Yo, TERFs! FUCK YOU!

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I've just got to ask everyone else....

Has anyone noticed the large number of TERFs that have suddenly crawled out of the woodwork ever since the Elliot Rodger shooting?

Their bigotry and trans-phobic rhetoric is just so goddamn vile. It's absolutely disgusting that these bigots call themselves 'feminists'.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I haven't noticed a greater number than usual since that happened.

[Jemdet Nasr]

Mostly those who I've noticed have been anti-feminists, MRM apologists, and MRM sympathizers, if we're talking about people in (allegedly) Socialist circles.

[TC]

This is silly. Feminists are a constant target of every identity politics complaint only because identity politics agitators know that feminists will acquiesce to their demands in significant numbers but they wont even register on the radar of people with the real capacity and propensity to be oppressive. Feminists on the internet are who you want to pick a fight with if you want a pointless symbolic victory by getting people on the internet to disavow themselves from your target out of fear of being called privileged - actually persuading people not already inclined to agree, and making real change requires actual work.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is silly. Feminists are a constant target of every identity politics complaint only because identity politics agitators know that feminists will acquiesce to their demands in significant numbers but they wont even register on the radar of people with the real capacity and propensity to be oppressive. Feminists on the internet are who you want to pick a fight with if you want a pointless symbolic victory by getting people on the internet to disavow themselves from your target out of fear of being called privileged - actually persuading people not already inclined to agree, and making real change requires actual work.
I think the OP made it clear he was speaking of a small sub-group of feminism, namely trans-exclusive radical feminists.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think the OP made it clear he was speaking of a small sub-group of feminism, namely trans-exclusive radical feminists.

TERFs arent even real feminists. Cathy Brennan and her band of merry idiots are all lunatics. I haven't noticed an increase of them or anything. But I have noticed an increase of MRA assholes. That organization A Voice for Men seem to be gaining attention over their plans to have a convention in Detroit recently. A lot of those fuckers are coming out of the woodworks to rally around Elliot Rodger's dead body (in the metaphorical sense)

[synthesis]

I'm not sure if I get the correlation between TERFs and Elliot Rodger. Someone fill me in?

[goalkeeper]

On the contrary, new and younger feminists seem to be more prone toward intersectionality and very anti-TERF. Even TERF 'veterans' such as Julie Bindel have become less anti-Trans. What I have noticed however is a bigger recognition of 'TERF' as a distinct category of feminists, which is probably connected to their views becoming more objectionable to new and younger feminists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just out of (morbid) curiosity, what's the basis of anti-trans feminists' discrimination? Or to phrase it better yet, how do they rationalize their discrimination?

[goalkeeper]

Just out of (morbid) curiosity, what's the basis of anti-trans feminists' discrimination? Or to phrase it better yet, how do they rationalize their discrimination?

One argument I have heard (not sure how prevalent it is though, there may be more) TERF's attacking Trans people is on the basis that they didnt have to experience being a female growing up and all the bad shit that comes with it but opt in to the oppression. I also think they also make the argument that Trans people accept the idea that there is an inherent difference between the male and female brain. There is perhaps more or maybe i've vulgarised the views though.

(I'm not endorsing these arguments btw)

[Rosa Partizan]

Just out of (morbid) curiosity, what's the basis of anti-trans feminists' discrimination? Or to phrase it better yet, how do they rationalize their discrimination?

they say that transwomen are actually men (and also socialized as men) that would like to occupy or infiltrate exclusively female, safe spaces and events and make the "real" women there feel uncomfortable.

[BIXX]

They also say transmen are traitors looking to benefit from male privilege.

[Rosa Partizan]

this makes so much sense considering what stigma transpeople go through.

Logic doesn't seem to be transphobic people's strength.

[Q]

Moved from /politics to /discrimination.

[Lanfear]

This could be a dumb question but what does TERF stand for? Its probably something obvious

[Sabot Cat]

This could be a dumb question but what does TERF stand for? Its probably something obvious

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

[Lanfear]

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
cheers. Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that they are feminists who are opposed to trans people? Specifically MTF or FTM also?

[Sabot Cat]

cheers. Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that they are feminists who are opposed to trans people? Specifically MTF or FTM also?

Indeed; they think the former are patriarchal infiltrators intent on invading women's safe places for the purpose of rape, and the latter are traitors who want the easy life.

[Skyhilist]

Just out of (morbid) curiosity, what's the basis of anti-trans feminists' discrimination? Or to phrase it better yet, how do they rationalize their discrimination?

Mostly with bullshit phrases like "rape is penis in vagina" or "my physical body as a real woman is what makes me oppressed" (used to imply that trans women aren't real females).

[Lanfear]

Indeed; they think the former are patriarchal infiltrators intent on invading women's safe places for the purpose of rape, and the latter are traitors who want the easy life.

Cheers again. They sound very extreme alright. Do these people have a lot of support?

[Sabot Cat]

Cheers again. They sound very extreme alright. Do these people have a lot of support?

In some small circles, but their support has rapidly dissipated from its height in the seventies and eighties, as many contemporary feminists view them negatively and rightly so.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Cheers again. They sound very extreme alright. Do these people have a lot of support?

They have support in very small circles. They do, however, have influence in much bigger circles than they have support in. I read a really good article about this in (I think it was in) ***** Magazine. If I can find it I will share it.

[slum]

what BGA said- TERFs are dangerous not so much because they are numerous but because many of their ideas have wider currency, not just in feminist movement but outside it as well. particularly insidious is a brand of "biological" gender essentialism that is both violently transphobic and precludes any sort of examination of sexism as political, material, social etc. a lot of their ideas dovetail well with the evo psych bullshit that is so popular in mainstream anti-feminism as of late, too.


They have support in very small circles. They do, however, have influence in much bigger circles than they have support in. I read a really good article about this in (I think it was in) ***** Magazine. If I can find it I will share it.

i'd love to see this if you can find it

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Found it! Click here. (http://*****magazine.org/post/the-long-history-of-transgender-exclusion-from-feminism)

[Sabot Cat]

Found it! Click here. (http://*****magazine.org/post/the-long-history-of-transgender-exclusion-from-feminism)

"While some outlets referred to the minor as Jane Doe, Gender Identity Watch posted the name of the teen in question, describing her as a “male student” who “claims to be transgender.”

It turns out, the story [of Jane Doe harassing someone in the restroom] was false. The TransAdvocate's Cristan Williams quickly called the school’s superintendent to inquire about the story and was told that the story was based on the complaint of one parent who was opposed to allowing the transgender student to use the girl’s restroom; there were no actual reported incidents of harassment.

After this incident, the teen’s mom said her daughter was struggling with harassment because of the story and was in such bad shape, the family had her on suicide watch."

www.transadvocate.com/what-happens-when-pji-is-confronted-by-parents_n_10441.htm

I was going to try be snarky or clever, but I don't have it. These transphobes- not just TERFs, mind you- are among the most vile vessels of bigotry given flesh. Horrible.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I heard the link wasn't working... Here is another try... (http://bit.ly/1oJaT5K)

[Rottenfruit]

In some small circles, but their support has rapidly dissipated from its height in the seventies and eighties, as many contemporary feminists view them negatively and rightly so.
Sadly yes there some feminists who are highly infindutlal who hold this belief system , Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys are two very influential feminists who are hardcore terfs who are professors

Janice Raymond wrote the book the transsexual empire, the making of a shemale and was influential in limiting health care to transsexuals in America

http://theterfs.com/terfs-trans-healthcare/
Good info about this type of feminism here
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

Cathy Brennan a payday loan lawyer(the scummiest type of lawyer and thats saying alot) is a key player in this movement
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan

[Quail]

I heard the link wasn't working... Here is another try... (http://bit.ly/1oJaT5K)

Nice article, thanks for fixing the link.

