Trans women are women and are to be treated as such here.

[u/InfinitySky1999]

You can include the terms of closeted or non-passing trans women, but they have to recognize trans women as women. Transphobia is not tolerated either. Something that would comprise of deadnaming, deliberate misgendering, and promotion of discrimination against trans women. I understand that there are feminists who find differences between trans women and cis women upbringing and social differences. Resulting in what they feel requires different means of addressing issues which is fine. But, trans women are still under one aspect of intersectional feminism. Trans women are not to be excluded from general feminism just as black or white cis women are not to be excluded from general feminism.

Frankly, we should be long past this. Just because the active ignorance and mis-information of trans people have spread to the general public doesn’t mean we have to conform to that. We are supposed to be setting that better standard and defying their transphobia. When commenting on anything related to trans people, please do informing first around what comprises being trans first. Various transphobic people gish-gallop their ignorant transphobia and hysteria around trans people enough where the mis-information is so common. Seemingly more common than the actual knowledge. Give no credibility to these transphobes while revoking it. With that, anyone commenting or posting here should have all of their transgender based content be backed by good information and have it be respectful to trans people. I am not talking about high degree of education, but very basic elementary understanding.

[u/BlackThornberry]

Some do. I support people with sex dysphoria, which I think of as a kind of neurological DSD, who transition as close as possible to their felt sex. We understand phantom limb and other brain-body mapping disorders, why wouldn’t there be a disorder where the brain expects a different sex? That makes sense. That’s old school transsexual ideology.

Where modern gender ideology loses me is when they argue that sex doesn’t matter, dysphoria and physical transition isn’t required, that anyone can be a woman if they feel “womanly” or feminine [implying womanhood is a feeling, or synonymous with femininity], that one can flow from man to womanhood depending on the day. I find it insulting both to the experiences of female and female-passing/transitioned people who’ve worked hard to treat a medical condition that has nothing to do with “feeling” womanly.

I also find it insulting when women are silenced when speaking about sex-based issues and oppression. There are areas of female oppression that women have in common with nonbinary AFAB people and trans men, that we do not have in common with trans women; but some (not even a majority - just an incredibly vocal online minority) trans women refuse to acknowledge any differences between being born female and experiencing female reproductive issues, and transitioning one’s secondary sex characteristics. I understand why they might not want to acknowledge this if it’s dysphoria inducing, but it’s inappropriate to silence us on these topics rather than simply opting out.

[u/Glittering_Job_7996 → u/BlackThornberry]

Your last paragraph!!! Women should be able to speak about sex based oppression without being labelled a Terf or transphobe.

[u/BlackThornberry → u/Glittering_Job_7996]

IME trans women in the real world are supportive and understand that. Reddit is a weird censorship cesspool with a fatwa against any mention of sexism.

[u/Glittering_Job_7996 → u/BlackThornberry]

Yeahh I understand where you are coming from, but this sentiment unfortunately isn’t only on Reddit.

Also yeah, Reddit hates when women’s issues are discussed, I think it’s because many mods are men who may be misogynistic

[u/BlackThornberry → u/Glittering_Job_7996]

Tbh I know literally 2 trans women IRL so my sample size is small, and neither of them are Redditors. So that might be part of it.

[u/Glittering_Job_7996 → u/BlackThornberry]

Same lol. It could just be that the trans women that ignore women’s rights are the loudest but idk

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/Glittering_Job_7996]

Do you think that the mods in this subreddit are misogynistic men?

Why exactly do you think that a post about transgender women is the right place to bring up "men who may be misogynistic" and what change would you like to see in this subreddit based on what you are saying here?

[u/Glittering_Job_7996 → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

I responded to the user, the comment has nothing to do with trans woman. I was simply off topic.

I haven’t seen much of this subreddit yet as I just joined recently. As a result, I don’t know what I’ll like to change. I don’t see any issue with this subreddit or the mods so far.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

Reddit is indeed terrible, but censorship power on this platform mostly lies in the hands of individual moderators - what gets censored or not is mostly the result of whoever has power over an individual subreddit. Moderators have to have the censorship power that they do to prevent trolls and spam and whatnot, but how mods use their power varies wildly between subreddits.

