UK Labour Women Mass Resignation

[Threlizdun]

Except feminism is literally defined by the struggle for the empowerment of women, all women.

Show me where feminism is defined as the struggle for the empowerment of ALL women, including trans women, in official universal definition accepted by all persons. Go.

Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.

In that case, feminism probably doesn't exist in any meaningful sense.

It is important for social movements to critique those who we cannot expect to have our back, especially when they are actively engaging in violence against members of our community. If someone tells me that they are a feminist, yet they deny my very femininity and ally with conservative sexists against me, then I'm going to call them a liar. The word becomes meaningless when diluted to mere self-interest of your own group to the exclusion of all other women and nonbinary people.

It's absolutely fine to critique them. I encourage it. What I will not let you do is pretend they are not part of the movement when in every meaningful way they are. That's a way to deflect criticism, not allow it.

I am not trying to argue that the feminist movement as a whole does not contain lots of trash people. The movement is still dominated by upper and middle class cishet white women who look out for their own interests above all else. My phrasing could be better. The argument isn't directed at people outside the feminist movement, but at trans-exclusive people who identify as feminist. I will always contest to them how they can possibly claim that title while reducing women to their genitals and rejecting the socially constructed nature of gender, as well as ultimately reproducing violence against women. I believe the feminist movement has the obligation to exclude these people from our spaces, and that includes rejecting their right to continue associating with us and using our label.

They are part of the feminist tradition as a social movement, but they make an open mockery of the principles of empowerment of women and nonbinary folks and the abolition of the patriarchy. Members of the feminist movement get to define their own terms and police their own spaces. This increasingly involves telling TERFS that they are not welcome in any capacity.

[Kvatchdom]

These people don't claim to be radical however. They are feminists, but terfs have been largely excluded from most feminist groupings because their ideas often go into conflict with most contemporary feminist ideas.

Uh, less than you would think.

Michfest was still extremely popular among feminists up through 2015 when they had their final gathering. They were trans exclusionary.

Michfest was hardly anything radical to any degree, just more neoliberal American mumbo jumbo.

[Galloism]

I am not trying to argue that the feminist movement as a whole does not contain lots of trash people.

Well good, that's something you couldn't possibly defend.

The movement is still dominated by upper and middle class cishet white women who look out for their own interests above all else.

Here's the thing, by your own admission, the dominating force in feminism is those who don't meet, again by your definition, the definition of feminist.

How are you going to assert that the ones dominating the movement aren't true members of the movement?

I believe the feminist movement has the obligation to exclude these people from our spaces, and that includes rejecting their right to continue associating with us and using our label.

More likely, you're going to eventually be the one excluded from feminist spaces, at least if the ones who aren't True Feminists(tm) have "dominated" "the movement" as you say.

They are part of the feminist tradition as a social movement, but they make an open mockery of the principles of empowerment of women and nonbinary folks and the abolition of the patriarchy. Members of the feminist movement get to define their own terms and police their own spaces. This increasingly involves telling TERFS that they are not welcome in any capacity.

Well don't try to deflect criticism from outsiders by asserting that people who are feminist are not True Feminists(tm). That's a deflection tactic to prevent criticism of your movement from taking place, and criticism is necessary for improvement. This is true of individuals, political parties, and social movements.

[Threlizdun]

I am not trying to argue that the feminist movement as a whole does not contain lots of trash people.

Well good, that's something you couldn't possibly defend.

The movement is still dominated by upper and middle class cishet white women who look out for their own interests above all else.

Here's the thing, by your own admission, the dominating force in feminism is those who don't meet, again by your definition, the definition of feminist.

How you going to assert that the ones dominating the movement aren't true members of the movement?

I believe the feminist movement has the obligation to exclude these people from our spaces, and that includes rejecting their right to continue associating with us and using our label.

More likely, you're going to eventually be the one excluded from feminist spaces, at least if the ones who aren't True Feminists(tm) have "dominated" "the movement" as you say.

