A transphobic woman is not a feminist; she is overly concerned with policing the bodies and expressions of others.
A woman against reproductive rights — to use bell hook’s own example, and an issue close to your heart — is not a feminist; she prioritizes her dogma or her disgust over the bodies of others.
An ableist woman is not a feminist; she holds some Platonic ideal of what a physically or mentally “whole” person should be and tries to force the world to fit inside it. —
I would think these all apply to men/andro/trans/etc. people in solidarity, just as much as they apply to women, which is a part of my problem with a lot of the narrative. The notion in this post comes from the right place, and I agree with the sentiment, but the lack of inclusiveness—by it’s very nature, and especially in the context of a criticism of lost inclusiveness—makes this feel like a private club that only certain people can be a member to, which obviously isn’t the goal of the movement, nor is it helpful in gaining supporters.
Can’t we all just be humanist and fight for everybody's equal rights? I don't want to marginalize the feminist movement or the wonderful things that have been fought for in its name. I understand that there are individual issues to wrestle with, and that specialization and focus can be effective in obtaining goals efficiently, but I often feel people are neglecting the bigger picture and are tied to a term which rightfully has a lot of steam behind it, but which also has a lot of smoke screen, false flags, “man hating lesbians” (contradictory supporters), and what myself and many others I've spoken to perceive to be an internal inconsistency in its own name. I understand the roots of the term feminism, but I find the term itself to be a bit dated. It lacks a representation of the true inclusiveness so ardently fought for within the movement's honest mission. As a term, it seems to depict a movement that amplifies/supports femininity, but in its true credo it supports equality for all people regardless of gender, identification, or preference.
It doesn’t seem like a long shot, then, to additionally include support of equality regardless of [insert repressive cultural norm here]. The true spirit is one of equality for all, is it not? If so, then I fail to see how humanism does not include the concerns and agenda of feminism, along with the concerns of the same repressions happening against people of race, belief, body, hair color, or whatever else might be used as a tool of inequality. Just my thoughts on the matter; feel free to chime in if I’ve missed something.