Is feminism fundamentally ciscentric?

>>5224134
I ask this because I've recently been wondering about whether feminism fundamentally includes or excludes trans people. This has nothing to do with whether the feminist movement ought to include trans people—I think that it could improve the lives of trans people and alleviate their oppression in doing so, which is good—or whether feminists should also support trans rights. This is exclusively about the conceptual and philosophical foundation of feminism. Does feminism include trans people, particularly trans women, as a part of its conceptual and philosophical foundation?

I understand that transfeminism exists, which one could interpret as an interdisciplinary movement that combines trans theory with feminism and supports both, but my question is more concerned about whether transfeminism is fundamentally different from feminism proper. If feminism does include trans people, then transfeminism seems like a synonym for feminism with no real application. If it does not, however, then transfeminism has some meaning as a distinct ideological position—or, at the very least, it's little more than a type of trans-inclusionary feminism.

I also recognize that there are some feminists who exclude trans people, often called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). My question has more to do with whether this is a meaningful classification given the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of feminism, and whether "TERFs"—or their opponents—are just self-ascribedfeminists who do misinterpret the core tenet(s) of feminism.

>>5224134
>>5224138
I'm inclined to believe that feminism is philosophically exclusive to cis women, since feminism originated from this group and the core tenet(s) of feminism has, up until recently, been implicitly trans-exclusionary. This doesn't mean that feminism and trans issues are mutually exclusive, only that they are philosophically and ideologically distinct positions which are neither mutually inclusive, biconditional, nor conditionally related. One argument for the contrary—that feminism, the empowerment of women to equality, is fundamentally based on the concept of womanhood and, to a lesser extent, femininity, rather than biological sex or the relationship between sex and gender identity—is compelling, but this is almost certainly not what feminism originally meant, partly because this nuanced issue of gender identity was not known at the time. It seems to me, however, that this would be a revisioning of feminism's core tenet(s) to include trans people, particularly trans women.

Given the complexity of this issue, perhaps a more complex question should be asked—better yet, a series of questions:

>1. What is the fundamental tenet or philosophical idea, or set thereof, that defines feminism? Removing all the inessential ideas, caveats, beliefs, and values that often define feminism (or types of feminism), what is the essential conceptual foundation that is intrinsically feminism?
I would answer this as "the empowerment of women to equality with men". If this answer is acceptable, then on to the second question. If you disagree, then please point out a better answer, for the issue may lie here.

>>5224134
>>5224138
>>5224144
>2. Does "women" mean all who qualify for womanhood, or only those who are biologically female (or only cis females), thereby excluding trans people? Alternatively, assuming "women" means all who qualify for womanhood, what is "womanhood"? Perhaps more importantly, is the status of womanhood conditionally related to the female sex and, in the case of cis females, the relationship between one's sex and gender?
I would answer, tentatively, that womanhood is not necessarily sex-specific or requiring a certain sex–gender relationship, though I would say that it is essentially feminine. If this answer is acceptable, then the issue lies in the third question. If it is not, but the first question is, then this may be where the issue lies.

>3. Given the original interpretation and implied exclusion of trans people that almost certainly existed in feminism's formation, is it appropriate to still call it "feminism" when the core of its ideological identity has been reformed? In other words, is the core interpretation and definition of feminism that informed its origins essential to the definition of feminism, or can that too change while retaining feminism as an ideology?[1]
Even if we assume that the answer's definition in #1 remains constant throughout the entirety of feminism (which is uncertain to unlikely), it's reasonable to assume that the implications of that definition have changed since feminism's formation.

>>5224138
>>5224144
>>5224151
Apparently, it will be five posts.

Whereas the definition may now mean something different with the recent changes to the meaning of womanhood—primarily due to developments in understanding the sex–gender disparity and gender identity, and secondarily due to shifting cultural views partly in response to this—"womanhood" was arguably inseparable from the concept of femininity and the female sex in all but the most abstract of senses during the mid-1800s. After all, it was called "feminism", not "womanism",[2] and the distinction between femininity and the female sex in gender norms didn't really exist during the ideology's formation.

This is not merely an appeal to originalism or ideological purity, nor is it an opposition to ideological reform, but rather a question of whether a fundamental change in the core definition as given in #1, however implicit, warrants a different ideology, or at least that it should be considered an interdisciplinary classification such as transfeminism.

If the answers to #1 and #2 are satisfactory, then I suspect the issue lies here, specifically on whether the identity of the ideology has been fundamentally changed. If so, then this violates the law of identity and is therefore logically absurd.

>>5224138
>>5224144
>>5224151
>>5224155
-----
[1] – I ask that last question in particular because I cannot think of any philosophical or ideological concept whose fundamentally defining idea or tenet has been reformed or revisioned while still maintaining continuity. It seems to me that the core tenet, or set of tenets, which define a particular ideology is the irreducible identity of that ideology. This holds true with theology, particularly when determining when a denomination becomes a distinct religion; politics, such as the abandonment of "liberal" by radical Leftists in favor of alternative terms despite holding views that are, by some definitions, radically liberal; and philosophical schools in ways similar to the previous two, to name a few.

