comment: >
  
  Let's imagine we take a person who believes in equality between men and women in every way you define "gender equality" to be. 
  Let's also say that this person who favors whatever your version of gender equality is calls themselves a feminist. 
  As they identify as a feminist they fall under the feminism umbrella. 
  If a number of such people exist wouldn't that mean that at least some part of feminism or the feminist movement is a gender equality movement?
context: Feminism historically has been a movement about equality between sexes. It has accomplished many things that now benefit AFAB non-binary people. >
  
  But sex is not gender >
  
  My cat is not a human being, but he still benefits from accomplishments done in the name of human progress like central heating, access to clean drinking water, etc. >
  
  Gender benefit is not the same as gender equality. Gender equality is gender benefit until the genders are equal. >
  
  What specifically do you mean by:
  
  Gender equality is gender benefit until the genders are equal.
  
  What are concrete examples of what you're implying? >
  
  Protecting nonbinary people from 50% of gender based harassment benefits nonbinary people, but it does not make them equal. Nonbinary people are equal in terms of harassment when 100% of gender based harassment is removed. 
  Feminist action benefits nonbinary people in some incidental ways. But not enough to make them equal. >
  
  
  Protecting nonbinary people from 50% of gender based harassment benefits nonbinary people, but it does not make them equal.
  
  How so?
  How are non-binary people not made equal through laws that prohibit gender based discrimination?
  What are some specific examples of discrimination they would still face? >
  
  
  Feminism has zero interest in rendering women equal to the thousands of other genders, because this would be a reduction in women's rights. 
  
  This is wrong. "Rights" are not zero sum. Giving other people equal rights does not reduce your own, unless you view some aspect of your rights rooted in oppression and/or superiority. (While some individuals undoubtedly do, it's not a belief inherent to feminism or even commonly tied to it.)
  As for the rest, feminist goals are often beneficial to other genders on their own. I'll give a quick example and leave it at that:
  Feminism is concerned with the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap, in those industries where it exists, is often tied to the fact that women are socially pressured to take months or years off from their job to raise children. The solution to this is to remove that social pressure. Removing that social pressure means sharing the burden of childcare with men. Sharing the burden of childcare creates a new social norm that men spend more time with their children. Men spending more time with their children is... a regularly asserted goal on Men's Rights Activist forums?
  Gender equality for women means removing gendered expectations for both men and women and everyone else. >
  
  
  The solution to this is to remove that social pressure. Removing that social pressure means sharing the burden of childcare with men
  
  So, does she do the first 4.5 months of pregnancy, and he the last 4.5? Or the other way around? Oh, I got it- they alternate!  And he can get hormone shots so he can breast feed, too!
  Sorry. But despite the fact that men should perhaps be more involved with childcare, the simple fact is that only women get pregnant.  And only women can breast feed.  This means that she's out of the workforce for a significant time anyway. It only makes sense that she continue to care for the child after that as it gets older, too. 
  Now, with modern times comes modern solutions- with pumping and formula, it's not just the women that can care for a baby.  But these are not universally used. So, it's still mostly women who stay home to raise the children.  Thus, women (on average) have less seniority and less experience. And thus earn lower wages.  And that's before choice of job is looked at- as the (probable) primary care giver, the woman needs a job that is... less demanding, time-wise.  One she doesn't have to do a lot of OT, and has a flexible schedule so she can pick up little Billy from soccer. And so on.  These less demanding jobs... pay less.
  
  Gender equality for women means removing gendered expectations for both men and women and everyone else.
  
  And yet feminism always seem to point out that only a tiny percentage of CEOs are women... and never points out that only a tiny percentage of, say, coal miners are women.  They push for 'equality', where that means getting more rights. But never seem to mention taking on more responsibility.  And that why some people don't like feminism. >
  
  I agree with you. (I'm a woman btw). 
  Some strains of Feminism imo are so obsessed with equality that biological differences are wilfully ignored. 
  Anyway, this is a whole different topic to what OP is on about. Just wanted you to know that not all feminists are like that ^ >
  