I wouldn't recommend reading the comments.

[Luís Henrique]

I heard the link wasn't working... Here is another try... (http://bit.ly/1oJaT5K)

I wasn't working because it linked to

http://%2A%2A%2A%2A%2Amagazine.org/post/the-long-history-of-transgender-exclusion-from-feminism

You would have to replace the first "%2A" with "b", the second with "i", the third with "t", the fourth with "c" and the fifth with "h".

If you do so, it should work...

Luís "### of a *****" Henrique

[Wuggums47]

Hi, this is my first post here, I'm just going to say that I think it's ridiculous to believe you truly advocate gender equality and then deny the rights of others to have their own gender identity and expression. I personally am disgusted by that line of thinking both as a feminist and as a non binary individual.

[Luís Henrique]

Hi, this is my first post here, I'm just going to say that I think it's ridiculous to believe you truly advocate gender equality and then deny the rights of others to have their own gender identity and expression. I personally am disgusted by that line of thinking both as a feminist and as a non binary individual.

TERFs don't advocate gender equality, they advocate gender abolition. And they believe that transpeople reinforce the ideologies of gender.

Luís Henrique

[edwad]

cheers. Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that they are feminists who are opposed to trans people? Specifically MTF or FTM also?

nah actually they often support trans men because they say that they've been socialized as women and that they need to be protected more than trans women because cis women and trans men experience "sex based oppression", whereas cis men and trans women somehow benefit from the patriarchy because they might have/had penises (as if trans women aren't brutally murdered on the daily basis despite often having penises). its reactionary as hell and just reduces people down to the sex that they were assigned at birth. feminists protecting (trans)men from (trans)women. very anti feminist in general tbh but they've got a lot of support from the radical feminist side of tumblr, if that means anything to you.

ps, "ftm" and "mtf" can be pretty offensive to a lot of trans people. not trying to call you out, its just a heads up.

[Lanfear]

nah actually they often support trans men because they say that they've been socialized as women and that they need to be protected more than trans women because cis women and trans men experience "sex based oppression", whereas cis men and trans women somehow benefit from the patriarchy because they might have/had penises (as if trans women aren't brutally murdered on the daily basis despite often having penises). its reactionary as hell and just reduces people down to the sex that they were assigned at birth. feminists protecting (trans)men from (trans)women. very anti feminist in general tbh but they've got a lot of support from the radical feminist side of tumblr, if that means anything to you.

ps, "ftm" and "mtf" can be pretty offensive to a lot of trans people. not trying to call you out, its just a heads up.

Oh. I didn't know that at all. In fact I would class myself as MTF so there was no offense meant to anyone at all and I apologise if I caused any

[Sabot Cat]

Oh. I didn't know that at all. In fact I would class myself as MTF so there was no offense meant to anyone at all and I apologise if I caused any

None taken at all; MTF and FTM are not offensive, just not entirely accurate. They make it easier to talk to cis people about trans stuff, for sure.

[TC]

The problem I see with this discussion though is "TERF" is not a coherent ideology that anyone actually believes in, its an insulting label applied to feminist with whom the author disagrees, without their consent.

It is entirely unclear what TERF really applies to - it can be applied to anyone and then followed up with "TERFs think XYZ which is clearly outrageous, thus Comrade A, who is a TERF because she holds view W, can be inferred to also think XYZ, and is outrageous."


Indeed; they think the former are patriarchal infiltrators intent on invading women's safe places for the purpose of rape, and the latter are traitors who want the easy life.

Well, if TERFs are defined as people who believe that, then I'm fine with the continued use of TERF as an insult since TERF would then seem to only designate people with ridiculously implausible bigoted beliefs. Under such a definition, TERF would correctly be ascribed to a handful of crazy people.


I worry though that there is a definition creep of the insult TERF to apply not only to people who believe what Sabot described but any number of the following views:

A. Feminists who assert that it is unproblematic for women (or men) to only have sexual or romantic interest in potential partners with the type of genitalia that they like, regardless of potential partners self-identification.

B. Feminists who reject the political label "Cis".

C. Feminists who do not accept the biologically essentialist "brain sex" theory employed by some trans rights activists and evolutionary psychologists.

D. Feminists who argue that certain elements of male privilege accrues to early childhood inculturation of boys and certain elements of female subordination accrues in early childhood inculturation of girls, although obviously privilege and subordination happen later in life.

E. Feminists who argue that having a biologically female body and being regarded by others as having one give rise to physically specific forms of oppression and vulnerability involving sex and reproductive capability and expectations. Self-identification does not create these vulnerabilities or potential for oppression by itself.

F. Feminists who argue that being regarded as normatively female gives rise to specific gender role expectations with regard to work, family and maternal role and social role with men that are usually not present in the same way with people who are not generally regarded as normatively female regardless of self-identification.


If someone does not hold Sabot Cat's description of TERF beliefs, but does hold any of the beliefs labeled A-F, are they a TERF or would such a label be wrongly applied to them?

[Rosa Partizan]

I'm confused. According to that, I'd be a TERF. Many of these points apply to me. Gonna sleep over it and then write sth.

[BIXX]

I'm confused. According to that, I'd be a TERF. Many of these points apply to me. Gonna sleep over it and then write sth.


While I haven't read the points that individual posted, I think they were saying that they were worried TERF would be used to describe those people when clearly they aren't (some of the points may have described TERFs, but you get the idea).

[Orange Juche]

I'm confused. According to that, I'd be a TERF. Many of these points apply to me. Gonna sleep over it and then write sth.

Many?

[Rosa Partizan]

oh wow, I was really too tired to understand it properly. Yes @ Spanish Moss, A, C, E and F apply to me given that I understood it correctly. Am I a TERF now? I just think that being identified as female gives rise to the usual forms of oppression and discrimination, even if you yourself identify otherwise. Is this TERFy? Am I an intolerant dickhead? No srsly, this makes me a bit worried about my own attitude. Is it reactionary to exclude people from relationships that don't have a penis and don't identify as male? I really couldn't imagine being with a trans person and somehow, I'm even only interested in "male" males, with these typical signs of malehood, and somehow my own narrow preference makes me sad.

[TC]

oh wow, I was really too tired to understand it properly. Yes @ Spanish Moss, A, C, E and F apply to me given that I understood it correctly. Am I a TERF now?

I don't think so at all, but I have seen TERF employed as a silencing insult to shame feminists who hold those positions - even when they support trans rights.


I just think that being identified as female gives rise to the usual forms of oppression and discrimination, even if you yourself identify otherwise. Is this TERFy? Am I an intolerant dickhead? No srsly, this makes me a bit worried about my own attitude. Is it reactionary to exclude people from relationships that don't have a penis and don't identify as male? I really couldn't imagine being with a trans person and somehow, I'm even only interested in "male" males, with these typical signs of malehood, and somehow my own narrow preference makes me sad.

These positions aren't at all reactionary. My point in drawing attention to the potential for those to (mis)labeled "TERF" positions is to illustrate the problem of using the term as an under-defined insult to suppress feminist discourse.

Look how freaked out you are about it and no one here is even positively claiming that those positions are TERF positions!

It is such a powerful insult and feminists have been so easily cowed by it that even the most fundamental of feminist commitments to the inviolability of sexual consent and the social construction of gender as a system of social hierarchy are vulnerable when people claim that someone is a TERF. The "TERF" accusation while perhaps appropriate for some positions such as the ones described by Sabot Cat can also be misappropriated as a lever to foist patriarchal ideation into feminism.

