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 →

[–]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?

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 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.

And the same is true for you. I am fighting for my category, you are fighting for yours.

Explain to me why I shouldn' t say anything about trans men in an attempt to save my category, but you can say whatever you want about my category (including that wo/manhood has nothing to do with biology) in an attempt to save your category.

while distancing from feminism that includes them as females and transsexuals is hollow.

In what way are we distancing them from the kind of feminism that includes them and transsexuals? They are free to associate themselves to any kind of movement they want. What we are saying is that we fight for females' s rights. And as females, they are included. If they don' t like it, they are free to stay away.

What does the world radical mean then?

It comes from the latin word radix, which means root. Because it is based on the analysis of the roots of women' s discrimination, which is based on social roled associated to our sex.

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

I have never said that womenhood has nothing to do with biology. These two are quite intertwined, but not inseparable. That's the difference here. I never said this point so I don't have to discuss its merit. You on the other hand argued the narrative your movement pushes so you should be able to defend its merit. But it seems you can not. There is also the issue that you're in the majority, but that's beside the point, because I believe that no matter the size, the tactics should be the same, so I'd criticize you the same even if you were the minority.

This is kinda like a catholic pushing for anti protestant legislation and including them as Christians. Sure they might disagree, but if they agreed with us, they would benefit.

The world radical itself does not relate to class analysis. It's way simpler. The world radical when talking about a movement simply indicates that it seeks fundamental change to achieve its goal. There is no reason you can't seek this fundamental change for female while not throwing transsexuals under the bus.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have never said that womenhood has nothing to do with biology.

I wasn' t talking about you you, I was talking about your movement. If trans men are men, then it means that manhood has nothing to do with biology, because trans men are female.

The world radical itself does not relate to class analysis. It's way simpler. The world radical when talking about a movement simply indicates that it seeks fundamental change to achieve its goal. There is no reason you can't seek this fundamental change for female while not throwing transsexuals under the bus.

The word radical, sure. But when it' s paired with the word feminism, it isn' t a simple adjective, it describes a movement that has, as the basis of its inception, the concept I have explained already.

Radical feminism is based on analysis of discrimination by sex, so trans ideology has no place in it.

There is no reason you can't seek this fundamental change for female while not throwing transsexuals under the bus.

Even if you were right, I would still consider trans men women/female, and I would still consider the concept of gender identity completely idiotic and I wouldn' t respect it. So yes, I would keep seeking the change for female people, I would still not call some of them men just because they want it. My opinions wouldn' t change on the matter even if radical feminism weren' t about sex.