  Look, I'm no feminist scholar or anything of the sort... but, even with my superficial understanding of feminism, it's pretty clear that it ain't a monolith. There's no feminist manifesto by which all card-carrying feminists must abide. It encompasses a broad range of socio-political ideologies that all fall under the umbrella of feminism. So, in conclusion, I simply don't understand how you are able to draw such a conclusion as yours about a movement that can't so easily be pigeon-holed. >
  
  I don't really agree with a lot of your core principles here but I think what's honestly most important is that feminism isn't a coherent movement and hasn't been for a very long time. It's more of a label that people apply to themselves for a whole manner of reasons and with a whole bunch of ideas of what feminism means. 
  ​
  If Theresa May (former British conservative prime minister), Serrin Foster (pro life campaigner), Muammar Gaddafi (former Libyan dictator known for sexually assaulting his all female bodyguard unit), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (former supreme court justice) and Gloria Steinem (American left wing activist) can all consider themselves feminists then the word as a whole means relatively little and is better spoken about with specific movements within feminism. >
  
  There's so much to unpack here. 
  First thing's first, "feminism" is different things to different people. One person's feminism is not the same as someone else's. Just as someone might call themselves a "leftist" and have very different views from another leftist. The basic premise of their leanings may have a similar grounding, but the specifics will vary. 
  With that being said, 
  
  Women are more privileged than thousands of other genders
  
  Many people will disagree with your premise that there are "thousands" of genders. 
  
  it is wrong to call feminism a gender equality movement. Feminism is a women's liberation movement
  
  The idea of Feminism came about when it was accepted that female = woman. To some, their feminism includes those who identify as women. To others it only includes females. 
  
  calling feminism a gender equality movement is harmful. It erases nonbinary identities. It would be true if there are two genders, and thus most people who say it are reinforcing the idea of there being two genders
  
  Would you prefer if those people called it a sex equality movement? >
  
  
  Many people will disagree with your premise that there are "thousands" of genders. 
  
  And I believe all of those people are fools or simply ignorant. There are tens of millions of nonbinary people. If one in ten thousand nonbinary people has a unique gender, there are thousands of genders. Many of the nonbinary people I have met had unique genders.
  
  The idea of Feminism came about when it was accepted that female = woman
  
  That is why I believe that feminism at its most base level, before any additional qualifiers are added, isn't helpful to nonbinaries.
  
  Would you prefer if those people called it a sex equality movement?
  
  No. There are many sexes. Equality between males and females would not result in equality for my sex. >
  
  
  Many of the nonbinary people I have met had unique genders.
  
  Many of the Non-binary people you have met identify as Non-binary/a unique gender. 
  If I identify as Griflorb gender, is that a gender identity, because I said it?
  
  before any additional qualifiers are added, is helpful to nonbinaries
  
  "Is" or "isn't", I'm trying to keep up with your point. 
  
  No. There are many sexes. Equality between males and females would not result in equality for my sex
  
  You do not have a sex other than male or female. If you tell me you have an intersex condition then that's a different conversation. >
  
  
  If I identify as Griflorb gender, is that a gender identity, because I said it?
  
  Yes
  
  "Is" or "isn't", I'm trying to keep up with your point. 
  
  Fixed
  
  You do not have a sex other than male or female. If you tell me you have an intersex condition then that's a different conversation.
  
  I have an intersex condition. I was born with mine, but hundreds of thousands of trans people have transitioned inter the sexes, to use the Latin word for "between" >
  
  
  but hundreds of thousands of trans people have transitioned inter the sexes, to use the Latin word for "between"
  
  So they had their chromosomes modified to change their biological sex?
  Im not being flip here, I'm legitimately asking if you believe that trans people are affecting their biological sex. >
  
  Chromosomes are not biological sex. Chromosomes are containers for DNA that contains instructions on sexual development. Sexual development creates biological sex. An embryo that has just been fertilised has chromosomes, but given it is a single cell organism, it does not yet have biological sex. Sexual development will not begin for another 6 weeks. 
  Note also that someone with XY chromosomes can undergo female sexual development in its entirety, and vice versa. This is because sexual development is initially triggered by the SRY gene, which can cross over from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome. A man with SRY crossover may be male in every single way, except that his SRY gene is on an X chromosome, of which he has two. 
  Note also that if I take a male infant and cut off its testes, and then apply age-appropriate doses of estrogen, the child will undergo female sexual development from that point forward. Every part of its body that was not developed in the womb will be female. Given advanced surgical techniques, this could even be done to an infant in the womb at the beginning of gonad development, though the effects may be unpredictable. >
  