For example, Sarah Ditum, a blogger, was blacklisted on twitter through an uncited claim that she's a "TERF" such that others retweeting an entirely unrelated tweet on domestic violence of her's felt compelled to unretweet it:

http://sarahditum.com/2014/07/28/how-terf-works/

Now, I haven't read most of her blog and she only came to my attention today, so I don't know all of her positions, but if blog posts like this one:


But that does not mean my sexuality is fluid, does not mean it is a liquid that other people (male people) can decant to serve their own pleasure. When it comes to the boundaries of my own person, my wants are the absolute law: to say, as has been said, that it is “rooted in cissexism and general poor sex education” for a woman to reject those with penises as sexual partners is to say that women (female women) may have no boundaries, it is to say that the female libido is simply a formless puddle for others to plash in. http://sarahditum.com/2014/06/07/female-sexuality-is-not-fluid/

essentially supporting a milder version of the position that you articulated but from a lesbian perspective, are going to be sufficient to label someone a "TERF" - then we should be really worried about the power dynamics going around that sort of accusation.

[Orange Juche]

oh wow, I was really too tired to understand it properly. Yes @ Spanish Moss, A, C, E and F apply to me given that I understood it correctly. Am I a TERF now? I just think that being identified as female gives rise to the usual forms of oppression and discrimination, even if you yourself identify otherwise. Is this TERFy? Am I an intolerant dickhead? No srsly, this makes me a bit worried about my own attitude. Is it reactionary to exclude people from relationships that don't have a penis and don't identify as male? I really couldn't imagine being with a trans person and somehow, I'm even only interested in "male" males, with these typical signs of malehood, and somehow my own narrow preference makes me sad.

I don't see you as a TERF, honestly the ones that concern me are B, C maybe but that's not "TERFy" that's just a scientific debate, D, E I'd like to hear your thoughts on (like do you mean thinks like the expectation to have children? If that's essentially what you mean, those kinds of things, I'd agree).

I believe people are too quick to jump down people's throats and I have no interest in doing that, if you say you support trans-rights I'll believe that, I think one has to talk to someone and find out what their perspective is before making a valuable assessment.

It's, in my opinion, not reactionary to not want to be in a relationship with someone based on their genitals - your sexuality is your sexuality, it isn't reactionary to be attracted or not attracted to certain types of people.

The thing with TERFs, why people are so sensitive to TERFs and the idea of them, is they're genocidal fucks. They aren't just annoying hate mongers, they want trans-women dead. They go out of their way to harass real people in whatever way they can (through the net though, like the cowards they are) with thuggish, hate-group like tactics to literally try and get trans-women to kill themselves. They do whatever they can to influence the law to make it trans-exclusionary. They want the elimination of trans-women.

So while "TC" says "The "TERF" accusation while perhaps appropriate for some positions such as the ones described by Sabot Cat can also be misappropriated as a lever to foist patriarchal ideation into feminism.", referring to "TERF" as a "silencing insult", painting a portrait as if the trans-militants are coming in and shutting down feminist speech - the reason trans-women react the way they do to TERFs are because of how fucking horrible and dangerous TERFs act.

[TC]

I don't see you as a TERF, honestly the ones that concern me are B, C maybe but that's not "TERFy" that's just a scientific debate, D, E I'd like to hear your thoughts on (like do you mean thinks like the expectation to have children? If that's essentially what you mean, those kinds of things, I'd agree).

You think simply rejecting the political label of "cis" is concerning? I thought one of the a core political commitments of trans-rights was predicated on respecting the self-identification and labels people want to adopt rather than imposing them on others.

"Cis" is objectionable to radical feminists and many other feminists for numerous theoretical and political reasons. To accept the label is to adopt a gender essentialist psychological theory and to politically endorse implications that follow from it that radical feminists reject. It is a complicated issue and I don't want to delve into all of the issues involved but this article (though I don't fully endorse it):

http://sarahditum.com/2014/04/21/notes-from-a-non-cis-woman/

Offers a useful starting point.




I believe people are too quick to jump down people's throats and I have no interest in doing that,

Good to hear that thats how you feel, but look at the first post that started this thread! Look at the title of this thread! Witch hunting and jumping down people's throats characterizes the tenor of this discussion and topic.



I think one has to talk to someone and find out what their perspective is before making a valuable assessment.


Agreed and important to remember.




The thing with TERFs, why people are so sensitive to TERFs and the idea of them, is they're genocidal fucks. They aren't just annoying hate mongers, they want trans-women dead.

Exactly who are you talking about? I have never heard of any self-described feminists taking any such position. I haven't even seen elsewhere on the internet anyone crusading against "TERFs" make such an allegation.

Do you have any substantive evidence that any such movement or group exists?

If such a group actually did exist then I suggest referring to them as "neo-nazis" rather than "TERFs" because "TERF" is often a misapplied insult for people who disagree with certain elements of gender theory dogma, not people who are demanding genocide.


They go out of their way to harass real people in whatever way they can (through the net though, like the cowards they are) with thuggish, hate-group like tactics to literally try and get trans-women to kill themselves. They do whatever they can to influence the law to make it trans-exclusionary. They want the elimination of trans-women.


So while "TC" says "The "TERF" accusation while perhaps appropriate for some positions such as the ones described by Sabot Cat can also be misappropriated as a lever to foist patriarchal ideation into feminism.", referring to "TERF" as a "silencing insult", painting a portrait as if the trans-militants are coming in and shutting down feminist speech - the reason trans-women react the way they do to TERFs are because of how fucking horrible and dangerous TERFs act.

Actually there are efforts to shut down the speech of disfavored radical feminists, such as in the blog post I posted, such as in harassing radical feminists online and in person, there are numerous examples online (and maybe some of their targets really are bigoted, I don't know, its not something I'm interested in researching, but the harassment is a problem) but I've never heard of anyone accused of expressly supporting genocide.

The worst I've heard of is that some "TERFs" want to be able to hold a music festival by themselves in the middle of nowhere (and they get majorly harassed and protested for doing it) - maybe its objectionable but its a far cry from genocide.

[Orange Juche]

You think simply rejecting the political label of "cis" is concerning? I thought one of the a core political commitments of trans-rights was predicated on respecting the self-identification and labels people want to adopt rather than imposing them on others.

"Cis" is objectionable to radical feminists and many other feminists for numerous theoretical and political reasons. To accept the label is to adopt a gender essentialist psychological theory and to politically endorse implications that follow from it that radical feminists reject. It is a complicated issue and I don't want to delve into all of the issues involved but this article (though I don't fully endorse it):



It's objectionable to a subset of certain gay men who say it "sounds like sissy", it's objectionable to heterosexual cisgenderpeople who say "you can't label me." I don't care, I really, really don't. Yes - it's predicated on respecting self-identification, but not at the expense of others. Giving a logical dictionary term (logical because cis is the latin alternate to trans) to what one already is, this is not "disrespecting" self-identification. It's simply providing a dictionary term where none has existed.

This is important - if cis women are just "women" and trans women are "trans women", then "trans women" will always, basically, be "secondary women" (and the same goes for cis/trans men). It makes one side "normalized" and the other, well, "the other". Cis and Trans simply gives a term to people who already were Cis without changing anything about their identity, while making gender discussions easier, and while recognizing the legitimacy of trans women and men as women and men.

What's the alternative. Call cis people "normal"? That's not acceptable.