[2] – I ought to point out that, for the context of these posts, I am not making the maturity or status distinction between "girls" and "women" or "boys" and "men". I am only not using the terms "male" or "female" because "man" and "woman" is more often used within the context of trans people. I recognize a subtle distinction between "woman" and "female", though, which has minor implications to #2 that are caused by the use of "women" in #1 (which could be substituted with "females"). It doesn't really change the substance of either question set, but I think that for #2, the appropriate pair for "female" would be "femininity", not "womanhood". My answer would change, too, but I would still contend that femininity is not sex specific or requiring a certain sex–gender relationship; I would only omit that it is essentially feminine since that would be tautological.

The easiest way to trigger a feminist is to tell her that you support equality so you consider yourself an equalist.

Watch her chimp out and explain how feminism is about equality and it needs to be called feminism instead of equalism or humanism because females need to be put at the forefront of that equality.

It should be called Humanism. There's no arguing that trans, cis, het, get, xir, biological, societal, construct or not, everyone is HUMAN. I don't care about the history.

Until they're willing to provide a concrete definition of what feminism is and encompasses, I can't say that it's ciscentric or not. The real problem with the trans element in feminism is that it blows them the fuck out.

>a man wishes to identify as female
>how do I do this?
>appearance and behavior
>PINK ISN'T A GIRL COLOR
>NO SUCH THING AS GIRL CLOTHES
>NO SUCH THING AS GIRL TOYS
>THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS ACTING LIKE A GIRL
>then who, what, or why are you being oppressed?
So now this man is just supposed to call himself a girl and is magically a girl by virtue of saying so? The goal posts keep getting pushed so far back that sex, gender and even the very concept of biology are now all entirely social constructs. With each month it gets more absurd and convoluted. Without the biological argument, there's no quantifier for what a woman is, and if a woman isn't anything, then she can't be getting mistreated or can't be getting shit on. So there needs to be means of defining that status.

>>5224134
feminism used to be about females and empowerment, but now feminism means everything and therefore nothing. some females still call themselves feminists while holding dear to second wave which makes it all the more confusing. the easiest thing to do is for transwomen to just co-opt womanism (black women and transwomen get along so well anyway, maybe they wont even protest), but trannies wont do that cause they benefit so much from rewriting feminism. like one of the commenters above, second wave (old feminism, female-centric) and third wave (woman means anything, sex doesnt matter) do contradict in ethos quite often, which means if second wave is dead then third wave exists with only some tenets of social conservatism butting heads with it, leaving it and transwomen top dogs on the Progressive totem pole.

>>5224211
thats why "feminism is about equality" is dumb, but young people today dont read history or understand the philosophies they tout

>>5224284
This.

If third-wave feminism succeeds in shifting popular belief that "woman" is anyone or anything regardless of sex/biology/gender/etc, then the easiest way to take the piss out of it is simply declaring yourself a woman. They're removing their own means of arguing against such a claim.

>when everyone is a woman, no one will be

File: 1428109663831.png (401KB, 961x686px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 961x686px

>>5224308
>>5224240
>>5224284
Why again do you think it should be illegal to receive medicine or exercise bodily autonomy?

Why is it wrong to consider overwhelming medical evidence?

If this is all your movment stands for then it certainly is against everything you claim to care for.

>>5224240
>confusing the insane ramblings of 4chan trannies with actual, real feminism

Don't do this btw

>>5226156
translate this medibabble to me pls

>>5224211
I came here for serious discussion about feminism and its relationship to trans issues, not "hurr durr fuk feminazis TRIGGERED XD" from closet /pol/acks. It's not called humanism because that's already a distinct philosophical position, so it would be absurd and ignorant to call one's self that unless one was actually a humanist. Equalism is already a term and feminism could actually be considered the gynocentric branch of it, with masculism being the androcentric one. I personally already call myself an equalist, though I admit that I generally qualify as a feminist, as well.

>>5224240
I gave you a concrete definition of feminism here, in #1: >>5224144. I recommend reading my five-post analysis if you want my full opinion on this topic.

I would consider a woman as done who embodies, emulates, or adheres to the ideal of womanhood, either deliberately or passively as a component of their culture. I'm not sure whether the concept of womanhood ought to have a biological element, especially since it would exclude trans people from being considered women. I generally consider womanhood—like all gender roles and gender-related concepts—to be socially constructed and manifestations of culture with minimal biological roots, so I usually reject the assignment of biological elements as intrinsic to something like womanhood. For me, womanhood is an identarian classification that is informed by one's culture and reinforced by one's gender and corresponding role. I'm not sure if that means that womanhood is an identity that is ascribed by others or by one's behaviors, however, or if that permits self-ascription.

>>5231375
Whoops, forgot my tripcode.

