Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I hear them called transphobic all the time but their issue is with them being males, not with them being trans, right? Wouldn't that be misandry?
All modern feminists are misandrists. Supporting the movement that is modern feminism makes one a misandrists by definition.
This is true. It's why I'm an egalitarian and not a feminist. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. But male/female segregation has been the standard through human existence. It only changed to gender identity segregation in very recent years.
Agree on all counts. Feminism separates and divides people based on sex, which is horrible for society. Identity politics has gotten out of control, and it's one reasons Harris lost the election.
Americans are sick of identity politics and the division it is causing, and feminists are the worst offenders. Look at the 4B movement, which essentially assumes men are at fault for the election results despite the fact that nearly half of women voted for Trump too. They blame men for Row v Wade being overturned despite the fact that a large percentage of women are pro life too. Abortion is an ideological issue, not a gender issue. Both male and female babies are killed in equal numbers by abortion, and the gender of people who are against that makes no difference. But feminists don't win unless they divide men and women. Feminists are horrible people.
Thanks for MHO.
They’re women who refuse to indulge in the fantasy that a man can turn into a woman.
I personally believe that man and woman (gender identities) are irrelevant to the topic and only male and female (biological sex) are relevant to the conversation. But I understand that this is not necessarily the way you view things. But for argument's sake, using biological sex is much clearer in my opinion.
Opinion
7Opinion
Terf. trans-exclusionary radical feminist.
So basically every way second wave feminism failed at because of racism and classis hate. Cutting your own nose off to spite your face.
You can degrade people by you but the powers at be will look at you all the same contempt as before.
Do you believe excluding males is transphobic or misandristic?
Are they cisphobic for excluding cis males as well? Do people have to be baby spooned everything?
Why did you dodge the question? How many trans women are being lynched in modern day America?
So here comes the airplane...
So trans individual is 1% of 1% of the population so if there is a noticeable trend is statistically unsettling. While realistically to have the same unsettling effect on men like my self is called a war. It's own type of evil but still different.
This is why I started with second wave being discrediting as it's failing point. Excluding anyone is ultimately denial of your own right as a human.
Wow, you dodged both questions. Well done. Very honest of you!
You think you can command me to answer your questions when you won't answer mine? Nice try, coward. You're powerless. You couldn't be honest to save your damn life.
I treat people exactly the way I want to be treated. According to my biological sex. Good game, liar. Keep running from the truth
There is literally zero feminists who exclude trans women. Why? Because the whole philosophy of feminism is about equality which means they support men and women equally. This obviously also includes trans in any configuration.
The very notion that they would exclude trans women for being men is oxymoronic.
Exclude them as being considered for female spaces and programs. Not for existence or rights.
There's no lack of understanding of science when their concern is with males. being male is very clear in science.
I've take probably 45 biology/health courses and sex is very clearly defined. Even the anomalous conditions where it becomes visually ambiguous are well-defined.
Gender isn't the conversation. Nice try. Sex is very clearly defined though. Someone who is clearly a male in every physical way is still going to be a male, even after surgical alteration.
The sex with XY chromosomes. Even if they cut their genetics off or identify as women. But you know this. You're just trying to exhaust me with your lies and rhetoric because you feel defeated over trying to dishonestly defend a position that you know is a lie.
Ahahaha! No its not. Again, you are showing your ignorance of biology here. As I said previously, your body makes mistakes, by design actually but that is besides the point. If we take it to the most extreme, then we have women with XY chromosomes where the body completely fucked up and never recognized the existence of the Y chromosome and used the first X chromosome to make a complete woman.
Biological gender is.. complicated to say the least. Claiming it is a simple binary Man/Woman split is an affront to our current scientific understanding and to your own intelligence. That is simply not how this works, on any level.
Lmfao anomalies absolutely do not disprove a rule. You have no fucking Idea what you're talking about and it's hilarious. You bought into a bunch of pseudoscience and live in an imaginary reality. "Biological gender" hahahahahahahaha you should be embarrassed. But you're incapable of introspection so we know that won't happen. Go state at yourself in the mirror some more.
lol i find that logic hilarious. cause it throws feminist bullshit logic right back at their face :D
I also find the logic inconsistent. But when you look at the other reply and what libfems claim, it's that feminism isn't about females, it's about the gender identity of individuals that identify as women. This whole thing boils down to a sex vs gender argument.
well it is inconsistent like most of the feminist liberal complex. that's why it's funny to me xD
like feminists started to claim they are for "equality". so if that was really their pursuit, what's the problem with trans women being included? it makes no sense. they're obviously lying about being for equality.
