Morally, they're a mess

Have you noticed how, morally, the Radical Feminists are a bit of a mess? Especially when it comes to transsexual and transgender issues! As they, collectively, seem to have a bit of a bee in their bonnets about transsexual and transgender people, I think now is a good time to point out that Radical Feminism is inconsistent with itself and has some moral problems. It has a very complex, and ultimately unsupportable and untenable, rationale for transsexuality and gender. Like all such complex ideas, it is a theory at war with itself.

At the center of Radical Feminist "gender theory" is the idea of identity. Without it, there is no philosophy. The general idea is that gender is simultaneously important and inconsequential; this isn't as contradictory as it sounds because it is important to the individual and should be inconsequential in many dealings you have with people. (That is, it shouldn't matter if someone is male or female, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, etc. They are all deserving of the respect we should accord them simply because they're individuals.)  This is a liberal idea, and in Radical Feminism it is tied to a political liberalism that extends only so far.

Now, when it comes to transgender and transsexual people, all considerations of fairness go out of the window. Preferably one at the top of a very tall building. In Radical Feminism, the idea of "woman" is sacred. (The irony is, many (most? all?) transsexual and transgender women are of the same opinion! That's definitely "laugh my socks off" territory. :-) ) You can consider the argument to be "the vagina is sacred". But only the natural vagina. As a result, in much of Radical Feminism, the idea that someone can "become a woman" can't be considered. In other words: you are the genitals you were born with.

Add in to this the whole "equality for all, except transsexual women" thing and you have a moral mess. You can't support equality for all and provide an exception. You can't argue that your own identity as a woman can't be challenged and then deny another that same right. You can't plausibly argue that gender is fixed; there's too much evidence it isn't! And you most assuredly can't argue that one of the central parts of being human, sexuality, is "what it is" while arguing that another, gender identity, isn't. The typical Radical Feminist argument is that a woman shouldn't be restricted, while they simultaneously argue that what a woman is should be! (If your head isn't spinning after that, I suggest you reread the sentence. :-) )

At the same time, the argument is then taken firmly into the moral swamp of identity politics: the Radical Feminist demands the right to define herself as she sees fit, but denies that same right, and even the ability to consider that right, to transsexual and transgender women. The usual "I'll define myself and you, too!", in other words. There is nothing moral about denying someone the right to define their own identity. It is decidedly immoral to insist you have a right while denying it to others. It is absolutely immoral to insist you have the right to identify yourself as you please and live your life as you see fit while insisting that a certain group cannot have that same right, or that they be highly restricted in that right. It is absolutely immoral to insist upon legislation that provides for the safety of one group (women), while simultaneously ignoring, denigrating, the available evidence and than lobbying and advocating for the denial of safety to another group simply because you don't agree with the personal identities of members of that group. That's not just immoral - it's inhumane!

The net-net is an approval for the evilness that Radical Feminism provides (dictates?) for transsexual and transgender women. And the legal but questionably ethical and decidedly immoral evil that some Radical Feminist women provide to some transsexual and transgender women. A moral mess? It's more like an embrace of the immoral and the inhumane, with an approval for certain, restricted, types of evil thrown in for good measure.

Carolyn Ann