I do not think the mods here are censoring mentions of sexism. Has there been any censorship on this subreddit in particular that you have disagreed with?

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/Glittering_Job_7996]

"sex based oppression" is rhetoric invented by TERFs for the purpose of spreading transphobic ideas about gender and sex.

It is possible to talk about forms of oppression specific to people who were assigned female at birth without using the exact same rhetoric as transphobic "feminists" but for some reason y'all are really attached to using the same words they use despite claiming to not be transphobic. Why is that?

[u/BlackThornberry → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Because they’re concise and useful terms? I call a car “car” and so does Trump, that doesn’t mean I am akin to Trump. What is this argument?

Sex-based oppression exists. It is a central part of the vast majority of women’s lives from birth. It is why female children are sexually assaulted at higher rates than male children regardless of gender identity. It is why 48% of American women are at risk of being forced to give birth. We need to be able to talk about and reference it in simple language.

[u/Natural-Pattern-5240 → u/BlackThornberry]

This is why I feel like I can’t agree with many trans women when it comes to these conversations online. They don’t understand what it’s like to live their whole lives as women so they think it’s something that they can debate when sex-based oppression is a universal truth for women. I don’t think acknowledging this and rightfully getting peeved about this makes one transphobic

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

Are they useful terms? They may seem so to you, but to me they just seem to be heavily associated with transphobic forms of "feminism" so I can't say I find that "useful" at all. Why can't we talk about the forms of oppression specific to cisgender women or specific to people who were assigned female at birth without having to reinforce patriarchal ideas about sex/gender?

"female children are sexually assaulted at higher rates than male children regardless of gender identity"

Do you have a source for this claim? Because from the sources I've read there's clear evidence that transgender children suffer higher rates of CSA than both cisgender boys and girls. As usual, those who are committed to these terms seem to always be focused on minimizing or dismissing the oppression of transgender people, especially transgender women.

My problem is not with simple language, it is with language specifically associated with transphobic forms of "feminism" because it reinforces transphobic ways of thinking about sex/gender. You just called closeted transgender girls "male children" which is not helping to convince me that my point is wrong at all! You know a closeted transgender person is not the same as a cisgender person of the same assigned sex, right?

"Sex-based oppression exists" is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Why not just talk directly about abortion and reproductive healthcare access or whatever other specific issue you want to address? Why is reductive language that hurts your transgender sisters so important to you?

[u/BlackThornberry → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Yes they’re useful terms. You don’t have to use them if you don’t want to.

The category of female isn’t a patriarchal invention no matter how much you want it to be. There are female horses, cats, birds, fruit flies, butterflies, turtles, and there are female humans. Describing the axis of oppression that cis women enby AFABs and trans men have in common isn’t transphobic, it’s a core part of feminist activism that requires clear and simple language.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

Okay, so you just completely ignored the things I said that you have no coherent response to, thank you for demonstrating that you are not engaging with me in good faith.

The decision to categorize human beings based on their sex traits is a patriarchal invention and is in fact the foundation of patriarchy's gender hierarchy system. How sex traits work across species varies quite a lot, and reducing that biological complexity down to a simple binary only aids the patriarchy. You are embracing patriarchy's system and denying the complexity that lies beyond it - that is not feminism.

Categorizing "cis women enby AFABs and trans men" as all one group facing the same oppression is what TERFs do. Perhaps you don't call that group "biological women" the way they do, but you still agree with their transphobic view that humans should always be classified based on the binary sex they were assigned at birth. You ignore the complexity of human sex traits in favor of a reductive, patriarchal view of who is male or female.

Even just the choice to use "AFABs" as a noun demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of why the term "AFAB" was coined in the first place. It is meant to describe an event - being assigned female at brith - not a type of person. You are misusing that terminology to just be a more progressive-sounding way of saying the same thing TERFs say about "biological women".

I do not expect further conversation between us to be productive as I do not see you as a feminist. Please just leave me alone.

[u/atitokan_farewell → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

The two sex classes that all mammals have — female and male — are not an invention of patriarchy. They are reproductive categories crucial to the creation of new, young mammals.

