Feminism and trans women

The question “does feminism include trans women?” appears with increasing frequency in public debates, university classrooms, and social media. For those who ask it in good faith, the answer requires a journey through the history of feminist thought, its currents, its contradictions, and its evolution. For those who use it as a provocation, the answer is already contained in the question: if feminism fights for the rights of all women, excluding some based on the sex assigned at birth means betraying its founding mission.

This article reconstructs the history of the relationship between feminism and trans women, the positions of the main feminist currents, the scientific and political arguments in support of inclusion, and the role of intersectional feminism as a theoretical framework that makes inclusion not an option, but a structural necessity.

Who decides who is a woman: an ancient question

The question of who “counts” as a woman in the feminist movement did not originate with the debate on trans women. It is a tension that runs through the entire history of feminism.

In 1851, former slave Sojourner Truth delivered a speech at the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, that has gone down in history with the title “Ain’t I a Woman?” Truth denounced a feminism that spoke of women but thought only of white, middle-class women. Black women, who worked in the fields and suffered violence, did not fit the dominant definition of “femininity” — yet they were, without any doubt, women.

That question — who is included when we say “women”? — still resonates today. For over a century, feminism has had to confront its own exclusions: Black women, working-class women, lesbian women, disabled women. Each time, excluded voices demanded recognition. Each time, feminism became stronger by welcoming that demand. The inclusion of trans women is the most recent chapter of this history.

Intersectionality: the theoretical framework for inclusion

Kimberle Crenshaw and the intersection of oppressions

In 1989, jurist Kimberle Crenshaw published the essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” in which she introduced the concept of intersectionality [1]. Crenshaw demonstrated that Black American women experienced a form of discrimination that could not be reduced to either sexism or racism taken individually: it was the intersection of the two oppressions that produced a specific condition, invisible to both feminist theory and antiracist theory.

Intersectionality is not a list of identities to be added together. It is a method of analysis that reveals how systems of power — patriarchy, racism, classism, heteronormativity, cisnormativity — intertwine and reinforce each other [1]. Crenshaw herself described her theoretical framework as applicable to transgender identity: “It’s like a lazy Susan: you can subject race, sexuality, transgender identity, or class to a feminist critique through intersectionality.”

Why intersectionality implies trans inclusion

If intersectional feminism recognizes that oppressions intertwine, then it must also recognize that trans women experience a specific form of oppression that arises from the intersection of sexism and transphobia. A trans woman is oppressed as a woman and as a trans person. Excluding her from feminism means ignoring precisely the mechanism of overlapping oppressions that intersectionality has the merit of having brought to light [1].

Intersectional feminism does not include trans women out of generosity or political correctness. It includes them because its own theoretical framework requires it.

Gender as performance: Judith Butler and the theoretical shift

Gender Trouble (1990)

No text has influenced the debate on gender and feminism as much as Gender Trouble by Judith Butler, published in 1990 by Routledge [2]. Butler argues that gender is not a natural property of bodies, but a set of repeated acts over time — a performance — that creates the illusion of a stable substance. There is no “being a woman” prior to the acts that constitute it.

This theory does not deny the reality of gender identity. On the contrary, it liberates it from biological determinism: if gender is a set of practices, then it cannot be reduced to chromosomes or genital anatomy [2]. The conclusion is that feminism cannot base its politics on a rigid biological definition of “woman” without contradicting its own principles.

Butler’s explicit position on trans women

Over the years, Butler has taken increasingly explicit positions in support of trans women. In a 2019 interview with Verso Books, Butler stated: “The trans-exclusionary feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people” and described some feminists’ attempts to “police trans lives and choices” as “a form of feminist tyranny” [6].

Butler also directly addressed the argument that the inclusion of trans women would “erase” the category of woman: “Femininity will not be erased just because we open the category and invite other people to be part of it. This is a moment to broaden alliances, not to have sectarian fights over bathrooms” [6].

The trans-exclusionary position: origins and critique

Janice Raymond and “The Transsexual Empire” (1979)

The theoretical root of the trans-exclusionary feminist position dates back to Janice Raymond and her book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, published in 1979 [11]. Raymond, a student of feminist theologian Mary Daly, argues that trans women “violate” women’s bodies by appropriating femininity and that medical transition is a tool of patriarchy to “construct women according to the male image.”

The book had a significant impact, contributing to the marginalization of trans women within feminist spaces for decades [11]. One of the most notable episodes involves Sandy Stone, a trans sound engineer who worked for the feminist record label Olivia Records. Raymond targeted her in the book, going so far as to send a draft of the chapter to Olivia Records with the intent of forcing Stone to leave her job.

Sandy Stone’s response: the posttranssexual manifesto

In 1987, Stone responded with “The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto,” an essay considered the founding text of academic transgender studies [3]. Stone criticized what she called Raymond’s “intolerable bigotry” and proposed viewing trans people not as a problematic category, but as subjects whose potential for “productive disruption of structured sexualities” had yet to be explored.

