Christ, this insistence that feminism act as unpaid carer to all other activist movements - and sacrifices, without complaint, its own interests in doing so - is precisely why feminism exists.
No other movement is required to consider - let alone centre - the concerns or experiences of any other group; can you fucking imagine?
Feminism is not interchangeable with other movements. Very often the interests of women are in tension, at the very least, with those of other groups.
It should be obvious that not all disempowered groups are harmed in the same manner, on the same grounds, or to the same degree, by those who have power.
It's quite possible to be marginalised or discriminated against without being subject to structural oppression; for example, the system does not depend on the subjugation and exploitation of trans people to sustain itself, as it does with sex (and race, and class).
As individuals, some/many/most feminists might stand in solidarity with some/many/most of these marginalised groups - but not because their feminism requires it, or because those other struggles are intrinsically a feminist concern, or of any concern at all to feminism.
It certainly does not follow that feminists should give up their ability to define the group whose interests they defend, or their right to assert that women are uniquely oppressed *because of and through their bodies* .
Women's bodies are objectified, raped, mutilated, prostituted, forced into marriage; it is women's bodies - their capacity for birth, their vulnerability to rape, the likelihood that they will be physically overpowered - that are both the source and the means of their oppression.
Feminism can't defend women if it cannot speak this truth, or is forced to speak for those who do not share this experience. However marginalised they might be, their reality is not women’s reality, because women’s reality, their oppression, is the consequence of their biology.
This is doubly, trebly true if those who demand that feminism redefine itself to include male bodies are the same old structural oppressors (underneath the woke, Guardian bros, you are still the fucking patriarchy) or are borrowing their methods of control ("Be nice, bitch!")
There is another thread which discusses why many young feminists do not yet believe that they are oppressed through and by their biological sex (a fact), and not through their gender (a feeling). 
But tbh, it doesn't matter if you agree with the theoretical position that biological sex is everything. If you consider yourself any kind of feminist or feminist ally, every fibre should rebel at the thought of women being told what they are and are not.
Every fibre should rebel at the sight of women being coerced into accommodating within their refuge - both literal, and figurative - the male bodies which have so damaged and oppressed their own.
The right to self-define is axiomatic for both liberals and progressives. If you think this doesn't apply to women, you are not a feminist.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kate Williams

Kate Williams Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KateVWilliams

22 Jan
One reason many younger women don't understand gender critical feminism is that women often only come up against the biological basis of our oppression when we have children. Before that point - if you're middle class - it's easy to believe that battle is won.
Not the only reason - of course not. But I think it explains why *so many* younger feminists buy into the idea that women’s oppression springs from their gender/socialised role- rather than from the simple fact that they belong to the sex class that has vagina/can give birth.
Of course it's not necessary to be a mother to come to this realisation. But motherhood IS a significant turning point for many women - the point at which they first experience the *structural* nature of the oppression of their biological sex.
Read 5 tweets
29 Jun 19
If you are middle-class and pro gender self-ID, please, please ask yourself: am l okay with having people with male strength, male bodies in women-only places because I'm far less likely to be personally impacted? Should I also consider girls and women who aren't as lucky?
The truth is that middle class progressives are far less likely to be at the sharp end of this - just as we're less brutally impacted by structural sex inequality generally. Less likely to be in prison, bail hostel, women's refuges.
We're less likely to be entirely dependent on public services like NHS or social care. Our daughters are less likely to be in Care or on social services' books. They won't experience those layered inequalities and abuses which lead to risk-taking and exclusion.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!