An impromptu response to @chimenesuleyman: No. You’ve been fed…

Posted by

A Twitter thread by @radicalhag

No. You’ve been fed a version of feminism which is nothing of the sort. Redefining women as a ‘gender identity’ is redefining us in patriarchal terms. It’s saying there is something it is like to be a woman, some essence, ie it’s essentialism.

Saying we’re adult human females doesn’t reduce us to anything. It says we’re female people and makes *no* assumptions about our interests, capabilities etc. It allows us to organise around the impact being female has on us, both in terms of reproduction (or not) and oppression

Saying that observing our femaleness ‘reduces’ us in some way is the definition of misogyny. Likewise, reducing us to a performance of patriarchally approved femininity is complete capitulation to male expectations.

If you redefine women so that males can identify as us, then you have to answer this:

Do female people exist?
Are they human?
Do they have the right to organise in their own interests?
Any shared political interests?
Should they have a word for themselves?

If your answer to those is no then you’re an extreme misogynist doing the work of patriarchy, no matter how much you may believe yourself to be a feminist. If your answer is yes then if you want to be a trans ally you have to approach it from a basis in reality.

Help campaign for dysphoric people to have healthcare access, not to be discriminated against in housing, employment etc, and also consider how a ruthlessly gendered society might produce this distress.

But if you want to be a feminist, then your first question about current transactivist ideology is : “how does this affect women?”

And if the answer is “badly”, then you oppose it.