@msmissydc well neither you nor me get to claim what a "real feminist" actually is, cause there's no such factual basis to make a statement based upon. feminism isn't an incorporated institution with a doctrin or some sort of manifesto. so no objective facts that could substentiate a claim for what "real feminists" are. for all we know, the Karen standing in the streets screaming that all men are murderers is as much a feminist as you are, if you're gonna go ahead and say you're a feminist.
If a flateather says the earth is flat and a studied astrophystist disagree. Do you also they their claim is worth the same? If now someone who read scientific literature and argues against the flateather based on that literature and facts and both are saying they know what they talk about and the other is not, thats the same situaton.
Under your logic we can't know for sure who is right because they both claim the same, while disagreeing. Under my logic we ask the studied astrophysist whos claim is right?
@msmissydc no i would say it's not the same cause if you have an astrophysics degree, you would have an actual university diploma to show for it and there would actually be a body of litterature that you can appeal to in order to objectively verfify or falsify their position about the earths shape. no such thing about feminism.
@msmissydc well i'd be interested in that body of litterature cause i'm quite familiar with a lot of it. i happen to come from the field of social sciences. and from all i read and all my professors taught me, "feminist" is a self given label and there's no rules for anyone to call themself a faminist. anyone can do it. as far as i am aware there is no manifesto of feminism and no institutionalized regulatory body that enforces a proper use of the word according to certain underlying guildines.
@msmissydc of course you're completely entitled to your personal opinion what feminism should be. i'm open to hearing that and maybe i agree with it but that's not an objecitve definition of what feminism actually is.
like the biggest ones are probably "SCUM Manifesto", "Feminism for the 99 Percent", "The Xenofeminist Manifesto" and "The Combahee River Collective Statement" but they aren't considered anywhere close to representative scientific works. they are different activists or actisist groups stating their opinion on what feminism should be considered to be. but even they have no authority to define it at all.
COTT, N. F. (1987). The Grounding of Modern Feminism. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bvgt
Thats a read if you want history of how the word is coined and how feminism is seen from a historic context. Of course it evolved from there but saying a fight for right and equality is now the same as a hate group is not based on reality. Even if some people use the term for hatred.
@msmissydc that work is merely descriptive historical account of people or groups that referred to themself as feminist. like that's a lot of work and i'm not putting down the value of it as that. but it's not a work you can cite if you wanna falsify someones claim to be a feminist.
like i said. the karen screaming "all men are murderers" in the streets still has the same right of calling herself a feminist as you have when you have way more moderate views. that's why i personally refrain from calling myself a feminist. cause i'm gonna get lumped in with the crazy.
like if you're for actual equality, just call yourself a humanist. that's not ambiguous.
But why is one self proclaimed feminist allowed to devalue all others? What if the same happened with humanism? If people can do good under a name and can't distance themselves from others who do bad in that name, then no term will ever be usefull at all. There is no difference what term is used as long as the main situation stays the same. People people can claim a name and do bad in that name. The term that is used is only ever useful for those who identify with it. What is done by those people is important though.
If you use any term at all you will always be lumped in with the crazy ones. If that stops you from doing good and what you want to do, they won and will continue to missuse that name. If a historic term use is not enough what about a majority opinion from those people? How do you define any name for a group of people?
@msmissydc lol that was actually a bit funny. I don't know if the irony is lost on you or if you'll agree if i point it out. i mean i guess we both can't deny that feminism has a rather complicated history with some more reasonable and moderate ideas but also with some quite extreme idiological currents. tell me if you actually don't even agree on that, i think that's a fair statement. but now that i presented to you a much more egalitarian and biased option that has no such history, you cling to feminism that has this history, cause humanism "could have" that history that feminism already has? xD do you see what i mean? it seems irrational to me. like i'm not saying "there's not a single good feminist". there's quite a few. but still it's the raging misandrists who claim the same word for themself. you don't have that with humanism xD
*unbiased option
like you know what i'm saying? you can just say "yeah i'm a humanst". there's no issue with that. if you say "i'm a feminist", you gotta explain that you're not the raging misandrist type feminist xD
Yes, I agree mostly. But I dont want to change what I mean every few months. I dont mind saying I am not a misandrist. Its easier than saying I am a humanist, but with that I bassically mean feminism without the men hating part, that I dont even think is part of real feminism. It doesn't make anything shorter. If people have a problem with feminism like the asker than she could have ask a feminist. Instead she already made her opinion up in the first place and staying with that opinion.
