Perverted man claims to be a woman - may be housed in a women's prison

My feminism is not about women who agree with me. So all women deserve single sex spaces even if I disagree with them. In the same way as all gay people deserve access to equality within the law even if I disagree with them politically. Anything else is misogyny or homophobia.

Which is fine, when one group is suffering discrimination and only their rights are at risk. When all else is equal, however, and one group's rights conflicts with those of another group then a side has to be taken, and a feminist will, when all else is equal, always support the side of women.

Elegran

I wouldn't define feminism as supporting any woman who is in a position of authority, however discriminatory her policies were, or allowing a man to be discriminated against, but as supporting the removal of the lingering barriers to women in general reaching those positions, and encouraging policies that prepare girls for taking on those responsibilities instead of settling for the lesser roles in the background.

But those barriers are not equal or the same for all women Elegran or indeed for all people. Intersectional feminism recognises that there are different levels of discrimination for different people and supports all people who are discriminated against, because some face more difficulties than others..

Not speaking for Molly, but I don't see how either of those things follow from what she said, trisher.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it you who has posted that feminists should always support other women, and we who have disagreed?

As Molly says, one can support the rights of other groups regardless of one's feminism, but because of being decent. If a woman were discriminating against a man because of his race, or his disability, a decent person would speak or act against it, depending on the specifics. If a particular man discriminated against a particular woman, or vice versa, a decent person should speak or act against it.

If, on the other hand, the actions of a man or group of men are detrimental to the well-being of women, a feminist will speak or act against that - and so, IMO, should a decent man.

Men who offend sexually are acting in a way which is massively detrimental to women - the ones they attack, and the safety, freedom and mental well-being of the rest of us. If they then compound that by pretending to be women in order to inflict themselves on vulnerable women in jail, they really can't expect women to give a fig for their wants or needs, and no feminist worth her salt would begin to do so.

I wouldn't define feminism as supporting any woman who is in a position of authority, however discriminatory her policies were, or allowing a man to be discriminated against, but as supporting the removal of the lingering barriers to women in general reaching those positions, and encouraging policies that prepare girls for taking on those responsibilities instead of settling for the lesser roles in the background.

Oh like we supported Margaret Thatcher you mean, or Priti Patel in the current government. Don’t be daft

Or if a woman politician was ruling a country you would support her because she was a woman even if her policies discriminated against others?

Mollygo

If Intersectional feminism means you support the rights of men over the rights of women as you appear to do, then that’s not a reasonable sort of feminism.
Inclusivity is only valuable when it harms no one and we have sufficient evidence that a large number of men including some TW want to do things which are harmful to women, the title of the OP being an excellent example.
GagaJo I really thought you’d got the idea in your earlier posts.
As a woman, I am not exclusionary. I can be anti racist. I can support the needs of those with disabilities, I can agree that people who have sexual problems or mental health problems need help and support, but I don’t need to claim I’m a feminist to do that.
As a feminist I am concerned about women and their needs and rights.
I am concerned that some ‘feminists’ spread their ‘feminism’ so thinly, trying to cover conflicting issues, trying to claim that opposing points do not harm each other and neglecting the females at the heart of feminism.
I don’t need pretty coloured circles to do it either.

So if a disabled man was suffering discrimination you wouldn't support hiim because he's a man?

Mollygo, your post at 19.39 today is one of those that makes me wish we had a like button. Thanks

Excellent post, Mollygo.

If Intersectional feminism means you support the rights of men over the rights of women as you appear to do, then that’s not a reasonable sort of feminism.
Inclusivity is only valuable when it harms no one and we have sufficient evidence that a large number of men including some TW want to do things which are harmful to women, the title of the OP being an excellent example.
GagaJo I really thought you’d got the idea in your earlier posts.
As a woman, I am not exclusionary. I can be anti racist. I can support the needs of those with disabilities, I can agree that people who have sexual problems or mental health problems need help and support, but I don’t need to claim I’m a feminist to do that.
As a feminist I am concerned about women and their needs and rights.
I am concerned that some ‘feminists’ spread their ‘feminism’ so thinly, trying to cover conflicting issues, trying to claim that opposing points do not harm each other and neglecting the females at the heart of feminism.
I don’t need pretty coloured circles to do it either.

FarNorth

Which pretty circle is not like the others?

'Gender' is a meaningless social construct based on sex role stereotypes.
So women who don't follow 'feminine' stereotypes are included.
Men are not included.

Or did you really mean to say that anyone is included, based on what stereotypes they choose?

Wow what a devastating critical assessment of intersecional
feminism Far North I'm sure we are all impressed. Meantime intersectional feminists will continue to campaign recognising that privilege and entitlement exist amongst women and that degrees of oppression exist and that fighting that oppression is the real feminist battle.
While issues ranging from discrimination based on gender identity to disparate environmental burdens may seem separate at first, intersectional feminism illuminates the connections between all fights for justice and liberation. It shows us that fighting for equality means not only turning the tables on gender injustices, but rooting out all forms of oppression. It serves as a framework through which to build inclusive, robust movements that work to solve overlapping forms of discrimination, simultaneously.
Nobody's free until everybody's free
www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/6/explainer-intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters

Oh dear me.

Which pretty circle is not like the others?

'Gender' is a meaningless social construct based on sex role stereotypes.
So women who don't follow 'feminine' stereotypes are included.
Men are not included.

Or did you really mean to say that anyone is included, based on what stereotypes they choose?

I'm an intersectional feminist. My feminism doesn't exclude others.

GagaJo

Ah, sectional feminism. The 'just us' variety. How novel.

I don’t understand your criticism GagaJo. You in favour of sectional feminism. You promote the ‘sectional feminism’ that says a man can be a woman. So it’s not really novel at all.
My feminism is based on fact. It’s not sectional. TWANW.

Feminism which recognises female people, yes.

All women but not men. This sometimes hurts mens feelings and upsets those who think men should be the centre of everything.

Yes for women.

Ah, sectional feminism. The 'just us' variety. How novel.

GagaJo the identity of transwomen is transwomen, not women, because they are male.
They can be recognised as a category of male, in all circumstances, end of story.
Women are tired of being the only ones to Be Kind - it's time men did it too.
Be Kind to the subgroup of male people who are transwomen.

I’m happy with GagaJo’s idea that every TW crime committed with male genitalia will be listed as male and the culprit put in a male prison.
I was just questioning the premise that no TW commit any other crimes. Also, I’d still put any male in a male prison, whether or not they identify as TW or non-binary and if that produces a group of people who commit no crimes to honour their chosen gender, so much the better.

We don't even have a definition of a woman, so goodness knows how we'd know a 'real' transwoman if we saw one.

There have been some interesting moments in this debate over the years, one of my favourites was when Layla Moran said in parliament that she didnt care whether people had a Male body and she preferred to see into their soul. Those of us who cant see into souls were a little puzzled how this was going to work. Oh and I think magical thinking is nearly right, but for me its religious thinking.

FarNorth

Of course they wouldn't Mollygo so any supposed transwoman who commits a crime can be immediately recognised as male.
Thanks for that idea GagaJo.

--hmm, perhaps it would be simpler to recognise that all transwomen are male--

So in one fell swoop you can just deny someone else their identify.

Fair enough. Try any trans woman who uses their penis to rape. But to deny OTHER, non-dangerous, non-threatening, non-issue, trans people their right to identity is wrong.

Do you find being called a cis woman offensive? Or being called a birthing person? The same individuals that are most loud, most vociferous about their own identify are a direct threat to the identify of some of the most vulnerable in our communities - trans people.