They are part of the feminist tradition as a social movement, but they make an open mockery of the principles of empowerment of women and nonbinary folks and the abolition of the patriarchy. Members of the feminist movement get to define their own terms and police their own spaces. This increasingly involves telling TERFS that they are not welcome in any capacity.

Well don't try to deflect criticism from outsiders by asserting that people who are feminist are not True Feminists(tm). That's a deflection tactic to prevent criticism of your movement from taking place, and criticism is necessary for improvement. This is true of individuals, political parties, and social movements.

There is a difference between recognizing that one group has always dominated feminist politics and arguing that they are the ones who define the movement. Women of color, trans women, queer women, and working class women have always been a part of the feminist movement, and it is their work that upper and middle class cishet white women rely upon to make their own advances. Upper class cishet white women are not in any way the majority of the feminist movement; they merely have access to greater financial and political capital, and with that are able to have their voices drown out those of other women.

Black feminist critiques of white feminism developed early in response to the failures of second wave feminism, and queer and trans feminism served an essential role in founding the principles that would go into the third wave. Modern feminist organizations in the U.S. claim to prioritize intersectionality and make ready use of the work of working class women, women of color, queer women, and trans women, but they claim to speak for us rather than listening to us or allowing us to speak for ourselves.

[Galloism]

There is a difference between recognizing that one group has always dominated feminist politics and arguing that they are the ones who define the movement. Women of color, trans women, queer women, and working class women have always been a part of the feminist movement, and it is their work that upper and middle class cishet white women rely upon to make their own advances. Upper class cishet white women are not in any way the majority of the feminist movement; they merely have access to greater financial and political capital, and with that are able to have their voices drown out those of other women.

Black feminist critiques of white feminism developed early in response to the failures of second wave feminism, and queer and trans feminism served an essential role in founding the principles that would go into the third wave. Modern feminist organizations in the U.S. claim to prioritize intersectionality and make ready use of the work of working class women, women of color, queer women, and trans women, but they claim to speak for us rather than listening to us or allowing us to speak for ourselves.

What's very interesting about this, and I am going to quote you:

Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.

Basically, if you are a black feminist who only cares about the empowerment of black women and not white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a white upper class feminist who only cares about white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a transfeminist that only cares about transwomen issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you're a rich woman that cares about rich women issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you are a poor woman that cares about poor women issues, then you are NOT a feminist. If you are a lesbian feminist that only cares about issues affecting lesbian women, you are NOT a feminist. If you are heterosexual feminist that cares about issues affecting heterosexual women, you are NOT a feminist.

Basically, you're telling me that feminism does not exist in any meaningful sense, and that those who have historically and "still" dominate the movement are NOT true feminists.

You'll find that about as compelling as arguing that no US president was ever capitalist, because they didn't ever endorse laissez-faire capitalism, or that communism has never been tried because they never tried TRUE stateless communism. Or any number of other things.

Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.

Anywho, tying it back to the thread, to the extent feminism actually exists and is a thing, these TERFs are feminist. Distasteful feminists sure, but still feminists.

[Kvatchdom]

I mean you can identify as a feminist and disavow these people. Ideologies aren't a monolith, and feminism isn't an organisation.

[Galloism]

I mean you can identify as a feminist and disavow these people. Ideologies aren't a monolith, and feminism isn't an organisation.

Sure.

Just as a conservative can disavow Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, but most people, in the US at least, will find that unconvincing.

[Kvatchdom]

I mean you can identify as a feminist and disavow these people. Ideologies aren't a monolith, and feminism isn't an organisation.

Sure.

Just as a conservative can disavow Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, but most people, in the US at least, will find that unconvincing.

There are places where these types of feminists don't even exist. And a conservative can mean a million things. In the US it's commonly the GOP platform and the such, in Iran it's something completely and utterly different. Same with liberalism, and to an even larger degree.

You can be a socialist without following Marx. You can be a feminist without following an American phenomenon of liberal feminism.

[Kvatchdom]

In fact, you can even be a socialist and violently revolt and fight against socialists. Same with conservatives and liberals, and feminists.

"You have to identify with these people" is simply an unrealistic demand.

[Galloism]

"You have to identify with these people" is simply an unrealistic demand.