It doesn't help feminism if we only leave the hatefull people with that name allone, because if we do that feminism actually would evolve into misandry. The same is true for every other term feminist would use instead when they would move on from feminism. The main part I disagree with you is that not using feminism as word, would solve the problem people have with the concept.
IN addition and thats why I linked the book. Feminism has a history. Why should we give it up because of a few people who want to missuse our name? If people hate feminism they have two options. Inform themselfe with the help of feminist what feminism is actually about, or agree with me that most of feminist haters just hate women in general.
@msmissydc well for me personally, it's also kind of weird if you claim to be for "equality" but put a "fem" in front of the name you give it as if to say that you're very clearly biased in your pursuit for "equality". it just has a sour after taste for me personally. and that's not cause i'm a man i disagree in quite the same way with male activist nonsense.
Well I am not a man. I Can agree with them. I can work with them towards the same goals. I can talk with them. But Speaking on their behalf without involving them is not my goal. Therefore I take the side I can understand from experience, the part I can specifically frame into my part of the work. Also aside from that, I think it's fine naming something after the majority of the problems a community works with.
@msmissydc well if your movements name is "fem" something, you clearly aren't interested in male interest.
or at least you don't value that as equal.
@msmissydc well you're saying it's not true and i appreciate it if that is your opinion but you can not claim that feminism isn't about that. it is.
Hopkins-Doyle, A., Petterson, A. L., Leach, S., Zibell, H., Chobthamkit, P., Binti Abdul Rahim, S., Blake, J., Bosco, C., Cherrie-Rees, K., Beadle, A., Cock, V., Greer, H., Jankowska, A., Macdonald, K., Scott English, A., Wai Lan YEUNG, V., Asano, R., Beattie, P., Bernardo, A. B. I., … Sutton, R. M. (2024). The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(1), 8-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231202708
There are multiple studies showing, that misandry and feminism do not correlate.
isn't about what exactly?
@msmissydc yeah studies written by feminists xD i wonder why they never find anything bad about feminism. it truly is a mysterium.
but if course if everyone can call themself a feminist without rules for that, and there's somewhat of a stigma for not calling yourself a feminist, then that logically if you survey for feminism, you won't find a big difference between normal people and feminists, cause erveryone just calls themself a feminist. it is what it is.
The same is true for every social group and social movement. That is still no argument against feminism though. What you try to argue is that the concept of social groups and movements is bad because people can do false flag operations with that name. You seem to suggest no social group should therefore use a name. I would rather argue people from within that group can use the name for their purpose and define from within what is and isn't part of the group. Groups are formed by common goals and values. Why is someone who is not sharing that value trusted the same way as the other majority who does have something in common with that group? That part of your argument still doesn't make any sense. Feminism is historically defined, it is defined by common goals and values and it is defined from within. But apperantly not enough for you? Than what would be needed for you to have it count as a social group?
The issue is that they're women who are male (AKA trans). That's transphobia.
They're also male. Excluding males from female spaces is discrimination against males, so misandry. They don't exclude females that are trans, so clearly the emphasis isn't on the status of being transgender, but instead the status of being male.
They don't exclude females that are trans because they don't respect their (trans) gender. Those men don't want to be included, they want to be treated like men. This shows it is transphobia, not misandry. If it was simply misandry then they would either discriminate against all men and all males, or only men, or only males. They discriminate against some men and some males and some women and some females. The only common denominator is being trans.
If it were prejudice against trans people, they would exclude them too though. I understand that they also don't accept their trans identity, but they aren't discriminating against them. Only against the male ones. As well as cis males. The only common denominator is being male.
How is not accepting someone's identity and trying to force them to be included in things and spaces they don't want to be, NOT discrimination? There are women's spaces and men's spaces, and there are plenty of neutral spaces as well. This is not discrimination. Do you believe every space should be neutral? There should not even be any form of private property? Everyone should be able to go everywhere all the time if they want?
They aren't rejecting their identity, because they aren't actually females. And are only being excluded for being males. This IS discrimination, but it's against males only.
I think spaces should be separated by male and female. With private property, people can align with whatever practice they see fit. Government spaces and programs is where it becomes an issue.