From TERF to “gender critical”: the evolution of language

The term TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) was coined in 2008 by trans-inclusive feminist blogger Viv Smythe as a technical and neutral description. It indicated a subset of radical feminists who refused to recognize trans women as women and opposed their presence in feminist spaces.

Starting in the 2010s, the term was progressively rejected by those it described, who adopted the definition “gender critical.” This linguistic shift, however, does not change the substance of the position: the exclusion of trans women from the category “women” and from the feminist movement.

Critiques of the trans-exclusionary position

The TERF position presents theoretical and practical problems that make it untenable within a coherent feminist framework.

The paradox of biological determinism. Feminism was born as a critique of the idea that biology determines women’s destiny. Asserting that only people with certain biological characteristics (uterus, XX chromosomes, reproductive capacity) can be considered women means adopting the same biological determinism against which feminism has always fought [5]. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy observes, “any philosophical analysis of the concepts of woman and man that leads to the misidentification of trans people is unacceptable from a trans political perspective” [5].

Cascading exclusion. If “woman” is defined exclusively by reproductive biology, it also excludes cisgender women in menopause, women who have had hysterectomies, women with Turner syndrome (a single X chromosome), and women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY chromosomes, female phenotype). The rigid biological definition fails to capture even the experience of cisgender women.

Complicity with the right. “Gender critical” rhetoric is increasingly aligned with conservative and far-right movements that use the “defense of women” as a pretext to attack LGBTQ+ rights as a whole. In 2021, the Association for Women’s Rights in Development described anti-gender movements as “a fascist tendency” that instrumentalizes feminist language for regressive purposes.

Scientific evidence: trans women are women

The theoretical debate cannot ignore empirical evidence. Over thirty years of research in neuroscience, genetics, and endocrinology have demonstrated that gender identity has solid biological bases and is not determined exclusively by chromosomes or genital anatomy [13].

As documented in the article ”trans women and female identity,” neuroimaging studies show that the brains of trans women display patterns more similar to those of cisgender women than to those of cisgender men, even before hormone therapy. A literature review conducted by Saraswat, Weinand, and Safer in 2015 concluded that there is strong support for a biological basis of gender identity [13].

The major international medical organizations — WHO, APA, WPATH, Endocrine Society — recognize that the gender identity of trans women is authentic, not a pathology, and not a choice. The WHO in 2019 removed being transgender from the classification of mental disorders. This is not an opinion: it is the international scientific consensus.

Shared oppression under patriarchy

One of the strongest arguments for the inclusion of trans women in feminism is also the simplest: patriarchy oppresses all women, trans and cisgender.

Trans women experience sexism, harassment, gender-based violence, and discrimination at work and in daily life. They face the pressure of patriarchal beauty standards, social control over their bodies, and male violence. Added to this is transphobia: the denial of their identity, specific violence directed at trans people, and discrimination in access to healthcare, employment, and housing.

As Angela Davis observed during the Women of the World festival at the Royal Albert Hall in London, trans women “must fight to be included in the category in which they already live” and face specific forms of violence, especially within the prison system, where they are often placed in male facilities and denied necessary medical care [7]. Davis stated unambiguously: “Trans women are women” [7].

Patriarchy does not check documents before oppressing. A trans woman walking down the street is subject to the male gaze, harassment, and violence exactly like a cisgender woman. Often more so, because transphobia is added to misogyny. Excluding trans women from the feminist struggle means weakening the front against a common enemy.

Feminist voices in favor of inclusion

bell hooks: feminism is for everybody

bell hooks (1952-2021), one of the most influential feminist thinkers of the twentieth century, worked tirelessly to build a feminism inclusive of all marginalized identities. In her book Feminism is for Everybody (2000), hooks defines feminism as a movement against every form of sexist domination — a definition that excludes no woman [4].

In 2014, hooks participated in a public dialogue with trans actress and activist Laverne Cox at the New School in New York. On that occasion, hooks spoke about the need to “cultivate together communities that allow the risk of knowing someone outside of one’s own boundaries, the risk that is love.” Her vision of a radical and inclusive feminism influenced generations of trans activists who identified with her philosophy.

Angela Davis: abolitionism and trans rights

Angela Davis has explicitly connected the fight for trans women’s rights to abolitionist feminism [7]. She emphasized how trans and nonbinary communities have contributed to feminism by demonstrating that “it is possible to imagine more socially just worlds that challenge what is totally accepted as normal” [7]. For Davis, the recognition of trans women is not an addition to feminism: it is an essential component of it.

The 2021 open letter

In March 2021, on the occasion of the Transgender Day of Visibility, GLAAD published an open letter signed by over 465 feminist leaders in fields ranging from activism to entertainment, politics to social justice [8]. Among the signatories: Gloria Steinem, Laverne Cox, Regina King, Halle Berry, Megan Rapinoe, and organizations such as Planned Parenthood. The letter stated: “Transgender women are women and transgender girls are girls. Honoring the diversity of women’s experiences is a strength, not a harm to the feminist cause” [8].

Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon

As documented by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, even within radical feminism — the current from which the trans-exclusionary position originates — some of the most important figures have explicitly supported trans inclusion [5]. Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005), one of the most prominent radical feminists, had already expressed positions in favor of recognizing trans identities in 1974. Catharine A. MacKinnon, another central figure in radical feminism, reaffirmed the same position in 2023 [5]. This demonstrates that the trans-exclusionary position does not represent radical feminism as a whole, but is a minority deviation from it.

The Italian context: Non Una Di Meno and transfeminism

The transfeminist movement in Italy

In Italy, the debate on the inclusion of trans women in feminism found a synthesis in the concept of transfeminism [12]. The term, recorded by Treccani as a neologism, indicates a feminist current that starts from the experiences of trans women to broaden the analysis of gender oppressions to all subjectivities marginalized by patriarchy.

A historical figure of Italian transfeminism is Porpora Marcasciano, an activist who has contributed to building bridges between the trans movement and the feminist movement since the 1980s.

Non Una Di Meno: feminism and transfeminism

Non Una Di Meno (NUDM), the main contemporary Italian feminist movement, active since 2016, explicitly defines itself as a feminist and transfeminist movement [9]. NUDM’s platform speaks of “gender violence” rather than “violence against women,” broadening the gaze to all subjectivities vulnerable to the patriarchal system.

Being feminist and transfeminist, for Non Una Di Meno, means “recognizing a transnational, intergenerational, intersectional approach that takes into account class and material conditions” [9]. It means starting from the practices and experiences of women and LGBTQIA+ people when these challenge the sexual division of labor and patriarchal family structures.

NUDM’s choice was not without tensions. But the movement’s position has been clear from the beginning: twenty-first century Italian feminism is inclusive by definition, and every attempt at exclusion weakens the common struggle.

Why exclusion weakens feminism

The central argument of trans-exclusionary positions is that the inclusion of trans women would pose a threat to “women’s spaces” and to feminist achievements. This argument holds up neither logically nor historically.

Inclusion does not take away rights. Rights are not a finite resource. Recognizing trans women as women takes nothing from cisgender women: it does not take away jobs, it does not reduce protection against violence, it does not erase the specific experiences of cis women. On the contrary, broadening the coalition strengthens the collective power of the movement.

Exclusion creates instrumental divisions. The history of feminism shows that every time the movement has closed around a restrictive definition of “woman,” it has lost political strength. Black women excluded from white feminism, lesbian women excluded from heteronormative feminism: every exclusion weakened the movement. The exclusion of trans women follows the same pattern.

Patriarchy benefits from division. When women — trans and cis — fight among themselves over who deserves to be called a woman, the one who benefits is the patriarchal system that oppresses them both. Solidarity among women is a fundamental political resource: fragmenting it serves only those who want to maintain the status quo.

Practical solidarity: what being allies means

Theoretical inclusion must translate into concrete practices. Here is what a feminism that includes trans women means in everyday life.

Language and respect. Use the name and pronouns chosen by a trans person. Gently correct those who make mistakes. Do not ask for details about transition or body: it is a form of intrusiveness that would never be applied to a cisgender woman.

Shared spaces. Anti-violence centers, clinics, and feminist spaces must be accessible to trans women. Trans women experience rates of gender-based violence above the average: excluding them from support services is an act of institutional violence.

Listening and decentering. Cisgender women cannot speak “for” trans women. But they can amplify their voices, share their platforms, and support their demands. Solidarity is not paternalism: it is recognizing that trans women are the first experts on their own experiences.

Countering misinformation. Myths about trans people are numerous and persistent. An inclusive feminism commits to countering them with scientific evidence and the power of personal storytelling.

Conclusion: feminism that excludes betrays itself

The history of feminism is a history of progressive broadening: of the definition of “woman,” of the recognized political subjects, of the horizons of justice pursued. Every generation has had to overcome the exclusions of the previous one.

Intersectional feminism, the predominant current today in theory and practice, leaves no room for ambiguity: trans women are women, their struggle is a feminist struggle, and their exclusion is not a legitimate feminist position — it is a contradiction in terms.

As bell hooks wrote, feminism is for everybody [4]. As Kimberle Crenshaw demonstrated, oppressions intertwine and cannot be fought separately [1]. As Judith Butler stated, the category “woman” is not weakened by welcoming more people — it is strengthened [6]. As Angela Davis affirmed, trans women are women [7].

Feminism that excludes trans women does not protect women: it betrays the fundamental promise of feminism itself. A feminism that truly fights for the liberation of all women cannot do without trans women. It needs them, just as trans women need feminism. The struggle is one.