Good to hear that thats how you feel, but look at the first post that started this thread! Look at the title of this thread! Witch hunting and jumping down people's throats characterizes the tenor of this discussion and topic.

What's wrong with it? The first two letters in TERF stand for "Trans Exclusionary". If you want say "people use that as an insult" and what - that may be true, but that's not who the OP was talking about - they were talking about Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, the definition itself.

Why, do you think we should defend Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists?




Exactly who are you talking about? I have never heard of any self-described feminists taking any such position. I haven't even seen elsewhere on the internet anyone crusading against "TERFs" make such an allegation.

Do you have any substantive evidence that any such movement or group exists?

I don't remember the names, they just harass trans people, deadname them, give out their identity, apparently inform their place of work, do whatever they can to fuck with their lives, post pictures of them and mock them etc etc knowing the high suicide rate and just doing it to fuck with trans-women. I don't know their names because I don't follow their shit because why the hell would I want to?

Honestly, I could look this up for you. But A) Your greater concern of the naming of this thread than TERF activity makes me not want to find this information And B) That garbage pisses me off so much that I'm not going to piss myself off for the sake of providing you info in this thread, sorry.





If such a group actually did exist then I suggest referring to them as "neo-nazis" rather than "TERFs" because "TERF" is often a misapplied insult for people who disagree with certain elements of gender theory dogma, not people who are demanding genocide.

No.

They identify as "radical feminists". They are trans-exclusionary. They are trans-exclusionary radical feminists. TERFs. That's where the term came from. I'm not going to refer to them as to anything other than what they are.

And I never said they were "demanding" genocide. What they're doing is a subtle form of genocide. If you are fucking with a very small minority with a high suicide attempt rate in an attempt to get them to try and commit suicide, wishing they were all dead (I've literally seen the comments wishing all trans women were dead/would kill themselves, etc), I'd use the word "genocide" even if it doesn't come in camps and with executive orders.





Actually there are efforts to shut down the speech of disfavored radical feminists, such as in the blog post I posted, such as in harassing radical feminists online and in person, there are numerous examples online (and maybe some of their targets really are bigoted, I don't know, its not something I'm interested in researching, but the harassment is a problem) but I've never heard of anyone accused of expressly supporting genocide.

You mistook my genocide statement. They aren't talking about camps. But a number of them want to harass trans-women the point of killing themselves, over, and over...





The worst I've heard of is that some "TERFs" want to be able to hold a music festival by themselves in the middle of nowhere (and they get majorly harassed and protested for doing it) - maybe its objectionable

It is objectionable. Having a festival for women where they don't allow women? What are they going to do, an underwear and "long form birth certificate" check?

Seriously, fuck that.

[Orange Juche]

This is typical TERF nonsense for you, supporting the WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH: https://twitter.com/transadvocate/status/494259295903428608/photo/1

So please, take your dichotomy argument of "trans people/those who support them are oppressing feminists by using term 'TERF'" and just... stop doing that. Go to the Opposing Ideologies section.

Trans people, trans-women in particular - a minority whose life expectancy is under thirty because it suffers such a high rate of murder and suicide, and then faces constant harassment from those kind of people, has no room for this semantic bullshit of complaining that "TERF is an oppressive term" and that the title of threads like this is "witch hunting and jumping down people's throats". Are you fucking kidding me?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The thing with TERFs, why people are so sensitive to TERFs and the idea of them, is they're genocidal fucks. They aren't just annoying hate mongers, they want trans-women dead. They go out of their way to harass real people in whatever way they can (through the net though, like the cowards they are) with thuggish, hate-group like tactics to literally try and get trans-women to kill themselves. They do whatever they can to influence the law to make it trans-exclusionary. They want the elimination of trans-women.
And then we have people like TC coming in and claiming ignorance about what TERFs are up to. She clearly has an anti-trans agenda of her own.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

B. Feminists who reject the political label "Cis".
It's less problematic to refer to "cis women/trans women" than to "women/trans women" or worse "real women/trans women", which are the exact reasons "cis" was invented. If you're not trans, why get upset overt being described as "not trans"? It's not an identity being foisted on you.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The worst I've heard of is that some "TERFs" want to be able to hold a music festival by themselves in the middle of nowhere (and they get majorly harassed and protested for doing it) - maybe its objectionable but its a far cry from genocide.
Then you're either not paying attention or you're being deliberately obtuse. I personally suspect the latter.

[Quail]

Sorry this is a bit late and the thread has moved on a bit since this post, but I wanted to respond anyway.

The problem I see with this discussion though is "TERF" is not a coherent ideology that anyone actually believes in, its an insulting label applied to feminist with whom the author disagrees, without their consent.

It is entirely unclear what TERF really applies to - it can be applied to anyone and then followed up with "TERFs think XYZ which is clearly outrageous, thus Comrade A, who is a TERF because she holds view W, can be inferred to also think XYZ, and is outrageous."

Well, if TERFs are defined as people who believe that, then I'm fine with the continued use of TERF as an insult since TERF would then seem to only designate people with ridiculously implausible bigoted beliefs. Under such a definition, TERF would correctly be ascribed to a handful of crazy people.

As I understand it (or as I would use it), the term TERF applies to feminists who explicity or implicitly exclude trans women from their movement. That would include a range of views, for example, feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces are an obvious example, but on the other hand the exclusion could be more subtle such as celebrating menstruation as an essential experience of womanhood (which may or may not be deliberate).


I worry though that there is a definition creep of the insult TERF to apply not only to people who believe what Sabot described but any number of the following views:

A. Feminists who assert that it is unproblematic for women (or men) to only have sexual or romantic interest in potential partners with the type of genitalia that they like, regardless of potential partners self-identification.
Perhaps it's difficult for me to have a full insight into this particular point because I am bisexual* so I don't have the experience of only being attracted to people with certain genitals, and I don't know to what extent such an attraction might be influenced by the homophobia and transphobia of the society we live in. BUT, I do think it is somewhat problematic to declare that there's no way you'd be interested in dating a hypothetical trans person. If you really liked someone and felt attracted to them, would their genitals really be that important or could you find a way of having sex which pleased you both? I think that outright rejecting the idea of having sex with a trans person can come from a place of homophobia.


B. Feminists who reject the political label "Cis".
I see no real reason to reject the label cis. In chemistry you get cis and trans versions of compounds, for example. It's a neutral label which just means "not trans" and I think someone else already mentioned that the alternatives to "cis" tend to imply that trans women are not "normal" or "real" women, which I would say is a trans exclusionary position to hold.


C. Feminists who do not accept the biologically essentialist "brain sex" theory employed by some trans rights activists and evolutionary psychologists.
I think this all depends on what the scientific evidence suggests, and what biases might be in that evidence. I think with LGBT issues there is too much focus on "LGBTness" being a biological trait that we can't change. The argument shouldn't be, "LGBT people can't help being LGBT so I guess we should accept them," because that subtly implies that being LGBT isn't as good as being cisgender or heterosexual. The argument should simply be, "there's nothing wrong with being LGBT." It's not inherently transphobic to question the scientific evidence presented by transgender rights activists, but it can be.


D. Feminists who argue that certain elements of male privilege accrues to early childhood inculturation of boys and certain elements of female subordination accrues in early childhood inculturation of girls, although obviously privilege and subordination happen later in life.
There is evidence that parents treat boys and girls differently even as babies (e.g. parents have a tendency to underestimate their daughter's abilities but not their son's) so broadly this is true. But on the other hand, children who don't conform to gender stereotypes are also treated differently as they're growing up, which shouldn't be overlooked.