I'm talking about trans men now. These same feminist also reject trans men's identity because they are female, and try to force them to stay in women's spaces. How is that not discrimination based on being trans (AKA they are females who are men)?
They reject their identity on biological grounds of them being female, but they don't exclude them from feminists causes. Or female spaces, programs and sports. Unless they're on steroids, of course, but that's unrelated. And meanwhile they exclude all males. To be fair to your argument, some may also actually hate or want to discriminate against trans men, but all of them exclude all males. So some may be both transphobic and misandristic. But all are misandristic.
No—that's exactly the problem. They try to force them to be included to stay I women's spaces. This is discrimination they do not respect them and they even try to convince men to exclude them from mens spaces just so that they will have nowhere else to go and will have to stay in women's. That is discrimination that is against trans men, who are not males. So how is it misandry when these feminists try to exclude trans women from women's spaces AND try to get trans men excluded from men's spaces so that they have to stay in women's spaces where they don't want to be? Regardless whether they are misandric, they are all transphobic. Explicitly often times because they flat out say it is because these people are trans.
I've never seen that but would agree that this is transphobic. I don't think it's the norm though. But I'll take a reverse stance from you though and say that regardless whether they're transphobic, they're misandristic.
It's always the exact same people. Any feminist who excludes trans women from women's spaces, they also want to force trans men to stay and get them excluded from mens spaces. The common trait is ALWAYS being trans, NOT being male. Their discrimination is always transphobic.
You're right they could also be misandrist regardless, but nothing you have said would suggest they are misandrist. You have only used examples with trans people excluded specifically because they are trans.
That's outright dishonest. My explanation was clear that males were being excluded, trans or cis. The trait is not ALWAYS being trans of trans men aren't explicitly excluded.
You said there should be spaces for men and women. Do you believe that is exclusionary and so it is misandrist AND mysoginist because women are excluded from mens space and men are excluded from women's space?
Trans people men AND women are discriminated against by those feminists. They NEVER only are against men and males. ALWAYS they are against both males and females who are trans.
I never once said anything about spaces for men and women. I'm talking about spaces for males and females. Males aren't typically actively excluding females from their spaces or sports and there are no male-only programs for females to take from.
Trans people aren't being discriminated against for being trans. No matter how much you scream it. It won't change reality.
You don't think that because you've never cared to be in mens spaces. There are many things just like with women's spaces that are men's spaces, and often just as much pushback to keep women out. Even sports when women finally managed to force their way in it was mostly by creating their own separate league (because men wouldn't let them in, or when they did let them in it wasn't long before they kicked them out again and then made a separate space again. Don't assume men don't have and value space for themselves just because you've never paid attention to it.
So that sounds like misogyny then. With the inverse being misandry.
Mysoginy is saying men are better than women, misandry is saying women are better than men, transphobia is saying cis women and men are better than trans women and men. This clearly falls into the 3rd category.
Feminist who exclude trans-women are not really feminists at all. Otherwise they wouldn't exclude parts of the women population.
Those that claim they are feminists anyway, are transphobic. Being misandrist while excluding transwomen makes no sense. They exclude women not men in their cause.
But they're only excluding women that are males. Specifically because they are males. If feminism is for female's right, not women's rights, then excluding people who aren't females doesn't violate the ideology. Their belief is that including males that identify as women IS the violation of feminist ideology and an infringement on the rights of females.
Transwomen are not men though. So your argument is invalid. Transwomen face the same problems many women do so excluding them makes no sense. Yes biological females have some problems of their own but these are rarely the main focus of feminism and neither do all bio females face the same problems.
Of course they aren't men. They're males. I never said anything about men. So my argument is valid and your response was dishonest. You can look right now at the OP and the reply of mine for proof.
That's your opinion in what feminism is for, and TERFs believe that feminism is for females only. Not because of transphobia, but because the goal is to advocate for females. Talking about gender identity is useless in this context.
It's an infringement because females have had female only spaces and programs for a long time and that is our right. Males entering our spaces and taking our programs is a violation of that right.
The same reason they exclude cis males from their spaces. Because they don't want males in their spaces. Is it cisphonic to exclude cis males?
Oh yikes, did you dare me? I'm so intimated lol. The only reason that matters is that our spaces and programs are FOR FEMALES. Just like how they aren't for cis males, they aren't for trans males either. Ours. And not yours to give away to males.