  That's very interesting, how does that relate to the question of whether or not "hundreds of thousands of trans people" are changing their biological sex? >
  
  Supposed genders like non-binary are not perceivable. Another person cannot know what you identify as unless you explicitly tell them. Someone looks like a man and claims to be non-binary, he still has all the social benefits of a man. People are not psychic.
  If men and women are equal in all ways then non-binary and what not will be as well. There is literally no way to tell them apart objectively. And frankly most people treat non-binary as a psychological identity, not as a entirely separate sex, which it isn’t. Yes it’s polite to respect people’s identities, but identities aren’t going to have large effects on the behavior of others in relation to you anyhow. If you are talking to someone and they say they are a mechanic, your not going to suddenly treat them any differently. It’s just something about you, it does not have all the instinct of nature / evolution baked into the interaction. >
  
  You claim that inequality of nonbinary people can be reduced to inequality between male and female. Yet, if we use sexual assault victimisation as a measure of one axis of inequality, we see that one in ten men have been sexually assaulted, one in four women have been sexually assaulted, and one in two nonbinary people have been sexually assaulted. How are these numbers possible, if nonbinary people only face struggles for being male or female? >
  
  Honest answer. Since there is no perceivable way to judge if someone is non-binary then it is likely this is due to the individuals non-binary people engage with sexually or for another given circumstance they are more commonly in. The study has already been normalized on account of appearances. >
  
  Ah, the old "it's her own fault she was sexually assaulted", now in nonbinary flavour. 
  I have a competing hypothesis: nonbinary people can be perceived. There are many ways to tell. The easiest way is to ask them. But you can also find nonbinary people using their pronoun pins, any flag designs on their clothing, by hanging out in queer spaces, or by perceiving androgyny. 
  I believe the evidence better fits my hypothesis. >
  
  Feminism isn't a monolith. 
  Patriarchy creates a structure where men have power over women. The solution shouldn't be to give women the same access to these power structures. It should be about dismantling the power structures so there isn't a hierarchy. >
  
  
  Feminism has zero interest in rendering women equal to the thousands of other genders, because this would be a reduction in women's rights
  
  What thousands of other genders are you talking about? >
  
  You want me to list them? Because that'll take hours >
  
  How about the top ten? >
  
  My top ten genders are:
  Swarm-thing
  Space girl
  Mushroom
  Xenomorph
  Girlboy
  Voluntary eunuch
  Coffeegender
  Sharkgender
  Corkscrew duck penis
  Mushroom again (mushrooms have thousands of sexes) >
  
  I legitimately can't tell if you're being serious, and I intend no hatred/disrespect with that statement.
  Assuming you are serious, how does one advocate for the rights of a Swarm-thing in a manner that's different than "laws against discrimination based on gender"? >
  
  We would like adequately cleaned and maintained bathrooms to a degree comparable with men's and women's bathrooms. We are happy to use all-gender and accessible bathrooms if they are properly maintained.
  We would like recognition on government documents including passports, and if relevant, driver's licences. Else we would like the abolition of government tracking of gender.
  We would like options to compete in professional sports without being lumped into the men's or women's leagues.
  We would like representation in government, or else candidates who promise to safeguard our rights in addition to the rights of their other constituents. 
  We would like domestic violence shelters comparable to women's shelters, as the rates of sexual violence within and upon our community are much higher than rates of women's abuse.
  We would like health education in high schools to cover the topic of nonbinary identities in a respectful manner.
  We would like law enforcement that we are not afraid to call when we are in danger. This would require the reform or replacement of the police force, which most nonbinary people are unwilling to call in an emergency due to fear of police violence.
  We would like laws which target hate speech that erases nonbinary identities, and moderation on social media platforms that do the same. >
  
  Which part of this list do you think most feminists disagree with? Do you honestly believe they cheer when the police commit violence against NB people? Do you think they'd be upset if a NB congressional candidate ran and won? And if so, show us who you mean and why you think they're representative of feminism "as a whole" >
  
