[thrance]

Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them?

> trans ideological cause

Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.

[wastle]

No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access.

That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.

[kelnos]

No, that's not the typical focus of the issue, and repeating that over and over won't make it so.

[wastle]

What do you see it as?

In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.

[thrance]

Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...

[wastle]

That's not true. JK Rowling is a good counterexample to your claim, as are the women who brought the FWS case to the UK's Supreme Court (and won), and as are so many other women whose feminist advocacy involves this topic.

[thrance]

JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke", which suggests multiple interesting facts about her political views:

* She thinks "woke" is a bad word, which would put her on the right.

* She thinks Reform UK is woke, which puts her on the far right.

* She's a very confused person, which I would expect from someone claiming to be a feminist while making her prejudice against an already persecuted minority her whole personality.

[u_sama]

Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

[thrance]

> Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative.

Who cares?

> TERFS are still feminists.

You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that.

The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them.

> Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?