Expecting us to comply with personal made up definitions that are not accepted by anyone else on earth because it's your PERSONAL definition is an unrealistic demand.

[Kvatchdom]

"You have to identify with these people" is simply an unrealistic demand.

Expecting us to comply with personal made up definitions that are not accepted by anyone else on earth because it's your PERSONAL definition is an unrealistic demand.

Expecting the rest of the world to accept American views on what words mean is ludicrous. This isn't my personal view, not at all, it's a general agreement among most left-wing feminists, atleast outside of the US.

[Galloism]

Expecting us to comply with personal made up definitions that are not accepted by anyone else on earth because it's your PERSONAL definition is an unrealistic demand.

Expecting the rest of the world to accept American views on what words mean is ludicrous. This isn't my personal view, not at all, it's a general agreement among most left-wing feminists, atleast outside of the US.

Uh huh. I'll wait for you to prove this.

[Kvatchdom]

Expecting the rest of the world to accept American views on what words mean is ludicrous. This isn't my personal view, not at all, it's a general agreement among most left-wing feminists, atleast outside of the US.

Uh huh. I'll wait for you to prove this.

You're the one claiming all feminists identify with liberal US feminism.

[Galloism]

Uh huh. I'll wait for you to prove this.

You're the one claiming all feminists identify with liberal US feminism.

Not what I said. I said TERFs are, by definition, feminist.

Distasteful feminists, but still feminists. The awfulness stands in your midst.

[Kvatchdom]

You're the one claiming all feminists identify with liberal US feminism.

Not what I said. I said TERFs are, by definition, feminist.

Distasteful feminists, but still feminists. The awfulness stands in your midst.

Sure, doesn't mean feminists identify or associate with them. There's a reason the term is being used.

[Threlizdun]

There is a difference between recognizing that one group has always dominated feminist politics and arguing that they are the ones who define the movement. Women of color, trans women, queer women, and working class women have always been a part of the feminist movement, and it is their work that upper and middle class cishet white women rely upon to make their own advances. Upper class cishet white women are not in any way the majority of the feminist movement; they merely have access to greater financial and political capital, and with that are able to have their voices drown out those of other women.

Black feminist critiques of white feminism developed early in response to the failures of second wave feminism, and queer and trans feminism served an essential role in founding the principles that would go into the third wave. Modern feminist organizations in the U.S. claim to prioritize intersectionality and make ready use of the work of working class women, women of color, queer women, and trans women, but they claim to speak for us rather than listening to us or allowing us to speak for ourselves.

What's very interesting about this, and I am going to quote you:

Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.

Basically, if you are a black feminist who only cares about the empowerment of black women and not white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a white upper class feminist who only cares about white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a transfeminist that only cares about transwomen issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you're a rich woman that cares about rich women issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you are a poor woman that cares about poor women issues, then you are NOT a feminist. If you are a lesbian feminist that only cares about issues affecting lesbian women, you are NOT a feminist. If you are heterosexual feminist that cares about issues affecting heterosexual women, you are NOT a feminist.

Basically, you're telling me that feminism does not exist in any meaningful sense, and that those who have historically and "still" dominate the movement are NOT true feminists.

You'll find that about as compelling as arguing that no US president was ever capitalist, because they didn't ever endorse laissez-faire capitalism, or that communism has never been tried because they never tried TRUE stateless communism. Or any number of other things.

Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.

Anywho, tying it back to the thread, to the extent feminism actually exists and is a thing, these TERFs are feminist. Distasteful feminists sure, but still feminists.

This criticism may make sense if black feminism and transfeminism were about only focusing on the issues facing black women and trans women, but such an assumption is inaccurate. Black feminism developed as a critique of the ways in which white feminists fail to consider the experiences of black women, especially working class black women, in their analysis of gender relations in America. "The problem with no name" identified by second wave feminists was one of women with college education being expected to give up their career aspirations to maintain the home and children. That experience was universalized as a general female experience, and the second wave feminism as a whole promoted the idea of a universal female experienced that bonded all women together in sisterhood. This was simply false, and ignored very frequently the black women that were often working in these white women's homes while still being mothers and wives themselves. The expectation that women should give up their careers for men was a problem, but it was not a problem all women faced, and identifying it as the primary problem women faced totally ignored the experience of working class women and women of color.

Trans feminism and queer feminism similarly operated as critiques of the centrality of heteronormative and cisnormative experience within dominant feminist discourse, as well as the continued reliance on biological essentialism that ultimately supported patriarchal gender roles and the perceived natural differences between men and women. Similarly, attempts at operating as gatekeepers for the identity of womanhood and declaring women who failed to live up to the feminized ideals set by these women as gender traitors or slaves to the patriarchy utterly crushed the capacity for self-expression among women and further constricted the freedom to be oneself rather than offering the means of liberation they claimed to stand for.

So no, neither black feminism nor transfeminism stands for only black women or only trans women in the way that white feminism only stands for white women and trans-exclusive feminism only stands for cis women. Both black feminism and transfeminism were defined by their attempts to bring about the inclusion or discourse on the experiences and issues faced by women with other marginalized identities, rather than focusing on women as a singular identity with the unspoken assumption that without other readily defined identities they are middle or upper class, white, cisgender, and heterosexual. One is an attempt to combat failed inclusion while another is defined by its exclusionary nature.

[Galloism]

Sure,

Thank you. I'm glad you agree that definitions matter.

This criticism may make sense if black feminism and transfeminism were about only focusing on the issues facing black women and trans women, but such an assumption is inaccurate. Black feminism developed as a critique of the ways in which white feminists fail to consider the experiences of black women, especially working class black women, in their analysis of gender relations in America. "The problem with no name" identified by second wave feminists was one of women with college education being expected to give up their career aspirations to maintain the home and children. That experience was universalized as a general female experience, and the second wave feminism as a whole promoted the idea of a universal female experienced that bonded all women together in sisterhood. This was simply false, and ignored very frequently the black women that were often working in these white women's homes while still being mothers and wives themselves. The expectation that women should give up their careers for men was a problem, but it was not a problem all women faced, and identifying it as the primary problem women faced totally ignored the experience of working class women and women of color.

Trans feminism and queer feminism similarly operated as critiques of the centrality of heteronormative and cisnormative experience within dominant feminist discourse, as well as the continued reliance on biological essentialism that ultimately supported patriarchal gender roles and the perceived natural differences between men and women. Similarly, attempts at operating as gatekeepers for the identity of womanhood and declaring women who failed to live up to the feminized ideals set by these women as gender traitors or slaves to the patriarchy utterly crushed the capacity for self-expression among women and further constricted the freedom to be oneself rather than offering the means of liberation they claimed to stand for.

So no, neither black feminism nor transfeminism stands for only black women or only trans women in the way that white feminism only stands for white women and trans-exclusive feminism only stands for cis women. Both black feminism and transfeminism were defined by their attempts to bring about the inclusion or discourse on the experiences and issues faced by women with other marginalized identities, rather than focusing on women as a singular identity with the unspoken assumption that without other readily defined identities they are middle or upper class, white, cisgender, and heterosexual. One is an attempt to combat failed inclusion while another is defined by its exclusionary nature.

This is starting to stray from the thread, but I do find it interesting how based on this, and taking it literally at face value, feminism has made no accomplishments, as all previously thought of "feminist" accomplishments were made by False Feminists (not to be confused with True Feminists(tm)). There's a feminist thread lurking about somewhere if you want to argue that there. If you build it, I will come.

Look, you can stick your head in the sand and scream that TransExclusionary Radical Feminists are not real feminists, but you'll find that as convincing as arguing that Ted Cruz isn't a real conservative, Catholics aren't real Christians, mass killers in America aren't real Americans, no US presidents have ever been real capitalists, and a whole host of other things, up to and including Scotsmen that like to drink and get drunk aren't real Scotsmen.

Definitions matter. The disgusting thing may be standing in your holy place (to borrow a turn of phrase), but that doesn't mean you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it's not there.