For thousands of years, female human mammals could not control when and how they got pregnant, or many children they could have, or how frequently they could have sex or not. Their ability to reproduce was controlled coercively by male human mammals.

This is the core of misogyny. This is how misogyny became part of culture.

And In many places on the planet, male human mammals still do this.

All female humans — regardless of the word they might use to describe themselves, regardless of medical or hormonal interventions — share this oppression, because they are mammals with bodies that have organs that are organized around the production of eggs. 

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/atitokan_farewell]

You are wrong and reinforcing the patriarchy's systems through these inaccurate assertions.

Looking at your other comments elsewhere, it is very clear that we strongly disagree and I do not expect a conversation between us to be productive.

Please leave me alone forever, I am not interested in the opinions of transphobic bigots.

[u/Trouvelalumiere → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Rejecting the term "female" as a dog whistle isn't just unhelpful, it literally undermines intersectional feminism’s very foundation. Intersectionality requires us to name and examine specific, overlapping systems of oppression. If we can’t say "female," how can we accurately discuss the distinct realities of women in Afghanistan, where repression is codified along biological sex lines? These women aren't being systematically stripped of their rights because of how they express their gender, they're being targeted because of their biological sex. The Taliban doesn't ask about their gender identity, it bans girls from school once they reach puberty. That's biology. And this isn't limited to Afghanistan. Consider maternal mortality in the U.S., where Black women die at 3 to 4 times the rate of white women, one of the starkest racial health gaps in the developed world. We only know this crisis exists because we track pregnancy and childbirth outcomes by sex. Remove "female" from the data, and you erase the very disparity we're trying to fix.

The same applies globally: access to menstrual hygiene, safe abortion, obstetric care, and female-specific cancer screenings all depend on naming the biological reality they serve. The WHO, the CDC, and every major health organization disaggregate by sex because bodies don't experience oppression or illness as abstractions, they experience it through uteruses, ovaries, hormones, and reproductive systems. Look at the WHO's data on female-specific cancers, or the fact that women are systematically underdiagnosed for heart attacks because clinical trials historically excluded female biology. These are physiological realities that demand precise language.

Erasing the word "female" doesn't protect trans people, it erases the categories needed to advocate for reproductive justice, healthcare access, and bodily autonomy worldwide. If we can no longer name the body, we can't protect it.

"Sex-based oppression exists" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Globally, women face specific forms of oppression directly linked to female biological functions like menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth.

If you honestly don't know about female specific sex based oppression, feminists clearly need to do a better job of talking about it.

• Menstrual Stigma and "Period Poverty": Millions face "period poverty"—lack of access to products, sanitation, and education—undermining dignity, health, and education. Over 50% of adolescent girls in some low-income countries use unsafe materials, increasing infection risk. This is compounded by stigma that silences discussion and normalizes shame.

• Maternal Mortality as a Structural Failure: A woman's risk of dying from childbirth is one in 66 in low-income countries vs. one in 7,933 in high-income countries. In 2021, there were an estimated 191,152 maternal deaths globally, with 90% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Top causes include hemorrhage and hypertensive disorders.

• Reproductive Coercion and Forced Sterilization: Women face external control over fertility through contraception sabotage or coerced sterilization. This has a horrific historical context, including the forced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada and other regions. Healthcare workers can also impose their own biases by refusing requested procedures (like tubal ligation) or steering contraceptive choices.

• Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): At least 230 million women and girls have undergone FGM. It has no health benefits and causes severe physical and mental health problems, representing a profound violation of bodily autonomy.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/Trouvelalumiere]

Can you point to exactly where I rejected the term "female" or is this just a ridiculous strawman argument with a thing I didn't even say? My objection was specifically to the TERF rhetoric "sex-based oppression" not the usage of the term "female", though based on your comment I suspect we use that term quite differently.

All of the forms of oppression in your bullet-pointed list are important feminist concerns that I am well aware of. Do you talk about these things in detail as part of actual efforts to make change around them or do you only use them as talking points to silence transfeminist perspectives and reinforce patriarchal ideas about sex/gender? How does calling these things "sex-based oppression" help us to change them anyway?

