Reclaiming Feminism: New Research Reveals How Trans-Inclusionary Feminists Push Back Against Anti-Trans Narratives
I would like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this research was conducted, the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples. Their sovereignty was never ceded.
Content Warning: discussion of anti-trans hate speech by anti-trans groups
By Christina Maxwell (she/her)
Any social movement seeking to change the status quo must indicate a perpetrator group and a victim group. By doing so, social movements can give victims a sense of purpose: something to fight towards, someone to fight alongside, and someone to fight against. The feminist movement is no exception; however, there are many different ideas about who the victims and perpetrators are within the modern feminist movement. Although ‘women’ are typically viewed as the victims identified by feminism, the definition of ‘women’ itself is the subject of debate. In my PhD research, I explore these different understandings of ‘women’ within the feminist movement, particularly focusing on the inclusion of transgender women. Specifically, I compared anti-inclusion ‘feminists’ (those who don’t consider trans women as women and includes people such as trans-exclusionary radical feminists – TERFs – or ‘gender critical feminists’) with pro-inclusion feminists (those who do consider trans women as women). Both groups have different understandings of who the victims and perpetrators are, and where trans women fit into the movement.
For this research, I examined how both groups discussed victimhood through their social media posts. Social media is an important aspect of many modern movements; allowing advocates to communicate their messages to a broader audience, grow their membership, and mobilise more effectively. Anti-inclusion groups are especially vocal on platforms like Twitter/X, particularly within the United Kingdom (UK), with their rhetoric supported and amplified by figureheads such as J.K. Rowling and right-wing media and politicians. In fact, Shon Faye reported in her 2021 book, ‘The Transgender Issue’, how two UK media outlets alone published almost daily coverage about trans people.
I collected 43,856 tweets from UK-based anti-inclusion ‘feminists’ and pro-inclusion feminists. I then analysed these tweets using a two-step method. In the first step, I used a computational approach called topic modelling which separated the tweets into their individual words and then clusters together words that frequently appear together. This approach helped me to identify the main issues that each group was concerned about. In the second step, I isolated the tweets in each group that spoke about trans women and then analysed these qualitatively using critical discursive psychology. This technique is interested in how language is used to construct versions of reality to serve different purposes. Here, I was interested in how each group constructed cis women, trans women, and feminism through their language.
Beads spelling out feminism. Image by Mike Murray via Canva.
Who does the feminist movement fight for?
As can be expected, I found distinctions between the two groups regarding how they viewed trans women. Pro-inclusion groups recognised trans women as victims for whom the feminist movement should advocate. As one user put it: ‘“Let’s work to protect women, all women, not demonise a group who are just as much victims as anyone else.’” In fact, not only did pro-inclusion groups acknowledge that trans women need protection and advocacy, but they noted that they were sometimes even more vulnerable to victimisation than cis women. Such observations are consistent with documented rates of violence towards trans women, finding that they are more likely to experience violent victimisation than cis women.
One case discussed among pro-inclusion accounts was the 2023 murder of trans girl Brianna Ghey in the UK, a horrific act of violence motivated by anti-trans hate. Pro-inclusion accounts named multiple perpetrators beyond the two criminals who carried out the attack, including anti-trans groups, politicians, the media, and the education system. They issued calls to action that ‘violence against trans women and trans people must end now’.
Alternatively, anti-inclusion groups did not acknowledge the victimisation of trans women, instead portraying them as the perpetrators of violence towards cis women. To do this, they deadnamed trans women, used male pronouns, and denied trans women’s gender identity. They emphasised cis women as a vulnerable group needing protection from trans women, perpetuating stereotypes of cis women being helpless. In doing so, they tried to maximise the differences between cis women and trans women as the former being the victim and the latter being the perpetrator.
What is the relationship between trans women and cis women?
Pro-inclusion groups viewed trans women not only as victims but also as connected via this victimhood to cis women. They did this by identifying shared perpetrators between the two groups: cis male violence, transphobia, and the patriarchy. Pro-inclusion groups observed that there was overlapping victimisation and, therefore, overlapping solutions that demanded collaboration between the two movements. Such perspectives are consistent with intersectionality, which considers the ways in which various social identities interact with each other and are differently located to power and privilege. In fact, as will be discussed in detail later, pro-inclusion feminists self-described as being intersectional feminists. These findings are consistent with calls that the feminist movement and trans movement are stronger together and should work together. In fact, researchers have recorded a rich and ongoing history of collaboration between trans activism and feminism. Time and time again, we see feminist cis women standing up for trans women’s and girl’s rights, such as elite athletes supporting trans inclusion in sports and over 400 feminist leaders signing an open letter in a show of solidarity with trans women and girls.
Pro-inclusion groups also pointed out how cis women are disadvantaged by transphobia. Narrow definitions of womanhood that focus on reproductive functions and social norms harm cis women ‘who don’t want to or can’t reproduce’ as well as ‘gender non conforming cis women’. We saw this most recently in the 2024 Paris Olympics where JK Rowling among others questioned the gender identity of cis female boxer Imane Khelif. Beyond sport, we also hear stories of how cis women are harassed when accessing toilets or other public spaces because they are mistaken as trans.