Can you read? Why are you telling me what we are for and failing at that? WE are not for females only, we are for women (mostly)!!! I repeatedly told you that now. Listen and repeat: WE ARE NOT FOR FEMALES ONLY, WE ARE MOSTLY FOR WOMEN!!!
Also we dont even exclude cismales as long as they are not misogynists. Your understanding of feminism lacks. I gladly answer questions but dont try do explain things to me you dont understand. Cisphobic? Really? thats your next move?
So even under YOUR (false) premise that feminism WOULD be for females only (which it isn't), then why would excluding cis-males be cisphobic, when in fact we would include all cis-females?
Can YOU read? Your anger doesn't change anything. You won't intimidate me. I've dealt with bullies like you my entire life. It only tells me that you're weak and dishonest.
YOU don't get to determine what constitutes feminism. Just like TERFs don't. There are just different schools of thought and their school of thought excludes males. Which I agree with. I'm just not a feminist. But excluding males isn't transphobia. It's misandry.
Obviously I'm referring to cisphobia in the context of advocation for female-only spaces, so nice try with that dishonest framing. Do you want cis males in female only spaces and getting female only jobs/scholarships/grants/etc? And you can lie, but the answer is no. Is this cisphobia? Misandry? Neither because female stuff is for females?
I am not planning to intimidate you. I am planning to educate you because you again have your basis wrong. YOu claim feminism is about females and thats simply not true. Feminism is about women. No I dont want cismales in female only spaces. But I dont want female only space to begin with! I want safespaces for women. TERFS is a relativly new thing. It started around 2000 and was coined in 2008. It wasn't even used in the first place by terfs themselve but used to exclude terfs from original feminism. Talking about terfs yes that is transphobic by definition.
You claim to be not a feminist at all. If these are just two schools than that can be ok. They disagree with each other but they obviously exist. You as a non feminist can't blame both groups for things only one of the groups do. That is my main problem here.
My main point still stands. Feminism by origin works only ever talked about women. It included female problems but it never excluded transwomen. It talked about genderinequality. It fought for women rights and women suffrage. Including something that doesn't benefit everyone who works for it isn't excluding that one group. Otherwise no social movement would ever work as intended.
You aren't educating anyone. You're trying to bully and intimidate me into accepting males into my spaces. If you were trying to educate you wouldn't have taken a hostile tone. That, and you know there is nothing to educate on, because you're lying anyway.
I'm educating YOU on what feminism is. And it's an umbrella, no matter what you say. Part of this umbrella excludes males, regardless of gender identity, from things meant for females.
The reason the terms "woman" and "women" were historically used is because nearly no one differentiated between sex and gender until very recently. They were interchangeable terms and people believed that trans women were just crossdressers and fetishist and not actually women. Referencing this history of the terminology is just a dishonest attempt at a semantics debate.
@Juxtapose If you have something to say thats not outright hatefull feel free to voice your opinion. Offensive comments are a reason for reports and against website rules.
A woman who wants a space away from men should not have to entertain the notion of allowing a crossdresser to masquerade as a woman and invade her space.
Thank you for your opinion on this. Does it matter to you if it's a private company that makes their own decisions for their bathrooms? Like, what if a gym says "go in whatever changing rooms and showers you feel like using" kind of thing. They'd probably lose all female customers, but do you think that it's their right to do that?
Based on my observations it seems like many people who aren’t trans don’t believe trans women are women because they are not female.
A lot of it is just semantics though. Like they use the term "woman" to describe females. So they think they're correct to say that they aren't women just because they aren't females.
Most trans women don’t get bottom surgery I’m guessing that’s a huge reason why they aren’t wanted by many in the women’s bathroom.
Male puberty can give a person bigger lungs, heart, hands etc and this cannot be reversed with HRT. Having bigger body parts can definitely give a person an advantage in sports so this is a reason why trans women are being banned from women’s sports.
Also for women’s beauty competitions trans women take HRT and some people may view that as cheating since it is not their natural look.
I didn't know that about the bottom surgery thing. That makes a huge difference in my mind. No pun intended, obviously.
According to this website only about 5-13 percent do get it the surgery. So that means like around 90 percent of trans women have a penis
my.clevelandclinic.org/.../feminizing-bottom-surgery
Very interesting. And lends much more credence to females' concerns about trans women being in their spaces, considering the prevalence of males committing SA.
"Transphobic" implies they fear tranny's.
God only knows feminists' problems.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares about misandry or about whether or not this constitutes it?
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions