You're not wrong, but there is more context. There is a near inexhaustible list of feminist art that defines womanhood as an anatomical feature or set of features, and seeing this March that is ostensibly for all women be so tone deaf to this existing fault in the feminist community shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to truly be intersectional. This is what makes the symbol exclusionary to non-binary or transgendered women, it's continuation of a trend of exclusion. During second wave feminism, this was so common a phrase grew out of it- TERF, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. A prominent example is Gloria Steinem. For decades, the gender-nonconforming have been written out or excluded from the feminist movement at large, and this was a major opportunity to unify everyone for possibly the first time.

A more inclusive symbol could have been chosen.

Q: The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity...?

A: The solidarity excluded a major group that has historically been discriminated against even by progressive causes

i'm an outsider to all of this, but i've seen this come up repeatedly on my twitter feed and it seems like a lot of contention for what must be cumulatively (trans, non-binary) less than one percent of women(?)

Their smaller numbers does not render their concerns or oppression invalid

Right... but:

We've got to pick our battles. It's looking like we might have done some serious damage to the climate.

Does this mean we should ignore some minorty or another? Probably not.

Inclusivity is all people working toward our collective betterment. Inclusivity isn't agonising over which symbol or colour or words includes all the freaks. There will always be someone who feels left out.

Inclusivity is all the freaks working the frontline with the normals and everyone getting on with the job, then having a beer together afterwards. Or whatever roasts your goat.

Their smaller number does mean they can expect mass propaganda to target mass audiences, and that they have to speak up for their own interests to be heard. I don't go around complaining that every single non-Jewish progressive or leftist demonstration has somehow failed to include Jews simply because I don't see a Magen David on most signs about racism.

The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions.

I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at historical context or complexity in social issues people just shut down, despite the fact that this site is made up of such a well educated, creative group of users.

>I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at historical context or complexity in social issues people just shut down, despite the fact that this site is made up of such a well educated, creative group of users.

No, it's that you're not suggesting useful, effective alternative actions. What symbol could people wear on their heads or bodies which would convey trans-inclusive feminism, and be recognizable easily by the masses?

Sometimes issues are complex, but messaging has to be simple. This is a painful, but necessary, trade-off: you can't expect everyone looking at your protest hat or sign to be "woke" and understand your complex beliefs. You don't get to issue moral condemnations against over-simplifying a good thing, provided that it does net good, without offering some strictly superior alternative. When you try to condemn an over-simplified good thing, you're basically just supporting doing nothing, which right now is unacceptable.

What you're saying also sounds, well, a lot like political hostage-taking. While I'm on board with trans-inclusive feminism (AFAIK), I don't see why feminism broadly should be held hostage by whoever's angriest or most judgemental about trans issues.

Would you cancel the Women's Marches just to dispute about symbolism? That would amount to telling cis women they're not allowed to have their feminism unless it conforms to your feminism. Political activism is about interests shared in common, not about hierarchies of wokeness.

> The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions.

I don't really think so. Women are women, after all, trans or cis. If you see cisgendered female anatomy as innately trans-exclusionary, well, that may be your problem, since after all the whole point of transitioning is to come as close as possible to actually having that very anatomy.

If I march for socialism with a hammer-and-sickle symbol, you would apparently be the person to tell me hammers and sickles exclude shovel-using construction workers. It's a symbol! It means whatever people want it to mean, and your interpretation has to carefully way your own prior experiences with those of the people putting forth the symbol. Language has to communicate, not merely carry moral connotation.

assuming some better symbol could be presented as an alternative hat, what issue is solved by using those hats? what material condition is improved for trans people? the self esteem of some of the more histrionic ones?

it's a non-issue, you're using it as a bludgeon for status by virtue signaling.