Further, pro-inclusion feminists noted how politicians’ focus on attacking trans rights diverted attention from the actual issues cis women want addressed. They pointed out issues concerning ‘reproductive rights, violence against women, or the effects of women of the covid lockdowns and the cost of living crisis’ were of greater priority to their group, however Conservative politicians believed that enforcing denying gender identity would bring gender equality to cis women.
While pro-inclusion feminists saw the two groups as part of the same movement, anti-inclusion ‘feminists’ believed themselves to be in competition with trans women for resources, attention, and rights. They believed that only cis women or trans women could have rights at a given time, not both. Further, in this perceived competition, they believed that trans women were winning, that is, anti-inclusion groups believed that trans women are given more rights than cis women. Claims of unfairness are commonly observed in the sporting arena, such as when trans women Laurel Hubbard was accepted to compete in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and anti-inclusion groups argued that she took something that belonged to a cis woman.
They also emphasised their own victimisation by claiming that they were being silenced through censorship. For example, the #IStandWithMaya hashtag was used to indicate solidarity with cis woman Maya Forstater who was fired from her job in 2018 for expressing her anti-inclusion views on Twitter/X. Anti-inclusion groups defined themselves as ‘brave’ and ‘courageous’ for speaking out about their beliefs despite being ‘punished’ and ‘silenced’. However, to quote Sarah Ahmed, the constant platforming of anti-inclusion groups at the expense of pro-inclusion groups and trans people contradicts their claims of silencing: ‘Whenever people keep being given a platform to say they have no platform, or whenever people speak endlessly about being silenced, you not only have a performative contradiction; you are witnessing a mechanism of power’.
What is ‘true’ feminism?
For a social movement to succeed, it needs to gather strength in its numbers and convince others that their group’s perspective is the right one, especially when there are competing perspectives. We have seen from the research so far, that anti-inclusion groups and pro-inclusion groups hold very different views about trans women. They now must persuade others of that perspective and one way in which they can do this is by attacking their rivals. I found evidence of this process for both groups in my data.
Pro-inclusion feminists framed ‘true feminism’ as ‘intersectional and trans inclusive’. Their feminism fought for a variety of issues, such as sex work, support for women during COVID-19, reproductive rights, marriage equality, the trans community, police violence towards women, domestic violence, and public sexual harassment. Research conducted during the 2017 Women’s March in Washington also showed that feminists are involved in a wide array of issues. Together, these examples underscore feminism as an intersectional movement, with trans rights being just one aspect of their focus.
Feminism is for everybody. Image by Markus Spiske via Canva.
On the other hand, anti-inclusion groups focused primarily on issues relating to trans rights, including the addition of gender identity questions in the UK 2021 Census, single-sex spaces, ‘safeguarding’ children regarding gender affirmation practices, and the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to simplify the legal process to recognise gender identity among trans individuals. This indicates that the anti-inclusion movement is driven more by an anti-trans agenda than pro-woman motivations, as argued by others.
Supporting this point, pro-inclusion feminists also pointed out how anti-inclusion groups collaborate with groups that actively undermine cis women’s rights. As stated by one pro-inclusion feminist group, ‘It is extremely dangerous to women for any group that call themselves feminist to ally with the right, but groups in the UK are openly allying with groups and individuals that oppose abortion.’ Others have observed how anti-inclusion feminist groups have aligned themselves with conservative right-wing and religious groups. As such, pro-inclusion feminists pointed out that anti-inclusion groups were actively contributing to the ongoing oppression of both trans women and cis women.
On the other hand, anti-inclusion groups frequently attacked cis women who they saw as ‘betraying’ the feminist movement. For instance, they rallied against former First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, who stated that ‘trans women are not the threat to women’ by creating the hashtag #SturgeonDestroyerOfWomensRights. Examples in the media also show how cis women allies to trans women are physically and verbally attacked by anti-inclusion groups. As such, anti-inclusion groups positioned themselves as working in the best interests of cis women, with their definitions of feminism being ‘about females’ and ‘all of the women and girls, and us only’, referring only to cis women.
Conclusions
My research shows that different perspectives exist amongst self-described ‘feminists’ in the UK concerning the roles of victim and perpetrator, particularly in relation to trans women. My research also supports scholars and activists who suggest that anti-inclusion perspectives may not represent feminism at all.
I have also documented a strong contingent of pro-inclusion feminists who are advocating for trans justice. This evidence runs counter to media narratives that platform anti-inclusion voices. This visibility of anti-trans voices contributes to the belief that there is conflict between trans activism and feminism, such that one cannot advocate both for cis women’s rights and trans women’s rights at the same time.
However, the backlash that pro-inclusion cis women may receive from anti-inclusion groups for supporting trans women might prevent allies from speaking up. While the safety of allies should be protected, the consequence of silence is that anti-inclusion groups’ voices flourish and control the narrative around inclusion. To quote Judith Butler: ‘My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen’.
If you’d like to learn more about this research, you can access my paper free of charge here.
Got a feminist opinion you want to share? We want to publish your work! Anyone can contribute to the OWP blog, no experience necessary! Find out more about being featured on our blog.