I would like to ask a couple of questions to the feminists of

>>5875211
there are no feminists here

>>5875211
>Do you think transgenderism affects the cause of women and the goals of your activism?
Yes, it inherently broadens the discussion on gender and forces us to consider what exactly it is, as well as highlights the socially constructed aspects of it.

>How do you feel about transgenders trying to pass as real women and participating in women's issues discussions?
Loaded question, as it A) assumes transwomen are NOT "real" women and B) exludes transmen. But I see no problem with it; feminism ought to be inclusive of everyone regardless of gender (yes, that includes cismen) and deal with issues of gender from all perspectives.

>>5875277
>assumes transwomen are NOT "real" women
Come on now.

>>5875295
Whether they are or are not is a discussion I am very willing to have, and it is an important discussion. This goes especially for how we define "real" womanhood - genetics, phenotype, lived experience, social role, psychology? But just outright assuming it in the question is just lazy. And a fallacy.

>>5875295
Either present an argument or gtfo and take your smug bullshit response with you
>m...m...muh chromosomes
Gender is not biological. An MTF who looks like and acts like a woman is going to share the same experiences as someone who was born with a vagina, so clearly she should be included in the whole 'feminism' thing.

File: tumblr_nqw65wjmR51u9o7gzo1_400.gif (1MB, 371x209px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 371x209px

>>5875211
>feminism

File: 1428011528452.jpg (164KB, 696x966px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 696x966px

>>5876229
More relevantly, chromosomes are just meiotic structures. They aren't relevant to sex development, autsome genes do, they make phenotype. And medical transition is supposed to alter phenotype.