  There is a reason it's called feminism and not womanism. >
  
  There's a reason it's called feminism and not femalism >
  
  Exactly. Because females are not inherently "less" than males. Femininity, however, is  considered "less desirable" than masculinity is our society, except when manipulated to objectify or assert power over a person. All genders have some balance of femininity except for the archetypal male (which doesn't exist in reality). Therefore, it advocates for *every* gender because the main goal is dismantling the patriarchy. The patriarchy asserts masculine superiority. >
  
  Ah, but androgyny is considered less than both femininity and masculinity in our society. Androgyny invites harassment, rude comments, prevents fitting into the mold, and causes conservative talk show hosts to say "how am I gonna explain that to my kid?" 
  Increasing the social value of femininity doesn't stop androgyny from being devalued >
  
  The reason Feminism has been called a Gender equality movement is because it wants equality for a certain Gender. Not every group has to fight for everyone it's okay to focus. This would be akin to saying BLM is a racial equality group cause it doesn't fight for the rights of Asians. >
  
  This ^ 
  Or "all lives matter" >
  
  Modern feminism traces it's roots back a bit less than 200 years.
  Up until the last 20 odd years the concept of genders other than male or female was virtually unknown outside extremely esoteric academic circles.
  Feminism, as conceived and over its history, worked to achieve equality between the two genders that 99.999% of people believed were all there were.
  
  I believe that calling feminism a gender equality movement harms and uses nonbinary people
  
  How precisely does it harm them or use them?
  The position of feminism generally is that all genders should have equal opportunities and not be discriminated against.
  The original goal of the feminist movement was indeed women's liberation, but generally the method used to achieve such liberation/equality was prohibiting gender based discrimination, of all genders.
  
  calling feminism a gender equality movement serves the function of a psychological trick which leads progressives to misunderstand feminism and think it is about helping nonbinary people
  
  How's that track?
  Feminism isn't narrowly focused on nonbinary rights but virtually all laws passed by the actions of the feminist movement specifically state "no discrimination on the basis of gender" not "men and women (specifically) must be treated equal".
  
  thousands of other genders
  
  Not really necessary for this CMV, but what are the thousands of genders?
  I'd love to see some studies or other concrete information that explores what these are. >
  
  
  Up until the last 20 odd years the concept of genders other than male or female was virtually unknown outside extremely esoteric academic circles.
  
  I disagree. Twospirit genders have been alive and well on turtle island for thousands of years up until colonisation. Other indigenous cultures had many genders as well. Thailand had the kathoey, which is these days translated as "ladyboy". These genders were common knowledge in the cultures with which they originated.
  
  Feminism, as conceived and over its history, worked to achieve equality between the two genders that 99.999% of people believed were all there were.
  
  And alchemy worked to turn lead into gold. Sometimes goals are based on a wrong understanding.
  
  The position of feminism generally is that all genders should have equal opportunities and not be discriminated against.
  The original goal of the feminist movement was indeed women's liberation, but generally the method used to achieve such liberation/equality was prohibiting gender based discrimination, of all genders.
  
  I disagree. But that topic was covered in my previous post. Perhaps it would be better to have that conversation under that post
  
  virtually all laws passed by the actions of the feminist movement specifically state "no discrimination on the basis of gender"
  
  Words and actions can differ. These bills help women, and pay the barest lip service to other genders while ignoring them. >
  
  Imagine being so progressive that you think progressive movements are harmful. >
  
  I noticed when sorting by New, there's a ton of 0 upvote posts. Like way more than normal. I think they at least start at 1. I'm wondering if Mods have any insight into if there's a lot of voting out of gut reaction, or simply disagreement. I feel like at least a page somewhere on the guidelines/recommendations for upvoting would be nice. >
  
  Feminism is a huge umbrella which can mean basically anything.
  There are first, second, third, fourth waves of feminism, TERFs, radical feminism, Marxist feminism, eco feminism, black feminism, Iranian feminism, anarchist feminism, and many, many others.
  Which feminism are you talking about? Any of the list above? >
  
  
  Feminism is a huge umbrella which can mean basically anything. ...
  
  Really?  Can you find a flavor of feminism that doesn't claim that women are victims?