> There is also no reason why feminism would need to support LGBT?
Because lesbian, trans and generally queer women exist?
Even if you were to only care about cis hetero women, it is silly to think that transphobes will only keep attacking trans women. As lot of cis women have been "transvestigated", have been harassed in bathrooms for "looking trans" and so on.
So even cis women will ultimately suffer if no one speaks up against bigots. The window of what they are allowed to wear, look like, how they are supposed to behave gets smaller and smaller.
The enemy is the same. The same patriarchal reactionary ideology that wants to punish any difference to the imagined norm. Ultimately it is a class war and the rich pricks are winning.
It is liking saying "why should I defend Jews, I am not a Jew.". Sure they might not come for you first but they will come for you eventually. United we are strong. Divided they will get us one by one.
If you are pretend to be feminist but throw your trans sister under the bus, you are a traitor not a feminist.
It is mostly the T that feminists have issues with, though the Ls have significantly higher rates of domestic abuse than any other relationships, so I could see some feminists having criticisms. A biological man going into a women's bathroom makes many (most?) biological women feel unsafe. Many feminists think that women feeling unsafe is not a good a thing and are fighting against it.
To call women who want to feel safe in a bathroom a traitor to feminism is just so ridiculous and is a betrayal of women. I haven't look at any stats, but from I have been seeing it appears like the so called trans-exclusionary feminists are growing regardless if you call them a traitor.
Wanting women to feel safe is such a basic tenant of feminism.
I wouldn't be surprised if significantly more cis women were harassed by anti transgender "feminists" in womens' restrooms than harassed by actual transgender women in womens' restrooms. People worrying about whether other people belong in a specific restroom are the real safety risk.
Issue is you can't tell the difference between a man calling himself a woman to harass women and a man calling himself a woman since he feel he is a woman. That is the main reason people are against these things, it doesn't matter if the "real trans people" are not an issue.
Source for a "man calling himself a woman to harass women" actually going into women's restrooms to do that? I'm not aware of any substantial number of instances, especially compared to the instances I've seen of women being harassed by other women because of this line of thinking.
Interesting that they pick transpeople to have a phobia over, considering the fact is you're far more likely to be assaulted in the bathroom by a cis man, transvestigator, republican, Christian, or ICE agent than a transwoman.
I'm a little confused. There are already rules and laws banning a cisman from going into women's bathrooms. There isn't a law or rules at the location, in many states, stopping trans women from going into women's bathrooms.
Most cismen look like a stereotypical man. Some transwomen look like a stereotypical women which is what makes the situation harder to stop. You could theoretically put a guard at a bathroom and stop most cismen. You would only stop some transwomen.
> considering the fact is you're far more likely to be assaulted in the bathroom by a cis man, transvestigator, republican, Christian, or ICE agent than a transwoman.
Sorry if I'm not getting it, but how can someone biologically be a gender? I get that someone can be a sex, but it's not clear how you see that working.
To some people gender is basically sex. Simple as that. So a person can see themselves as a woman but others are free to see them as a man, because this isn't a scientific term as you say.
Its like how some call men who didn't conform to male norms "girlies" or so, these things are so ill defined that its dumb to argue over it. Of course it is rude to call something they don't wanna be called though.
I am talking about sexes and you know it. Please stop being so obtuse. Anybody old enough to be here have heard people using the phrase biological man.
I'm not going to continue this conversation unless you can actually get to whatever point you are trying to make. You know exactly what I am trying to say and are trying to play some sort of semantics game according to definitions that like 1% of people could get correct.
So it's not really about the wording itself, it's more that the phrase "biological man" is standing in for something you're not quite saying directly?
It kinda feels like you're using the term to push a specific idea, but you don't want to say that idea out loud. Which is fair, I guess. People do that all the time. It's just that, when asked to explain, it all starts to sound a little wobbly, like the logic doesn't hold up under even basic questions.
It's interesting though. Like, if the phrase only makes sense when nobody asks what it means, is it actually meaningful? Or is it just a way to say something without really owning it?
I don't even know what you are trying to get at this point. 99% of people would also not have clue.
> So it's not really about the wording itself, it's more that the phrase "biological man" is standing in for something you're not quite saying directly?
I am trying to say exactly what I am saying. When I said biological man that is exactly what I meant to say.
> It kinda feels like you're using the term to push a specific idea, but you don't want to say that idea out loud. Which is fair, I guess. People do that all the time.
Perhaps you can enlighten me about what idea I am refusing to say outloud?
As far as I can tell, the idea I was trying to convey was exactly what I said so if you know what I truly meant it would be great to hear it.
> It's just that, when asked to explain, it all starts to sound a little wobbly, like the logic doesn't hold up under even basic questions.
I refused to answer because I was under the impression you were just trolling.
Since biological man is a common phrase I used it. Apparently using common phrases is now insidious.
> It's interesting though. Like, if the phrase only makes sense when nobody asks what it means, is it actually meaningful? Or is it just a way to say something without really owning it?
Nobody defines what blue or banana means to adults. We all just know what they mean. Using biological man is the same.
I am left two possible conclusions. You have no idea about basic terms or you are trolling.
If you are trolling then thanks for wasting my time and everybody else who reads through your nonsense.
If you actually don't know the term, I am sorry that I assumed that everybody here had graduated from middle school.
Just to prove how dumb your argument is, do not respond to me unless you can define every word in your post I am replying to. If you do not then I am left with the conclusion that you're arguments only make sense if you aren't asked to explain.
What are you even trying to say? Women don't want to experience violence and fear. This is one of the things the feminist movement was trying to solve.
Now that many of them are experiencing fear in bathrooms you think they are transphobes. Why do you reject the idea that women should feel safe in bathrooms? Okay anti-feminist.
There is also no reason why feminism would need to support LGBT? The point of feminism should be to support women.