E. Feminists who argue that having a biologically female body and being regarded by others as having one give rise to physically specific forms of oppression and vulnerability involving sex and reproductive capability and expectations. Self-identification does not create these vulnerabilities or potential for oppression by itself.
It's true that being perceived as being able to carry a child is the basis of some specific forms of oppression, but I would argue that it's the perception rather than the reality that is important here. In which case, there is no practical difference between an infertile cis woman and a trans woman.


F. Feminists who argue that being regarded as normatively female gives rise to specific gender role expectations with regard to work, family and maternal role and social role with men that are usually not present in the same way with people who are not generally regarded as normatively female regardless of self-identification.
I think being regarded as "feminine" comes with specific gendered expectations, but those expectations also apply to a greater or lesser degree to "feminine" people who aren't women (e.g. feminine-presenting non-binary people may be read as women and treated accordingly, or a feminine gay male might be expected to be the "woman" of his relationship). I think that the idea of only including "normatively female" people in a feminist group is exclusive not only to trans women, but also to masculine-presenting women.

[Depardieu]

"terf" is absolutely a slur... against feminist militants struggling against the patriarchal ideology of gender, which is finding its way into feminist circles under the banner of trans-feminism. not to speak in the name of radical feminists, but it's not a struggle against transexuality. much of the hateful commentary in this thread attests to the fact that terf is employed as a slur. it's disturbing that feminists are being bullied by other self proclaimed feminists for standing up to this patriarchal propaganda that gender is somehow a spontaneous individual phenomenon

[Depardieu]

I think this all depends on what the scientific evidence suggests, and what biases might be in that evidence. I think with LGBT issues there is too much focus on "LGBTness" being a biological trait that we can't change. The argument shouldn't be, "LGBT people can't help being LGBT so I guess we should accept them," because that subtly implies that being LGBT isn't as good as being cisgender or heterosexual. The argument should simply be, "there's nothing wrong with being LGBT." It's not inherently transphobic to question the scientific evidence presented by transgender rights activists, but it can be.

a defining trait of the female gender, historically, is that it is imposed on people when theyre born, forcefully subjecting them to that role. whether transwomen choose their gender, are allegedly born as women mentally, or develop gender dysphoria, theyre not in the same boat, socially speaking, as women-born-women. the second hypothesis being scientifically false of course

[Rosa Partizan]

http://*****magazine.org/post/terf-war-the-new-yorkers-one-sided-article-undermines-transgender-identity

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

as far as i know there is such a thing as Gender Identity Watch run by a self-proclaimed radfem called Cathy Brennan (who i'm sure has already been mentioned) who are violent and abusive transmisogynists. I've always understood TERF to mean someone who identifies as a radical feminists and rejects the idea that trans women are women at all, maintaining that they are men who maintain male privilege and arguing that trans women are somehow infiltrating womens' spaces. It seems reasonably clear cut to me but obviously as a cis man i don't (and can't) really have any nuanced understanding of this.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"terf" is absolutely a slur
They describe themselves as radical feminists, and they are trans exclusive (a necessary distinction because some radfems are pro-trans). So how is it a slur to call them trans exclusive radical feminists? How is shortening it to TERF a slur?

[TC]

And then we have people like TC coming in and claiming ignorance about what TERFs are up to. She clearly has an anti-trans agenda of her own.

And then we have you, who defames someone on the internet with utterly baseless accusations lacking any reality whatsoever.

Troll someone else, I'm not going to be cowed into whatever your preferred dogma is because you falsely accused me of having an "anti-trans agenda", I'm just going to ignore if you can't be civil and I'll talk to the people who can be decent about disagreement instead.

You have however provided an illustration of how imagined and paranoid witch hunting suspicion over 'TERFs' creates a political pretext to bully feminists.

I have no problem with you personally and I haven't attacked you or attributed you false political motives like undermining the feminist movement or some such thing. I would appreciate if you extend the same courtesy.

[TC]

I believe people are too quick to jump down people's throats and I have no interest in doing that, if you say you support trans-rights I'll believe that, I think one has to talk to someone and find out what their perspective is before making a valuable assessment.

Great, me too!

And yet it took you all of a single post (with no additional comments by anyone else!) to degenerate into this trollish comment:



So please, take your dichotomy argument of "trans people/those who support them are oppressing feminists by using term 'TERF'" and just... stop doing that. Go to the Opposing Ideologies section.

Yeah, I said no such thing. You're jumping down my throat without considering my perspective and **making shit up** about what I've argued. Find where I said "trans people" were "oppressing feminists". Seriously.

You need to take a step back. I'm not your enemy. I'm not against the rights of trans people or anyone else. If you can't discuss narrow disagreements with someone like me who shares the same broad ideological commitments and the same substantive policy preferences, how are you going to persuade or engage with anyone who doesn't but who nonetheless needs to be convinced in order to achieve social change?

[TC]

It's objectionable to a subset of certain gay men who say it "sounds like sissy", it's objectionable to heterosexual cisgenderpeople who say "you can't label me." I don't care, I really, really don't. Yes - it's predicated on respecting self-identification, but not at the expense of others. Giving a logical dictionary term (logical because cis is the latin alternate to trans) to what one already is, this is not "disrespecting" self-identification. It's simply providing a dictionary term where none has existed.

This is important - if cis women are just "women" and trans women are "trans women", then "trans women" will always, basically, be "secondary women" (and the same goes for cis/trans men). It makes one side "normalized" and the other, well, "the other". Cis and Trans simply gives a term to people who already were Cis without changing anything about their identity, while making gender discussions easier, and while recognizing the legitimacy of trans women and men as women and men.

What's the alternative. Call cis people "normal"? That's not acceptable.



It's less problematic to refer to "cis women/trans women" than to "women/trans women" or worse "real women/trans women", which are the exact reasons "cis" was invented. If you're not trans, why get upset overt being described as "not trans"? It's not an identity being foisted on you.

I don't have a problem with the phrase "not trans" or "non-trans" or "person who isn't trans" or any other variant. Those present totally appropriate alternatives.

I do think that using "real" or "normal" or whatever as an alternative to "cis" is bigoted.

As a feminist I don't believe that "real women" or "real men" are meaningful or credible concepts because I recognize that gender is socially constructed and has no reality beyond the socio-cultural meaning and the role in the patriarchal power hierarchy.

I also reject the concept of "normal [anything]" because what is normalized is dictated by hierarchical gender role ideology which is incompatible with equality.


Cis is a problematic because in the widely understood meaning it is defined as one whose brain sex, or innate gender identity, is in harmony with the gender that they were assigned at birth. Feminists reject the notion of innate gender identity and brian sex as essentialist and incompatible with gender as a inculcated, performative, cultural phenomena that is imposed on people through intersubjective understanding mediated by social power. As such, feminist theory rejects the notion that those who are not trans have a harmonious relationship between their innate selves and their social gender because gender is not innate but a socio-cultural phenomena and is a site of power dynamics and hierarchy.

In this way, it is perfectly consistent to support rights and equality for trans people while rejecting the notion that non-trans people are *cis*. It is however not consistent to insist that self-identification must be respected while imposing an unwanted label on other people that implicitly requires them to accept a theoretical position that they reject.


This blog post elaborates (as usual offered without any endorsement):



On closer inspection of the concept of “cisgender,” however, feminism and trans theory quickly diverge. Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. Feminism claims that gender is a much more complicated (and sinister) social phenomenon than this popular cis/trans binary has any hope of capturing.

