An inclusion too many
Women’s March London…
Dear all, please see the attached statement clarifying our position on the use of the term 'menstruators' and reiterate that we are a fully inclusive, intersectional feminist movement. pic.twitter.com/asHYl23rWT
— Women's March London (@womensmarchlon) January 21, 2019
“A fully inclusive intersectional feminist movement”…meaning, they include people who aren’t women, and they avoid the word “women.” You can’t have feminism while treating the word “women” as if it has political cooties, and you can’t have feminism while trying to bully women into being “inclusive” of people who aren’t women. Just like other people, women are allowed to organize around the concerns of women; they are under no obligation to be “inclusive” of people who have different concerns. Feminism is allowed to be about women – and if it isn’t about women it isn’t feminism.
Trans issues are separate from feminism; non-binary issues are separate from feminism; feminism has enough to deal with, it shouldn’t be pushed and pressed and bullied into being about trans and non-binary issues along with (and more and more instead of) women’s issues. Go make your own movement. Feminism is about women, and that’s that. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
I wonder how many of those “menstruators” in the 1973 Parliament were transmen or (I still feel strange saying it) non-binary people. Does anyone think it was zero?
Ben, that was the thought that went through my head, as well. And I wonder how many of them would have seen calling them “menstruators” as a step forward? As a form of progressive inclusion?
If they don’t want to be defined by their genitials, why the f*** are they requiring we be defined by the one bodily function that seems to generate so much loathing, hatred, and fear among those who do not menstruate, those known as…wait, let me think…oh, yes, men. Who are still allowed their ordinary, boring old non-inclusive term…man. Male.
All it does to call women “menstruators” is to call attention to the thing that is always used against women. We bleed. We bleed every month. Plus, it sort of leaves out a lot of people who might consider themselves to be women, too – those of us who have passed the age of menstruation (not to mention those female people who have not yet achieved that age). Once again, it is sexist, ageist, and ugly. Once again, it is designed to put women in a submissive role – we are the bleeders, and damn it, we better not forget it!
iknklast: my comment would have made more sense if I hadn’t left out the word else: “Does anyone else think it was zero?”
Isn’t this even a contradictory logic? After all, if (trans-)men may menstruate, why then would the term “menstruators” make even sense to refer to women in parliament? After all, one of the many men in parliament might have been a “menstruator”? It confuses me no end that it is said that not all women may be “biologically female” and on also to assume that “menstruator” is a reasonable stand-in for the word “woman”. If men can menstruate and trans-men are men, why would trans-men have to be included in a women’s march?
What all this serves to re-inforce (especially in connection with the fact that we do net read terms like “ejacolators” or “erectioneers”) is that there are two kinds of people: There is a default, called “men”, and then there are all the others, and it is very important to always find terms that include all non-men into these “others” and every subset of these “others” needs to be totally inclusive.
Do trans-men in fact menstruate?
Some. Many don’t. If they’ve had hysterectomies or take high enough doses of certain hormones, they don’t. If they’ve still got the organs though they can likely come off them and resume menstruating and become pregnant.
Anyways, I don’t know why the needs of transmen fall under the umbrella or feminism if they’re not women.
Obviously, transmen have some of the same needs as women due to their sex. If feminism is the pursuit of equality for women and transmen aren’t women, it would seem much more appropriate for trans rights activism to advocate for things like access to abortion for transmen than for feminism to.
If we’re going to admit that transmen fit the definition of woman as far as being an adult human of the female sex goes and therefore feminism does apply to them and their needs, great. That’s not what’s happening though. We’re supposed to regard transmen as men and belonging to the male sex even though that’s not the case.
thewatersfine;
We don’t have transmen punching people in the street or vandalizing ‘men’s spaces.’ At least not that I’ve heard of. The enraged, testosterone-driven womxn on the sexist, essentialist, fringe seem to be the problem.
Oh, I’ve never encountered a transman who demanded inclusion or that different words be used or whatever. I get that feminist groups explicitly including transmen and people who identify as non-binary are just doing their best at being woke. I get the impression though that transmen in general don’t want feminists to advocate for their needs as they don’t identify as woman.
This is so true as to be obvious; why do so few “woke” folks get it? Same with racism; we can include black women and Hispanic women and any other women without making racism our central focus; there are groups that are better at that then feminism because that is what they do. Feminism addresses their needs as women.
Sonderval, I was attempting to address the contradiction you pointed out in a way that I thought the trans activists are, but as I read what I wrote, I realized there is no way, even by stretching logic as far as some of them do, to make the contradiction go away.
@thewaterisfine: I have in fact (inadvertently) annoyed a transman by mentioning in passing that I did not have a uterus*.
I’m reasonably certain that it was not the idea of surgery itself, but the mention of that specific organ that was causing his discomfort. As I recall, the discussion was about biology, medicine, and reproduction, and I did not consider it that it would be any more inappropriate to mention my lack of uterus than it would to mention my lack of tonsils, or my spouse’s lack of an appendix. Apparently I was incorrect.
*said good bye and good riddance to it 26 years ago – sorry-not-sorry to anyone offended by this disclosure
I read a complaint from a transman who has PCOS that a medical imaging tech performing a pelvic ultrasound referred to his ovaries as ovaries. I… I don’t know what else they should be referred to as. Your “glands”? What is the woke way of referring to a transperson’s gonads as a medical professional providing them with care?
Up until this, my understanding was you refer to the parts by their names. Some transmen use their vaginas for sex. OK. Transmen, vaginas, all good. Apparently though now it’s a violation to call these things by their accurate names because it triggers feelings of dysphoria. I suppose I just keep my mouth shut and refer to reproductive organs as nothing at all to avoid triggering patients who struggle with dysphoria. How proper care can be provided to patients when this is the case, I don’t know.