[Kvatchdom]

Sure,

Thank you. I'm glad you agree that definitions matter.

This criticism may make sense if black feminism and transfeminism were about only focusing on the issues facing black women and trans women, but such an assumption is inaccurate. Black feminism developed as a critique of the ways in which white feminists fail to consider the experiences of black women, especially working class black women, in their analysis of gender relations in America. "The problem with no name" identified by second wave feminists was one of women with college education being expected to give up their career aspirations to maintain the home and children. That experience was universalized as a general female experience, and the second wave feminism as a whole promoted the idea of a universal female experienced that bonded all women together in sisterhood. This was simply false, and ignored very frequently the black women that were often working in these white women's homes while still being mothers and wives themselves. The expectation that women should give up their careers for men was a problem, but it was not a problem all women faced, and identifying it as the primary problem women faced totally ignored the experience of working class women and women of color.

Trans feminism and queer feminism similarly operated as critiques of the centrality of heteronormative and cisnormative experience within dominant feminist discourse, as well as the continued reliance on biological essentialism that ultimately supported patriarchal gender roles and the perceived natural differences between men and women. Similarly, attempts at operating as gatekeepers for the identity of womanhood and declaring women who failed to live up to the feminized ideals set by these women as gender traitors or slaves to the patriarchy utterly crushed the capacity for self-expression among women and further constricted the freedom to be oneself rather than offering the means of liberation they claimed to stand for.

So no, neither black feminism nor transfeminism stands for only black women or only trans women in the way that white feminism only stands for white women and trans-exclusive feminism only stands for cis women. Both black feminism and transfeminism were defined by their attempts to bring about the inclusion or discourse on the experiences and issues faced by women with other marginalized identities, rather than focusing on women as a singular identity with the unspoken assumption that without other readily defined identities they are middle or upper class, white, cisgender, and heterosexual. One is an attempt to combat failed inclusion while another is defined by its exclusionary nature.

This is starting to stray from the thread, but I do find it interesting how based on this, and taking it literally at face value, feminism has made no accomplishments, as all previously thought of "feminist" accomplishments were made by False Feminists (not to be confused with True Feminists(tm)). There's a feminist thread lurking about somewhere if you want to argue that there. If you build it, I will come.

Look, you can stick your head in the sand and scream that TransExclusionary Radical Feminists are not real feminists, but you'll find that as convincing as arguing that Ted Cruz isn't a real conservative, Catholics aren't real Christians, mass killers in America aren't real Americans, no US presidents have ever been real capitalists, and a whole host of other things, up to and including Scotsmen that like to drink and get drunk aren't real Scotsmen.

Definitions matter. The disgusting thing may be standing in your holy place (to borrow a turn of phrase), but that doesn't mean you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it's not there.

You're not debating, you're making hyperboles. The Liberals from a hundred years ago would not be considered liberals today. Same for conservatives and pretty much every single other ideological group. They are feminists, but there's absolutely zero reasons for other feminists to align or associate with them, and they'll still be feminists if they don't. TERFs are being excluded increasingly from feminist movements, this is simply how it is. The groups are still feminist without them.

[Galloism]

You're not debating, you're making hyperboles. The Liberals from a hundred years ago would not be considered liberals today. Same for conservatives and pretty much every single other ideological group. They are feminists, but there's absolutely zero reasons for other feminists to align or associate with them, and they'll still be feminists if they don't. TERFs are being excluded increasingly from feminist movements, this is simply how it is. The groups are still feminist without them.

I was speaking more specifically to Thelizdun's definition of feminism, excluding all these factions of feminism which actually make up the majority of feminism now (and "dominate" it, by Thelizdun's own admission), and which excludes pretty much all feminism before... oh, 1990 or so. Maybe mid 1980s if I'm to be generous. This implies that feminism has no accomplishments.

TERFs may be being excluded increasingly from feminist events or feminist groups, and I would argue this is a good thing (I don't like TERFs), but they haven't been excluded from the feminist movement as they use the feminist ideology, pursue feminist goals, and self-identify as feminist. You can't effectively exclude them as long as they continue to meet these criteria.