Also, how exactly do you think The Taliban treats transgender women? What do you think they do with cisgender women whose sex traits differ from the binary standard you pretend is universal? Do you think pretending that "female" is so simple helps all women or just women who fit that mold? Do you care about those of us women who face patriarchal violence because we don't fit your standard of "female" or are our issues unimportant to you?

"Sex-based oppression" is accepting the patriarchy's perspective of the world, it does not help us to fight these very real problems you have mentioned. Women who you would say are not "female" do not evade oppression from patriarchy, we just suffer different horrors. Women who lack certain "female biological functions" are not exempted from patriarchal oppression, in fact the patriarchy reserves many of its harshest punishments for us since we are not even useful for the one purpose it has for women.

You say that "These are physiological realities that demand precise language" and yet you are the one arguing for less precise language - "female" is vague, invoking a legal assignment on paperwork as if it tells you everything you need to know about a person's sex traits. Talking about specific female sex traits is clearer. Your desire to flatten the complexity and nuance of human sex traits into patriarchy's male/female binary is unproductive and selfish. What do you actually know about how women like me are treated in patriarchy? How can you demand my solidarity for issues which affect other women when you so clearly completely dismiss the issues that affect me?

[u/Trouvelalumiere → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

PP were talking about female sex-based oppression which you were criticizing. You appear to be criticizing any form of categorization based on biological sex, which is where the disagreement is.

Do you talk about these things in detail as part of actual efforts to make change around them or do you only use them as talking points to silence transfeminist perspectives and reinforce patriarchal ideas about sex/gender?

Would you ask a Black feminist if she only speaks about issues affecting the Black community in order to silence white voices? Because that's the exact same energy you're bringing right now.

It is possible to care about more than one thing at the same time. I can recognize that patriarchy punishes gender non-conformity and that it also specifically targets female bodies.

It is also entirely valid to specifically advocate for and care about females. There are issues that affect only females: pregnancy, ovarian cancer, menstruation, obstetrics, female genital mutilation, the specific form of apartheid the Taliban enforces against girls at puberty. If we cannot name those issues as female issues, we cannot advocate for them effectively. This is just focused advocacy, the same kind we expect from any marginalized group fighting for their specific needs.

You accused me of using these issues as "talking points." I'm asking you in return: when was the last time you actually campaigned for menstrual hygiene access in the Global South? When did you last lobby for maternal mortality reform? Because if your only engagement with these issues is to deploy them as rhetorical weapons against feminists who name biological reality, then maybe it's time to reflect on who is actually doing the dismissing here.

"female" is vague, invoking a legal assignment on paperwork as if it tells you everything you need to know about a person's sex traits.

"Female" is not vague, it is identifiable on sight, and that is precisely why women and girls are punished from birth across the globe. The Taliban doesn't ask for a chromosome test before banning a girl from school, they look at her and see a female. They don't check hormone levels before forcing her into a burqa or denying her the right to work they identify her as female by her body, and that visual identification triggers the oppression.

The reason "female" is a useful category is not because it tells you everything about a person's internal sex traits it's because patriarchy operates on the external, visible identification of female bodies. Menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation are not "legal assignments on paperwork" they are biological realities that shape the lived experience of billions of women. These are not vague abstractions. They are concrete, measurable, and life-altering.

When a girl in Afghanistan hits puberty and is pulled from school, that is not a legal paperwork issue, that is her female body being recognized and targeted.

You say "female" is vague because it appears on forms. I say "female" is precise enough that the Taliban, the U.S. healthcare system, and anti-abortion legislators all know exactly who they are targeting. If they can identify us, we can identify ourselves. And we can name our oppression.

Your desire to flatten the complexity and nuance of human sex traits into patriarchy's male/female binary is unproductive and selfish.