>>5224284
Although feminism has expanded into a philosophical school and has blurred its boundaries a bit, I would consider feminism to still be a pretty well-defined movement and school of thought. There is obviously a lot of ideological furcation within it, which has resulted in a lot of interdisciplinary development. Feminism is still about empowering women to equality with men (as a movement); the goal of achieving this equality (as a belief); and the examination and analysis of womanhood, femininity, and the role of females in society (as a philosophical school).

There have been multiple waves of feminism, wherein the scope of thought and movement has enlarged, but this is a common feature of ideologies, movements, and schools of thought. Actually, I'd contend that feminism's growth as a movement is far more clearly defined than other movements and ideological groups. Simply looking over to theology and major religions—or political theory and the countless ideologies within each general group and school of thought, endlessly overlapping like a chainmail of countless Venn diagrams—and you'll see just how convoluted and complex belief systems can become. Unlike feminism, many of them have less clearly-defined "waves" or periods of reform, instead developing with less centralization and organization as a system.

I don't think >>5224240 was making a comparison between second- and third-wave feminism, so you're putting words in their mouth. Moreover, you don't seem to really understand the difference between the two waves, since your description of them doesn't make sense within the context of what I know about feminism. Second-wave feminism was the expansion of feminism into social issues and extralegal inequalities, such as those regarding reproductive rights and their roles at home and the workplace.

>>CONTINUED<<

>>5231382
>>5224284
Third-wave feminism was the expansion of feminism into philosophy as it began to critique society and culture itself; and investigate how systems themselves contribute, facilitate, and perpetuate the oppression and disenfranchisement of women, impeding them from equality. Keep in mind that it was during third-wave feminism that patriarchy and rape culture theory were developed, and when feminist critiques of political systems and religions—including economic systems like capitalism—began to more fully form.

In a way, third-wave feminism was the decentralization and diversification of feminism as it grew large enough to ground itself as a distinct philosophical school and begin to influence society and culture. This can be seen in other ideologies and movements, including religions, wherein the ideology philosophically grounds itself, expands its scope, and begins to furcate as adherents individuate over particular beliefs or issues.

This did include the distinction of gender from sex, which led to concepts like womanhood and femininity lose their presumed biological underpinnings. In that sense, third-wave feminism helped facilitate the development of queer and trans theory as philosophy and the social sciences began exploring our uncritical presumptions about sex, sexuality, gender, and identity—and how these shape, and are shaped by, society and culture.

>>5224308
If your only interest in an analysis of womanhood lies in how it could be effectively weaponize to undermine feminism for whatever reason, then it's clear that you're not suitable to be having any exchange on the fundamentals of feminism and its scope.

>>5224134
Feminism as an original concept and philosophy is not cis-centric, but how feminism materialized it ended up cis-cetric.

The rest of your stuff is tl;dr

>>5231375
Womanhood is an oppressive word (in this case, misogynistic), because that means you're ready to exclude women from their womenhood, unless they meet your criteria.

>>5231642
To add, it's not only cis-centric, it's also white-centric.

>>5230943
>Specifically, in a 304 voxel sized cluster affecting the left pre- and postcentral gyri a 32 voxel sized cluster affecting the left posterior cingulate, calcarine gyrus, and the precuneus, showed lower GM volume in MTF transgender patients and female controls compared to FTM transgender patients and male controls. The opposite direction of differences could be observed in a 123 voxel sized cluster in the right occipital lobe involving the middle and inferior occipital, the fusiform, and the lingual gyri, in a 42 voxel sized cluster affecting the right inferior temporal gyrus, where regional GM volume proved to be higher in MTF transgender patients and female controls compared with FTM transgender patients and male controls /PMC3877116/

>Compared to men and women, MtFs showed differences in a neural network including the medial prefrontal gyrus, the insula, and the precuneus when responding to male vs. female voices. With increased voice morphing men recruited more prefrontal areas compared to women and MtFs, while MtFs revealed a pattern more similar to women. On a behavioral and neuronal level, our results support the feeling of MtFs reporting they cannot identify with their assigned sex. /PMC4222943./

>We explored the specific hypothesis that male-to-female transsexualism is associated with gene variants responsible for undermasculinization and/or feminization...To date, this is the largest genetic study of transsexualism conducted. We observed a significant association between longer AR gene polymorphisms and male-to-female transsexualism. Longer CAG repeats in the AR gene lead to reduced binding of the AR protein to co-activator, due to its inhibitory interaction with the receptor, resulting in less effective testosterone signalling, a mechanism typically involved in masculinization of the brain during early development /PMC3402034/
Now of course >>5224240 >>5224284 will tell you the scientists and doctors are immoral for helping their patients.

File: 1418970817977.jpg (137KB, 500x484px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x484px

>>5224308
>>5224284

Why again do you have such a problem with people who have demonstrated conditions medically transitioning and exercising bodily autonomy?

Why is it your role to ban any medicine and science and harass patients just because it goes against your personal feelings. How isn't that any different from the people who would take away your bodily autonomy.

If your ideology is nothing but statism that exists to go after every group that offends it, then it's no different than the way they do business in North Korea.

By the way, they say fags and trannies are capitalist decadance so you'd probably get along.