Excluding people is exclusionary. It doesn't mean justified or unjustified.

Excluding people from a category is just a way of thinking about something.

Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans.

Do we call them CIS exclusionary?

Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.

Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.

Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.

> Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.

True, but the relevance is not obvious because these aren’t problems caused by so called TERFs.

It’s also not true that censoring JK Rowling is required as part of solving them, either.

> Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.

Does that mean that you think that cisgender women are not in the same category as transgender women?

TE people advocate policies that create those outcomes. I've seen none support creation of separate but equal facilities for trans people. It's too costly for such a small minority they say.

Rowling hasn't been censored.

Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.

> TE people advocate policies that create those outcomes.

This just isn’t true.

> I've seen none support creation of separate but equal facilities for trans people. It's too costly for such a small minority they say.

TERFs don’t say this. People controlling budgets do. They are are the ones withholding services from trans people. Not TERFs.

> Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.

Only according to certain trans perspectives.

You have clearly agreed there are two kinds of women. It is reasonable for them to not see one another as members of the same category.

Trans exclusionary people advocate excluding trans women from women's shelters. This leads to trans women being excluded from women's shelters.

Most trans exclusionary people say trans women are men. Some say they should be treated like cis men in all respects including imprisonment. Others accept keeping them apart from cis women means putting them with cis men in practice.

It shouldn't surprise you politically active people have opinions about tax and how it's spent. I've seen it myself. Even people who say they support separate but equal facilities start hedging when asked about funding.

Cis women and trans women being categories of women isn't just a trans perspective. And don't play games. You asked a question. I answered.

There are many more than 2 kinds of women!

> Trans exclusionary people advocate excluding trans women from women's shelters. This leads to trans women being excluded from women's shelters.

Yes, but being allowed into women’s shelters is not the only solution to violence against trans people.

> Most trans exclusionary people say trans women are men.

Do they? And if they see them as men, isn’t that their business?

I am not aware of TERFs arguing against services being provided for trans people.

> Some say they should be treated like cis men in all respects including imprisonment.

So TERFs in general do not.

> Others accept keeping them apart from cis women means putting them with cis men in practice.

Yes, agreed, and this is a terrible outcome but lack of services for trans people is not a consequence of TERFs.

> It shouldn't surprise you politically active people have opinions about tax and how it's spent.

This irrelevant statement to anything either of us have said so far.

> I've seen it myself. Even people who say they support separate but equal facilities start hedging when asked about funding.

What do you mean by ‘start hedging’?

> Cis women and trans women being categories of women isn't just a trans perspective.

Of course not, but that doesn’t make it universal.

As far as I can see your argument is just based on there not being enough money for trans services.

That’s absolutely correct, but has nothing to do with TERFs.