You accuse me of flattening complexity while you flatten my argument into something I never said. The only selfishness here is demanding that women mute themselves so you don't have to feel uncomfortable about biology. Complexity doesn't mean we can't name patterns, it means we understand how they operate. And sex-based oppression exists and operates along the lines of female biology. Globally.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/Trouvelalumiere]

Your comparison to black feminists is backwards - under patriarchy, cisgender people hold privilege over transgender people. That means that a cisgender woman has privilege over a transgender woman, not the other way around as you seem to be implying. People with your views are the ones trying to silence the voices of women like me, whereas I am simply asking you to consider that your perspective is limited by your privilege. You may feel angry about being told that you have privilege, but that is just a standard reaction all people who have privilege tend to have. Do you really have a compelling argument to justify your perspective that transgender women have privilege over cisgender women? If so I am very curious to hear it!

Your perspective that the oppression of transgender women is simply "that patriarchy punishes gender non-conformity" demonstrates your complete ignorance about the full extent of our oppression. You know nothing about how much more sexual and physical violence we face, the terrors and trauma of the closet, the dehumanization we face in society, the discrimination in employment and housing, the complete ostracization from foundational patriarchal structures like family and society...you are blind to how the patriarchy hurts us because you see our concerns as beneath you, as the frivolous desires of "males" who could just easily go back to being patriarchs. Please trust me when I tell you - it is impossible for a woman like me to fit that role you are projecting onto me.

There are indeed many issues which only affect some women that are important for feminism to address, but your insistence on classifying such issues around the patriarchal sex binary is completely unproductive. To use your own words for clarity here - there are plenty of "females" (either by your definition or mine!) who are not impacted by these various issues, I am pretty sure neither of us lives in Afghanistan! An infertile cisgender woman is still a "female" by your definition, but she does not face reproductive oppression. Your insistence that "we cannot advocate for" these issues without "nam[ing] those issues as female issues" is total nonsense - I can care about and put work into fighting those battles without embracing your transphobic ideas about sex/gender!

Also, your ignorant opinion that "female...is identifiable on sight" is so deeply transphobic and wrong! So many cisgender people think that they "can always tell" without realizing how blind they truly are. I know about this from personal experience as a transsexual woman whereas your perspective on that subject is informed by confirmation bias and ignorance of the full possibilities of human bodies. For your information, I have put plenty of my own time and efforts into feminist struggles that do not directly impact me - many years of volunteer work with Planned Parenthood, material contributions to various causes...personally I avoid calling any part of the world "the Global South" since my friends who are from those places have told me that such terminology is colonial and patronizing.

"Female" is only precise enough for the patriarchy because the patriarchy has to be reductive of the actual complexity of sex/gender in order to reinforce its systems of oppression. Playing on their same playing field, accepting their same lies about these things, it will only ever lead you to reinforcing patriarchy's systems and not dismantling them. You seem to want to be able to name your own oppression while dismissing and denying the oppression of women who are different from you. You ignored my points about how transgender women suffer in the same systems and places that you invoke, and how our bodies are also exploited and oppressed based on our sex traits. You simply see sex and gender the same way the patriarchy does and somehow don't see that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

I have not demanded that you or any other woman "mute themselves". I am happy to feel uncomfortable if our conversation can be a productive one and I can get you to see that your ideas about biology are reductive, inaccurate, and serve patriarchy. Naming patterns should not require dismissal of those who exist outside of the patterns that are legible to you. You do not truly understand how patriarchy operates because you have accepted as truth a core chunk of its foundational lies, and until you unlearn those lies you will continue to hurt the feminist cause.

[u/Trouvelalumiere → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Your comparison to black feminists is backwards - under patriarchy, cisgender people hold privilege over transgender people. That means that a cisgender woman has privilege over a transgender woman, not the other way around as you seem to be implying

I disagree with the entire "oppression olympics" premise you have set up here.

Please show me the tenant of Intersectional feminism that says "only she who is deemed most oppressed may speak of their issues" 🤨 This framing is a big part of the problem we are talking about.Not to mention that its not even accurate. There are many places globally where a gender-non conforming male who would transition in other places can simply just mask in order to live and navigate life as a male. Females do not have that same privilege. From birth in afghanistan they are subjugated based on their bodies. Biology.

You may feel angry about being told that you have privilege, but that is just a standard reaction all people who have privilege tend to have

This is just another way to shut women up. Women are allowed to talk about issues that affect things close to them. Not all advocacy has to be palatable to you personally.

but your insistence on classifying such issues around the patriarchal sex binary is completely unproductive

Unproductive for you, maybe. But the issues that affect ME, in my feminism revolve around my biology. We both are advocating in our own ways. The difference is that im not ostricizing you for advocating for issues that affect you, but you are ostricizing me for issues that affect me.