First, “masculinity” and “femininity” are not monolithic, static concepts that are wholly embraced or wholly discarded. Socially assigned gender roles encompass entire lives’ worth of behaviors and expectations, from cradle to grave. Most people’s identification with their “gender” assignment is not a simple Y/N. One may be aesthetically gender conforming, but at the same time, behaviorally non-conforming. Or vice versa. Or some combination of both. Most of us are not walking, talking stereotypes. It is unusual for a person to both appear and behave in unmodified identification with their assigned gender at birth. For example, a female-born person might wear pink dresses and lots of makeup, but behave in an assertive, detached, and highly intellectual manner. Or a female-born person might appear very androgynous, without any feminine adornment at all, but express herself gently, quietly, and with graceful concern for those around her. What about a female who is aggressive and competitive in her professional life, but submissive and emotional in her personal life? Who decides whether an individual is sufficiently identified with to be considered “cis”? Or sufficiently non-identified with to be “trans”? “Cis” and “trans” do not describe discrete social classes from which political analysis can be extrapolated.

Additionally, one’s identification with their “gender” may change over time. Gender is not an immutable characteristic. While some people argue that “gender identity” is a deeply felt, unchanging personal quality;[ii] the existence and prominence of late-transitioning[iii] trans people drags this claim into very questionable territory. One may be gender conforming for many years, then slowly or suddenly reject the characteristics of their assigned gender. How an individual identifies in reference to their gender, whether it be masculinity or femininity, is not necessarily stable, nor should it have to be.

The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;” nor does it address people with hostile relationships to gender in general. As a woman-born-woman who rejects femininity as females’ destiny, I surely do not identify with my assigned gender in the way that “cis” describes. Indeed, no one holding radical feminist/anti-essentialist views about gender could be considered “cis” because, by definition of these views, we reject gender as a natural social category that every person identifies with. Feminists do not believe that everyone has a “gender identity,” or that we all possess some kind of internal compass directing our identification with “gender.”

Identifying with something is an internal, subjective experience. Self-assessments of gender do not equal self-awareness, nor do they provide insight as to how gendered oppression operates in the broader, external social sphere.


"By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other."

The cis/trans* binary does not break down any structures of normalcy because it doesn’t describe how such systems operate. It doesn’t explain how a person will be treated by society or what kind(s) of power they hold relative to others. External observers cannot reliably determine whether someone considers herself “cis” or “trans;” they simply pass judgment by categorizing superficial expressions of masculinity or femininity as appropriate or inappropriate. In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years.

...

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. While a man’s gender conformity with masculinity—both aesthetic and behavioral— will substantially insulate him from sex and gender motivated oppression and violence, a woman’s appropriate conformity to stereotypical femininity does not. The 2011 SlutWalk campaign (hopefully) served as a grave reminder that victim-blaming, woman-blaming rhetoric is alive and well in mainstream social discourse. The perception that women “bring it on ourselves” or “ask for it” when we dress in certain, undeniably feminine ways is very wrong, but also very real. Some predators are even documented as specifically targeting conventionally “attractive” women.

...

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of beauty for women, feminine-appearing women (trans or not) will be eye-catching targets for misogynistic violence because of their perceived “beauty.” In other words, because they are feminine-conforming.

Further, socially defined feminine behaviors such as hospitality, care-taking, and a socially structured desire for male sexual attention contribute to women’s vulnerability to exploitation. When a woman’s social performance (trans or not) is consistent with feminine subordination to male authority, rapists and other abusers may target these women as easy victims on the assumption that they will be less likely to resist unwanted advances.

Feminine socialization conditions women to be accommodating to others, listen politely and attentively, and express emotional concern for those who appear downtrodden. As a result, women still make up the majority of workers in underpaid “caring professions” such as social work, teaching, and nursing. This tendency towards altruism and giving of trust allow feminine-behaving people to be taken advantage of by those who recognize it as an opportunity to leverage their “feminine” generosity for personal gain.

...

The behavioral characteristics of femininity are economically and intellectually devalued as compared to the traits of masculinity. Power is gendered. As a result, males continue to control almost all of the world’s resources and power, including the positions of institutional authority required to direct social reform. Within this patriarchal context, women’s compliance with feminine behavioral norms simply does not result in social empowerment. It can’t. And it won’t. Because “gender” isn’t designed to work that way.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic masculinity and femininity intact,isn’t going to rectify this imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing.

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”

http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/

[PhoenixAsh]

This whole thread is the logical outcome of identity politics.

People seem to forget that just because it calls it self feminist (or whatever)...and may have some nice ideas or goals that seem support worthy...doesn't mean the rest of their ideology, political agenda or goals are savory as well. And the vast majority of almost all identity movements is made up of reactionaries or those with a bourgeois (petit or not) mentality who want equality or separation but have no other political agenda.

*

BUT.

TC is not a TERF. Nor is she saying trans exclusion is a good thing. Nor is she defending TERF.

What she is however saying, and with which I strangely (given out history of completely disagreeing) agree, is that the accusation of being trans-exclusionary is used against feminists who are not trans exclusionary to shut them up.

[TC]

Replying to PhoenixAsh, it should be pointed out that if someone holds an essentialist or metaphysical view on gender such that they think there can be "real" and non-"real" men or women, they are approaching gender from a non-feminist position. Whether they self-identify as "feminists" or not, their position is not a feminist one because feminism stands for a view of gender as a socially constructed phenomena not inevitably or naturally derivable from sex differences (whether those sex differences are in chromosomes, phenotype, or brains).

As such I would suggest that the people who are actually "trans-exclusionary" in the sense that has been discussed here are not actually feminists, and the feminists who reject the innate-gender model are not actually trans-exclusionary. "TERF" may then be a null set when used properly and instead form a politically correct basis of another way of telling feminists to shut up about the problems feminism identifies.

(yes I know that some tiny set of genuinely bigoted people call themselves feminists but they aren't "feminists" anymore than Sarah Pailin is a "feminist" despite her self-identification as one)

[Rosa Partizan]

if there's one thing I learned while dealing with feminism, it's that any good, valuable or important concept can be misused to shut people's criticism or arguments down, the same goes with "slutshaming". I'm not saying anyone here tried to use TERF as a buzzword to shut a discussion down, but Phoenix is right that it can become some kind of buzzword to avoid a more detailed, in-depth discussion with valid points.

[Orange Juche]

This whole thread is the logical outcome of identity politics.

People seem to forget that just because it calls it self feminist (or whatever)...and may have some nice ideas or goals that seem support worthy...doesn't mean the rest of their ideology, political agenda or goals are savory as well. And the vast majority of almost all identity movements is made up of reactionaries or those with a bourgeois (petit or not) mentality who want equality or separation but have no other political agenda.

*

BUT.

TC is not a TERF. Nor is she saying trans exclusion is a good thing. Nor is she defending TERF.

What she is however saying, and with which I strangely (given out history of completely disagreeing) agree, is that the accusation of being trans-exclusionary is used against feminists who are not trans exclusionary to shut them up.

Thanks for not cissplaining/mansplaining, bro! ;) I'm so glad you're not a reactionary and not in a position of power in these forums!

[Orange Juche]

This whole thread is the logical outcome of identity politics.

People seem to forget that just because it calls it self feminist (or whatever)...and may have some nice ideas or goals that seem support worthy...doesn't mean the rest of their ideology, political agenda or goals are savory as well. And the vast majority of almost all identity movements is made up of reactionaries or those with a bourgeois (petit or not) mentality who want equality or separation but have no other political agenda.

*

BUT.

TC is not a TERF. Nor is she saying trans exclusion is a good thing. Nor is she defending TERF.