You can argue they're bad feminists and we shouldn't listen to THOSE feminists, which I encourage (again, I don't like TERFs), but they are still feminists, until the Pope of Feminism excommunicates them. Also feminists get together and elect a Pope of Feminism.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am not trying to argue that the feminist movement as a whole does not contain lots of trash people.

Well good, that's something you couldn't possibly defend.

The movement is still dominated by upper and middle class cishet white women who look out for their own interests above all else.

Here's the thing, by your own admission, the dominating force in feminism is those who don't meet, again by your definition, the definition of feminist.

How are you going to assert that the ones dominating the movement aren't true members of the movement?

Well for one example, under Tony Blair's "New Labour" rebranding of the Labour Party, it was still, ostensibly, a democratic socialist organisation. The party anthem was still The Red Banner.

But Blair's direction of the party was an interpretation of "third-way centrism", less charitably described as "Thatcher-lite but socially liberal", and objectively not democratic socialist or socialist on any reasonable level, and Blair and his top staffers were evidently not socialists, or not very interested in implementing democratic socialism.

His legacy lives on with the undermining of Corbyn's direction of the party back towards democratic socialism by "Blairite" factions within the party (which is not true of all internal criticisms of Labour, not least the one in the title of this thread).

There is a difference between recognizing that one group has always dominated feminist politics and arguing that they are the ones who define the movement. Women of color, trans women, queer women, and working class women have always been a part of the feminist movement, and it is their work that upper and middle class cishet white women rely upon to make their own advances. Upper class cishet white women are not in any way the majority of the feminist movement; they merely have access to greater financial and political capital, and with that are able to have their voices drown out those of other women.

Black feminist critiques of white feminism developed early in response to the failures of second wave feminism, and queer and trans feminism served an essential role in founding the principles that would go into the third wave. Modern feminist organizations in the U.S. claim to prioritize intersectionality and make ready use of the work of working class women, women of color, queer women, and trans women, but they claim to speak for us rather than listening to us or allowing us to speak for ourselves.

What's very interesting about this, and I am going to quote you:

Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.

Basically, if you are a black feminist who only cares about the empowerment of black women and not white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a white upper class feminist who only cares about white women, you are NOT a feminist by this definition. If you are a transfeminist that only cares about transwomen issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you're a rich woman that cares about rich women issues, you are NOT a feminist. If you are a poor woman that cares about poor women issues, then you are NOT a feminist. If you are a lesbian feminist that only cares about issues affecting lesbian women, you are NOT a feminist. If you are heterosexual feminist that cares about issues affecting heterosexual women, you are NOT a feminist.

Basically, you're telling me that feminism does not exist in any meaningful sense, and that those who have historically and "still" dominate the movement are NOT true feminists.

If you are a black feminist, then typically you will care more about the empowerment of black women because intersectionality explicitly argues that the intersection of being a woman and black will lead to (in some aspects) greater oppression than a white woman or black man faces.
I would suppose that black feminists who "do not care about white women" are few in number because anything they stand for will likely benefit white women more than them anyway.

White feminists who "do not care about black women" is a complex topic since some may be actual racists, while others may have a somewhat blinkered view of race relations and not consider black-specific issues to be important. Unlike black women, what white women push for will benefit them both as women, but leave black women behind due to the issues they suffer for being black.

You'll find that about as compelling as arguing that no US president was ever capitalist, because they didn't ever endorse laissez-faire capitalism

You're including Reagan in that argument?

[Imperializt Russia]

You can argue they're bad feminists and we shouldn't listen to THOSE feminists, which I encourage (again, I don't like TERFs), but they are still feminists, until the Pope of Feminism excommunicates them. Also feminists get together and elect a Pope of Feminism.

...
TERFs being disowned by the wider feminists movement basically is excommunication.

A Catholic being excommunicated can't stop them from going around claiming to be Catholic, practising Catholicism and pushing their views as being "Catholic".
Just like "excommunicated" TERFs can't be stopped from calling themselves feminists, which they do, which you argue means they're still feminists, but you're still saying they need "excommunicating", you are not making sense here bro.