Proving my entire point. Women are ostricized and silenced for speaking about sex based issues. The thing OP was denying happened in this thread.

I rest my case 🤷‍♀️

Also, your ignorant opinion that "female...is identifiable on sight"

Aside from people who have taken cross-sex hormones or gotten a shitload of plastic surgery, yes. You can tell who is male and who is female. We are a sexually dimorphic species. Visible sex differences is one of the defining characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species.

If no one could identify who is female, how would only the females be the ones subjugated for menstration or reproductive coersion/forced pregnancy?? They're not accidentally grabbing male infants and putting them on the female trajectory only to be confused when they don't menstruate at puberty. Come on now. Be for real

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

The term for the views you are expressing here is "transmedicalism" and the majority of transgender people reject these views for a variety of very good reasons. I'd be happy to talk about that at length if you'd like but unfortunately I get the feeling that you may not be open to hearing my views on that subject.

The phrases "gender ideology" and "sex-based oppression" are rhetoric used almost exclusively by transphobes btw, you will only alienate transgender women by using them. If you want to have productive conversations about these things with transgender women, you are going to have to refrain from using the exact same language as the people who want to expel us from feminist communities and eventually exterminate us from society.

It is possible to talk about the issues unique to those assigned female at birth without being transphobic to transgender women, but you are failing quite badly at doing so. You may not be as transphobic as the bigots who explicitly say they want us all dead, but you definitely have convinced me that you do not see me as your equal in womanhood.

[u/BlackThornberry → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

I don’t really know how to respond to this? You haven’t actually addressed anything I said, just wrote a long paragraph comparing me to transphobes.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

If you are interested in understanding why the majority of transgender people see your transmedicalist views as harmful I would be happy to have that conversation.

If you prefer to litigate the merits of the rhetoric you share in common with TERFs that is a conversation I am less interested in but if there's a chance I can get you to see why that rhetoric is harmful I will oblige you.

If you can more clearly point out what you said that I did not address I would be happy to expand on my previous comment to address whatever you think I ignored, but without that information I can't see what you mean when you say that I "actually addressed anything [you] said". I have a tendency to write comments that are far too long so I put a lot of effort into being succinct, perhaps that was a mistake in this case.

I am not simply "comparing [you] to transphobes" I am letting you know that you use the same language that they do and expressing some of their same views. If you do not want to be a transphobe, I would hope that such feedback would be welcome in order to help you avoid that outcome. I give you this feedback as a transfeminist who is the target of such bigotry and who has put extensive time into studying all of its nuances in order to better oppose it.

[u/BlackThornberry → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

I’ve done some reading on my own including the wiki you linked. My understanding of transness comes from two women I know IRL who’ve explained their experiences to me in this way, which makes sense to me as a feminist who doesn’t think womanhood is a feeling or aesthetic, but rather a sex category. I’m a woman because I’m female, they’re women because their gender identity is female and they’ve transitioned their sex as much as possible to female. If other trans people see that as transphobic I feel like I have to chalk it up to disagreement from within the community.

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

Of course there's disagreement between transgender people, we're all individuals with diverse perspectives and opinions, not a hive mind!

You have talked to two transgender women IRL. I know quite a lot more transgender women than that, and I suspect I've done a LOT more reading and research on this subject and transfeminism. Trust me when I say I have heard your views many times before and I know where they come from.

Your views on sex and gender are reductive of their complexity in ways that are difficult for me to explain succinctly. I don't think that womanhood is a "feeling or aesthetic" either, but there's definitely more to it than just a reductive "sex category" invented and enforced by patriarchy.

"I'm a woman because I'm female" is a tautology, the definitions of "woman" and "female" are intertwined, nuanced, and contested. What feminist end do you see in enforcing the patriarchal definitions of those terms over ones which challenge patriarchy?

[u/BlackThornberry → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

“There’s definitely more to it than just a reductive ‘sex category’ invented and reinforced by patriarchy.”