What she is however saying, and with which I strangely (given out history of completely disagreeing) agree, is that the accusation of being trans-exclusionary is used against feminists who are not trans exclusionary to shut them up.

You know why you can have a nice warm cup of go fuck yourself, mate? Have a seat and let me explain.

You label this thread the "outcome of identity politics" and then go on to say "And the vast majority of almost all identity movements is made up of reactionaries or those with a bourgeois (petit or not) mentality who want equality or separation but have no other political agenda." Oh no - no fucking nuance or anything, reality is just your black and white Marxist brocialist bullshit. We don't live in some complex world where things are intertwined and yes - capitalism creates patriarchy all relating to homophobia and transphobia and all these things are connected. But it's not your fucking life, so I'm just bougie as fuck, aren't I? I might as well be sucking the Monopoly Guy's cock.

No, I don't know what in shit's sake I'm talking about, I'm only part of a marginalized group of people that has a suicide attempt rate of 41% (I'm fucking happy to say I've never been one and hope never to be), that's at a massive risk of violence (you know, just a good old fashioned ass kicking, kind of like Nazi thuggery people had to deal with, or what minorities deal with thanks to Golden Dawn right now.) and homelessness - and that's more than acutely aware of what's going on as far as how often "silencing tactics" are used, and just how real those people are. Those fucking people are that don't want me around - mind you, I made no accusations here against anyone. I never said "X person is a TERF", in fact, nobody actually said "X person is a TERF". I honestly don't FUCKING KNOW!

Go read your theology or Bakunin or whatever you refer to it as, you thoughtless, cissplaining, mansplaining shit, from your fucking armchair. I'll go live my shitty dangerous life with my shitty life expectancy rate because of the constant threat of violence, all only because I exist in public sometimes, but no, it's fucking identity politics. You shouldn't be allowed to post here, much less be a fucking moderator. Piss off.

And watch you close this, because you're a fucking coward. Or suspend, or ban me. Technically aren't I your "forum elder", you donkey shite? Some toughass poster who joined in 2011. Pssht.

You want sugar in that fucking tea, mate?

GET FUCKED.

[Orange Juche]

"terf" is absolutely a slur... against feminist militants struggling against the patriarchal ideology of gender, which is finding its way into feminist circles under the banner of trans-feminism. not to speak in the name of radical feminists, but it's not a struggle against transexuality. much of the hateful commentary in this thread attests to the fact that terf is employed as a slur. it's disturbing that feminists are being bullied by other self proclaimed feminists for standing up to this patriarchal propaganda that gender is somehow a spontaneous individual phenomenon

Dude, what fucking planet do you live on? "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist" - it's a definition. It defines. If "Men Eating Pastrami Sandwiches" were called fucking MEPS it wouldn't be a FUCKING SLUR why in the hell is this so hard to comprehend. I suppose some people may use it as "hateful," but where? When? How was it used as hateful here? What kind of fucking hallucinogens are you on that make you so detached from reality that you see hate speech here?

Nobody is being bullied. This is like when Christians say they're being bullied - this isn't fucking happening. And you're a dude (you proclaim so in another post elsewhere here), so shut the fuck up, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Orange Juche]

And then we have you, who defames someone on the internet with utterly baseless accusations lacking any reality whatsoever.

Troll someone else, I'm not going to be cowed into whatever your preferred dogma is because you falsely accused me of having an "anti-trans agenda", I'm just going to ignore if you can't be civil and I'll talk to the people who can be decent about disagreement instead.

You have however provided an illustration of how imagined and paranoid witch hunting suspicion over 'TERFs' creates a political pretext to bully feminists.

I have no problem with you personally and I haven't attacked you or attributed you false political motives like undermining the feminist movement or some such thing. I would appreciate if you extend the same courtesy.

For the love of the green damn grass, quit playing the fucking victim card you shite. Yes, you're oppressed as a woman - but not by trans-women, as a RadFem. And to state the obvious, I'm not saying women aren't oppressed, I'm not a fucking idiot, I identify as one. I'm saying people very specifically like you clearly pretend that trans-women frequently use TERF as a slur to attack radical feminists (you've made that clear here) and that isn't fucking true.

So you call "bullshit" on my saying you're creating a dichotomy between trans-women and, well, essentially, you - but that's what you're doing "I'm constantly attacked by trans-women!" Really? Fucking... really? I'm not denying it happens - just like white people face prejudice from blacks and men face unbelievable shit from women - I'm saying it's not a notable occurrence. "Cracker" isn't a slur, "Dick" isn't a slur, and while the "Oppression olympics" is total bullshit - I'm sorry if you don't want to accept this, but you do have more privilege in society - TERF is as much as a slur as "Cracker" or "Dick". RadFems aren't the constant "victims" of trans-women. Danielle merely pointed out that you kind of must be aware of that because it's the glaring reality. That's what makes you sound like an MRA. That's what makes you sound questionable. You very well could be super un-TERF like, I don't fucking know - I don't want to throw that out willy nilly. But I'm not going to sit here and let you act like you're being oppressed by trans-women using a fucking acronym that's a defining term, which is factually a bullshit claim, without calling you out.
So I don't really feel sympathy for your argument considering that, especially when - like I said like a post ago - trans people, particularly trans-women, face the threat of violence and depression and homelessness and have a super high attempted suicide rate. Or a fucking face beating more than any other group I'm aware of.

And you can't even say "cis". You'd rather say "normal". And that's fine, go on favoriting brocialist moderator's posts noting that this is all identity politics that's having issues with this shit is bougie as fuck and all that.

After ten years, fuck this place, seriously. It's not a safe space for trans-people, clearly.

It's an armchair philosophy masterbatorium.

[#FF0000]

For the love of the green damn grass, quit playing the fucking victim card you shite. Yes, you're oppressed as a woman - but not by trans-women, as a RadFem.

I don't want to speak for anyone else but I don't think that's what TC was saying in the least.


Thanks for not cissplaining/mansplaining, bro!

it was actually just "explaining" because you're wrong and just calling people names/misrepresenting their views instead of discussing anything.

[Coatimundi]

TERF is not a slur. If you call yourself a Radical Feminist, and believe Trans Women don't belong in your feminism, you are trans exclusionary, and also a radical feminist; a trans exclusionary radical feminist or, in acronym form, TERF. It accurately describes radical feminists who believe Trans Women have no place in their movement.

Cis, is not a slur. It means you aren't trans, and that's it. It doesn't mean you support the stereotypes or gender roles assigned to your gender. If you were assigned female at birth, and you consider yourself to be a girl/woman/female, than you are Cis. Anyone who believes Cis means that you support/agree with/conform to stereotypes and roles assigned to your gender doesn't understand what Cis means, and I've never heard a Trans Woman express that opinion, only Cis people. Like it or not, if you aren't Trans, you are Cis, and if you're a Radical Feminist who excludes Trans Women, you are a TERF. Neither words are slurs, and if a Trans Woman even tried to use them as such, they would have as much effect as an employee telling their boss "You're fired!"; because Trans Women do not have privilege over Cis people, in the relationship between Trans people and Cis people, the power to oppress is polarized in the Cis people's favor. I'm not saying Cis people aren't or cant be oppressed, just that they can't be oppressed for being Cis.

[Orange Juche]

I don't want to speak for anyone else but I don't think that's what TC was saying in the least.

it was actually just "explaining" because you're wrong and just calling people names/misrepresenting their views instead of discussing anything.

I can't read that through your condescension and privilege you MASSIVE SHITE.

"You're wrong." Got me there, champ!