Show me where feminism is defined as the struggle for the empowerment of ALL women, including trans women, in official universal definition accepted by all persons. Go.

This is incredibly disingenuous.

This is like when alt-righters on Youtube throw up dictionary definitions of racism, sexism, patriarchy, socialism, fascism et al and claim that this "debunks" arguments.
I am not being hyperbolic here, I honestly mean that.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You can argue they're bad feminists and we shouldn't listen to THOSE feminists, which I encourage (again, I don't like TERFs), but they are still feminists, until the Pope of Feminism excommunicates them. Also feminists get together and elect a Pope of Feminism.

...
TERFs being disowned by the wider feminists movement basically is excommunication.

A Catholic being excommunicated can't stop them from going around claiming to be Catholic, practising Catholicism and pushing their views as being "Catholic".
Just like "excommunicated" TERFs can't be stopped from calling themselves feminists, which they do, which you argue means they're still feminists, but you're still saying they need "excommunicating", you are not making sense here bro.

Show me where feminism is defined as the struggle for the empowerment of ALL women, including trans women, in official universal definition accepted by all persons. Go.

This is incredibly disingenuous.

This is like when alt-righters on Youtube throw up dictionary definitions of racism, sexism, patriarchy, socialism, fascism et al and claim that this "debunks" arguments.
I am not being hyperbolic here, I honestly mean that.

If your argument rests upon a faluty definition (one like "Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of women including trans women") then providing the correct definition is all that is required to debunk it.

[Imperializt Russia]

...
TERFs being disowned by the wider feminists movement basically is excommunication.

A Catholic being excommunicated can't stop them from going around claiming to be Catholic, practising Catholicism and pushing their views as being "Catholic".
Just like "excommunicated" TERFs can't be stopped from calling themselves feminists, which they do, which you argue means they're still feminists, but you're still saying they need "excommunicating", you are not making sense here bro.
This is incredibly disingenuous.

This is like when alt-righters on Youtube throw up dictionary definitions of racism, sexism, patriarchy, socialism, fascism et al and claim that this "debunks" arguments.
I am not being hyperbolic here, I honestly mean that.

If your argument rests upon a faluty definition (one like "Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of women including trans women") then providing the correct definition is all that is required to debunk it.

Dictionaries aren't "correct". This is why "appeal to the dictionary" is a fallacy. Dictionaries provide a generalised definition of a term for the purpose of a layperson.

This means that in specific contexts, they will be lacking in detail if not totally absent a meaning.

[Internationalist Bastard]

...
TERFs being disowned by the wider feminists movement basically is excommunication.

A Catholic being excommunicated can't stop them from going around claiming to be Catholic, practising Catholicism and pushing their views as being "Catholic".
Just like "excommunicated" TERFs can't be stopped from calling themselves feminists, which they do, which you argue means they're still feminists, but you're still saying they need "excommunicating", you are not making sense here bro.
This is incredibly disingenuous.

This is like when alt-righters on Youtube throw up dictionary definitions of racism, sexism, patriarchy, socialism, fascism et al and claim that this "debunks" arguments.
I am not being hyperbolic here, I honestly mean that.

If your argument rests upon a faluty definition (one like "Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of women including trans women") then providing the correct definition is all that is required to debunk it.

Well it’s rather odd feminists look at me and decide I don’t deserve equality

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If your argument rests upon a faluty definition (one like "Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of women including trans women") then providing the correct definition is all that is required to debunk it.

Dictionaries aren't "correct". This is why "appeal to the dictionary" is a fallacy. Dictionaries provide a generalised definition of a term for the purpose of a layperson.

This means that in specific contexts, they will be lacking in detail if not totally absent a meaning.

They're not "correct," no, but they give the established meaning, which is usually good enough. Sure, sometimes, it could be lacking in detail, but the majority of the time it does fine, and usually if someone's definition of something deviates from the dictionary, the burden of proof falls on them to justify the deviation.

Therefore, why does feminism have to be trans inclusionary in order to be feminism. "Feminism is supposed to fight for all women." TERFs think that trans-women aren't women.