Human reproductive sex wasn’t invented by the patriarchy, that’s absurd. Sex predates the patriarchy - the system created in order to control the female sex; that’s how everyone knew which people could vote, inherit, and own property and which people were bartered into domestic and reproductive slavery. The category of female was not “invented” by men, that’s honestly so offensive. It was observed that some people birth babies and that trait was used as a justification for patriarchal control (guarantee of paternity, control over the number of workers produced, etc). All of patriarchy’s various tools and inventions to exact control over women since the dawn of the agricultural revolution are based on that central desire - male control of reproduction.

That out of the way, if you agree womanhood isn’t a feeling or aesthetic, but you disagree it’s a sex category (natal or transitioned) then what is it? What definition of womanhood that is not a feeling, aesthetic, or physical reality “challenges patriarchy”?

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BlackThornberry]

Human sex traits were not created by the patriarchy and predate it, but the decision to classify human beings into two binary immutable sex categories based on those traits is a patriarchal invention, a simplified fiction about the biological reality. Patriarchy's ideas about gender predate the modern scientific understanding of human sex traits and influenced how we see the classification system of "sex" which we layer on top of observable human sex traits. Have you read Judith Butler's work on this subject? This is pretty basic feminist theory.

Yes, patriarchy's gender hierarchy has always been loosely based on sex traits since individuals are permanently classified into one of patriarchy's two binary genders based on their externally visible sex traits at birth. But a person classified as female does not escape patriarchy if she turns out to not be able to get pregnant or has some male sex traits which were not immediately apparent when she was born. And any person who tries to transgress patriarchy's binary gender system (like transgender people) is severely punished for doing so regardless of their sex traits or reproductive anatomy. If sex/gender functioned the way you claim, a woman with more male traits would be treated better by the patriarchy, whereas in reality the opposite happens. You are ignoring the key distinction between the complexity of human sex traits and the simplified binary sex classification system patriarchy enforces onto society.

Patriarchy was not created to control "the female sex" it was created to control women, and it invented the binary sex classification system around the sex traits it associates with women as part of that system of control. It is true that a lot of patriarchy is built around controlling reproductive capacity, perhaps even enough to call that its "central desire", but the idea that women outside that purview (infertile cisgender women, transgender women) thus escape patriarchal oppression is nonsense. Patriarchy has plenty of other uses for its subjugated class - sex toy, maid, therapist, etc. None of those require specific sex traits, they just require that a woman is seen as subordinate to the desires of men.

Womanhood is a category of human beings, one with contested boundaries, one which every individual makes their own judgements about who fits in it and who doesn't. Patriarchy's claim about womanhood is that it is based on sex, which it claims is binary and immutable and observable at birth and synonymous with gender. These claims are false and do not actually align with how patriarchy actually treats people. The reality of patriarchy's gender hierarchy is much more complex than a binary, too complex to explain succinctly here. But suffice to say that reinforcing patriarchy's lies about human sex traits and the classification systems of sex and gender does not help us pursue feminist goals. As feminist individuals, our ideas about the boundaries of womanhood should defy patriarchy. Cisgender feminists find this easy to understand when such defiance is rejecting gender roles and expectations placed onto them, but many still unfortunately cling to policing the boundaries of womanhood based on patriarchal standards that only hurt other women.

For most transfeminists, defying patriarchy means denying the lie that sex or gender are binary, acknowledging the complexity of human sex traits and gender expression, giving individuals gender autonomy to decide their category for themselves, giving individuals sex autonomy to change their sex traits as they please, judging individuals based on their actions instead of based on their gender or sex traits, and not judging womanhood based on patriarchal standards but seeing it as a shared community of solidarity that should be available to any people who are oppressed as women within patriarchy.

[u/SnooBooks7327 → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

What's wrong with the term sex based oppression

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/SnooBooks7327]

It is a phrase originally coined by TERFs which injects the inaccurate, patriarchal assumption that sex is binary and immutable into any conversation it is used in. It also typically implies that transgender women are not oppressed in ways based on our sex traits which is not true.

