The tl;dr is that independent movements leave or create additional issues. The example I have used elsewhere in my replies on this post is jk Rowling. She is a feminist. She is also a terf. Feminism, by itself, doesn't solve the problems of other excluded minority groups. If feminism was the only movement we considered, Rowlings position might not have ever been exposed and the bigotry that trans women face wouldn't be addressed by the feminist movement because terfs would silently exclude them.

In the 30s and 40s a major problem with feminism was the racism that infected it. It was for women's rights, as long as it was white women. This problem still exists today. Is feminism, feminism if black women are left behind? Are black women not women? Are trans women not women?

[–] TeckFire 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With the context of the other comments on this post, I have a much better understanding of what I think you’re trying to say, which is that (and correct me if I’m wrong) in order for these movements to succeed completely, they must work congruently with each other. Rather, it’s not about a movement “failing,” but about individual movements not maximizing potential for benefit without adjacent ideals. Does that sound about right?

In other words, feminism hasn’t “failed,” but it won’t “succeed” if TERFs are the primary figures, for example

[–] fkn 2 points 1 year ago

Correct, which from the point if view from a trans woman may be failure.