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 - 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.