There may be social pressure, but the state is not forcibly transitioning any adults.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're not the majority of the GC movement. Or the vocal part that actually pushes for legislation infront of the UK parliament. That part can't possibly include any transsexual wether man or woman.

I'm not sure about the plastic surgery part. The issue is, that your movement is pushing the idea that trans people are delusional or forced [by the patriarchy]. This means, that no transsexual would be allowed surgery for transition. So if a movement say "surgery is okay as long as they are able to make the decision themselves" while at same time pushing that the people who seek them out aren't able to make that decision, seems dishonest. Please don't feel attacked. I doubt you think we are delusional. It's just that once looked at in the context of the movement the point looses a lot of weight.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't say I'm necessarily part of any movement. I'm not an activist. All I do is write about this stuff online. I've never been presented with an opportunity to vote for or against anything related to transgender people.

Or the vocal part that actually pushes for legislation infront of the UK parliament. That part can't possibly include any transsexual wether man or woman.

I'm not in the UK. What legislation in particular are you thinking of? As far as I know, women in the UK are fighting to retain their right to single-sex spaces. I'm not aware of them trying to make it illegal for adults to access hormones or surgery. I haven't heard that they're against protected spaces for transsexual women, just that transsexual women may not belong in the same spaces as natal women.

The issue is, that your movement is pushing the idea that trans people are delusional or forced [by the patriarchy].

They're not delusional. They know what sex they are. They're just unhappy with it. I don't think anyone knows what causes sex dysphoria. It's like depression or anxiety. No one really knows what causes those either, but they're real, and they cause people distress. People shouldn't be discriminated against for having mental health issues, no matter what they are. The patriarchy hurts plenty of people, trans and non-trans alike. It doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the ability to control their own destiny. If people want to adopt the social roles of the opposite sex, then they should feel free to, with or without hormones or surgery.

This means, that no transsexual would be allowed surgery for transition. So if a movement say "surgery is okay as long as they are able to make the decision themselves" while at same time pushing that the people who seek them out aren't able to make that decision, seems dishonest.

That seems like a huge reach to me, and I don't think it's accurate of what GC believes. Trans people aren't mentally incompetent. They're adults who have perfectly normal brain function, reasoning skills, emotional maturity, etc. They can make their own medical decisions. To my way of thinking, if someone is a grown adult of sound mind and body, they can make a reasonably free choice on whether or not to pursue transition. I say reasonably because we are all influenced by society, but as free as it can be while living under a patriarchy. The government here is not going to threaten or force people to transition, unlike in Iran.