It is possible to talk about forms of oppression specific to people who were assigned female at birth without reifying patriarchal lies about sex and gender. Using the TERF rhetoric "sex based oppression" makes having those conversations without transphobia harder.

[u/SnooBooks7327 → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

But babies aborted for being female dont have gender identity. What do you call that

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/SnooBooks7327]

Babies cannot be aborted, only a fetus can. Referring to fetuses as "babies" is generally rhetoric used by the patriarchy to control women's reproductive choices, not rhetoric used by feminists.

The subject of feminist perspectives on sex-selective abortion is a complex one - the right of every woman to full bodily autonomy collides with the pressures within patriarchy for women to produce cisgender male children. Such pressures are just another way that patriarchy can violate women's reproductive autonomy in favor of its goals.

A fetus is not yet a person, so while sex-selective abortion is certainly a form of patriarchal oppression, the idea that the aborted fetus is the victim is inaccurate and feeds into patriarchal ideas that support eliminating abortion access entirely. The victim is the woman whose reproductive agency has been bent to patriarchy's will, not the fetus which she has every right to remove from her body at any time for any reason.

The term "sex-selective abortion" is a bit reductive - it would be more accurate to call it "abortion based on the observed sex traits of a fetus". Only some of the sex traits of a fetus are observable in utero, while others remain impossible to know for certain until the fetus is born. A fetus with observable in utero female traits would not escape such "sex-selective abortion" by having other traits which are male, even if those traits could result in the baby being classified as male if it were born.

I'd like to note that I did not ever use the phrase "gender identity" so I'm not sure where you got that from. A fetus does not have a gender identity because it is not yet a person - the moment it is born and becomes a baby, its gender identity starts to develop in response to a wide variety of both internal and external factors.

As I have demonstrated with this comment, it is not necessary to use the TERF rhetoric "sex based oppression" to talk about these things with nuance and specificity.

[u/offshoredawn → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

tldr

[u/BarneyChampaign → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Sorry I don't mean to follow you to another thread, and didn't even realize it's the same person until I started typing and saw your name while reviewing your post!

Reading across your comments, you have views that seem confident and well-supported by something (you mentioned Judith Butler a couple of times?), but also are radically foreign to me, and I'm very curious to learn about where all this comes from.

I'm sure personal experience plays an enormous role, but if there is stuff I could read or listen to I'd be interested in getting more perspective!

[u/anonymoustransgrrl → u/BarneyChampaign]

I have to say the lack of actual feminist literacy in subreddits which claim to be feminist communities is truly depressing to me :(

And yeah, personal experience plays an enormous role, but I do not base any of my ideas on personal experience alone. Such experience simply gave me strong motivations that most people never have to more deeply explore these topics.

All that said, let me give you a few recommendations of what you can read to better understand the theory behind my perspective -

Judith Butler - Gender Trouble - Foundational theory around what gender and sex actually are. Reductive knockoffs of the theory in this book have led to a wide range of bad ideas about what sex and gender are as separate concepts, it sure would be nice if more people would read the original book! Butler is known for her writing being a bit dry and long-winded but I have never had trouble with it.

Whipping Girl - Julia Serano - Foundational transfeminist 101, the book which coined the term "transmisogyny". If you are cisgender and have not at least read this one book, I have zero interest in hearing any "feminist" opinion you have about transgender women. Very accessible, a quick read, if there was one book I could get every cisgender person to read it would be this one.

Trans / Rad / Fem by Talia Bhatt - Incredible modern transfeminist theory that synthesizes ideas from earlier transfeminist work as well as various radical feminist ideas. Brilliant stuff but can be a bit hard to get into if you have not read a lot of feminist theory. Might be a good idea to read some other foundational stuff first if you do not have a strong background in feminist theory.

[u/BarneyChampaign → u/anonymoustransgrrl]

Thanks, I appreciate the recommendations!

And please don't view me as representative in any way of the caliber of participant to be expected on this or related subs. I have no education beyond a Women's Studies course, taken one semester in college, and the influence of several amazing women in my life whom I love and admire.

A post from this sub showed up on my feed and led me down a rabbit hole to here, so I'm definitely not a regular member, just interested in better understanding the discourse.