Fuck off. The diarrhea squirts shooting out of your fingertips are disinteresting to me at most, reactionary and privileged at worse, so fuck your way off to another thread, kthanks. Like in Opposing Ideologies.

:lol:

[#FF0000]

I can't read that through your condescension and privilege you MASSIVE SHITE.

"You're wrong." Got me there, champ!

Fuck off. The diarrhea squirts shooting out of your fingertips are disinteresting to me at most, reactionary and privileged at worse, so fuck your way off to another thread, kthanks. Like in Opposing Ideologies.

:lol:

the cool thing is that I didn't actually even say anything other than you're misrepresenting other people's positions in this thread. sorry dogg but I understand getting angry about an issue one takes seriously but you're twisting other people's words and calling out "privilege" to deflect criticism.

[Rosa Partizan]

probably I'm massive shite, too (of course I am), but bad ideas is right. You read stuff between the lines that's not at all implied. No one's trivializing problems transpeople have to face, or relativizing all that shit that's happening to them every day in every part of the world.

[Orange Juche]

If the thread could be kept open at least long enough for me to make one more post I'd appreciate it. It won't be profanity laden nor attacking anyone, nor sarcastic. Hopefully, it'll actually benefit the thread.

[Quail]

a defining trait of the female gender, historically, is that it is imposed on people when theyre born, forcefully subjecting them to that role. whether transwomen choose their gender, are allegedly born as women mentally, or develop gender dysphoria, theyre not the same as women-born-women. the second hypothesis being scientifically false of course

Regardless of whether or not this is true, I am curious to know how holding such a belief would impact your organising as a feminist? Would you organise in "women only" spaces, and who would be welcome in such a space?

[Orange Juche]

I understand that some of you certainly think I went overboard, some of you probably to the point of "what the hell, really, on a damn forum?" Here's the thing I think is really important to understand about my reaction -

We all live a life, you know? And the conditions are different, and culminate in something unique that creates our unique experience. I can't directly speak to anyone else's being and how that's shaped them and what that's made them, I can relate to those like me, but still cannot even speak to them. I can speak to some shared experiences, however.

I remember, I don't know why it was yesterday more than today (I guess I was half awake and had little time this morning), waking up and looking in the mirror yesterday. And there was just this feeling in the pit of my stomach, you know? Within seconds, I went from a fairly nice dream to feeling almost sick, to what I can only describe as screaming inside. I almost broke down (emotionally) at one point about an hour later, it was a blur of a day. It feels good though, when I'm looking away, and I'm not talking, and I think it's all different. Just moments, you know? Those help, a lot. It's not dresses & make-up, how many women constantly wear that shit? I mean, those are cultural red flags of femininity, I guess, so one is trained to them... but it's not that. I feel like I'm constantly in a lead suit, presenting one way helps but it doesn't fix. Nothing really, really can. This is really only a condensed, simple version of it.

Now, I'm not trying to give you some sob story, I'm privileged as hell in so many other ways, and I'm damn lucky for it. Soooo many other people have historically, and currently do, suffer far worse injustices than I - I acknowledge that. I don't want pity or any of that nonsense, it's degrading. Respect - that's it - I, like every person on the planet - want respect. Let's not deny, though, two things 1) Trans* issues aren't well understood, even amongst leftist circles. and 2) In the west, the Trans* community really can have a rough go (violence, homelessness, etc).

I'd like to address issue 2 here - TERFs. When I use it, in this post, in this very specific context - I mean it with an italics on the TE. Trans-exclusionary. The people who go out of their way to find out who is trans, harass them, deadname them on anti-trans websites with pics of them mocking them, work toward anti-trans legislation - these are very specific individuals. Some of them don't put quite the effort into it, they merely morally support these actions and go "f*ck yeah!" every time other TERFs do these things - but that's what TERFs are. That's why people like me use that word, it's simply a definition - the RF is because TERFs define themselves as radical feminists, we're saying "these one's happen to be trans-exclusionary". It's a word to differentiate between radical feminists who are legit (and I'm totally cool with radical feminists who aren't TERFs and much love) and the ones who hate trans-people.

The accusation that trans-women use TERF to silence debate on any reasonable scale, that this is problematic is in itself problematic because it simply isn't true, and ultimately hurts trans people to make the accusation (and TERFs - real TERFs - are a legitimate danger to trans people). It's similar to "Not all men!". Well of course not all men. And yes of course, instances like that will occur with trans-women - the law of probability states as much. Any trans person I've ever, ever met doesn't throw the word around lightly. Because it's not a light word to throw around - and it's always at people that show a very clear and obvious hatred toward trans people, use slurs, deadname, advocate really negative things towards trans-women etc. The things here I'd argue have been semantic crappiness, but not what I just mentioned. Notice I said "F*ck" about a thousand times but somehow didn't call anyone a TERF still while freaking out. It's a serious thing.

I don't know that TC is a TERF, but if she were then she'd have to be lying because she's said things that would indicate she doesn't exclude trans people (which then defeats the definition "TERF"). But she's said things that aren't true, that detract from serious vitriol and organization against trans-people - and that's problematic. I'm not saying it was an intentional ploy, I don't think it was, but it's what happened (I would say). I've already stated the factual inaccuracy of the claims made regarding "TERF" as a "silencing" tool. It's not even a slur - I've never once heard it used other than as a direct reference to actual people who were being trans-exclusionary. With all due respect (I mean that) these are wildly inaccurate analysis of trans-women relating to radical feminism that, when promoted, are not only destructive toward the actual plight of all the real problems I mentioned while freaking out - but do make TC, because of that, seem slightly suspect because of that - even if unintentionally. I'm sorry, but that's the case. When you face those kinds of people (the real TERFs), and then people state really blatantly inaccurate stuff like this and go on to say the term "Cis" shouldn't exist - does it not seem natural that maybe discomfort forms within people whom TERFs target? That Danielle's response came from an entirely legitimate place of "hey, red flag"? For those of you reading this - can you kind of see that, doesn't it at least sort of make sense?

And then - any further discussion on this as being "identity politics" basically feels like... well, imagine you live a certain life, poverty, trans, whatever it is and it's your experience, and you know it, and you've experienced pain because of it, and oppression, dehumanization, etc - this is a part of who you are, right? And it sucks, but you go on, you're living your life. And there's a place - this one place that you go every once in a while - where marginalized people are actually a foundation of who is thought of as who should be protected, respected and such, right? (Obviously RevLeft's focus isn't that particularly - but that's an aspect of it.)

Anyway - imagine suddenly some intellectuals, professors or some types discussing theses they're writing on poverty, trans issues, whatever - that they've never experienced - and you're just there. And you hear it. And you speak up, but it feels like they're speaking over you. But they haven't been there, they don't know it, it's just a concept to them - a simulated reality in their mind, while to you, it's your reality. That's never been reality to them. That's exactly how this felt. How it feels. Why I said "brocialism". This became semantics and intellectualism and armchair discussions, and there's real people with real suffering and experiences right here telling you, feeling not listened to. And, I'd argue, treated the same way. It was "Ah yes good fellow, this is how it is!" "Jolly true, chap, jolly true!" All from cis people. Yes, this is all a part of the broader system, but this part, you should probably be listening to the oppressed minority, not talking over them.

You want to know why I responded the way I did? Look at the thread. There's a little time between my last post and todays. That doesn't mean I haven't been watching this thread, I just haven't intended on posting in it. I didn't want anything more to do with such a f*cked topic. It's screwed up. And in a place I assumed would have continued as the thread started, I became increasingly upset and frustrated to see the turn it had taken. It is concerning, HERE OF ALL PLACES, to see those kind of red flags. To see transphobic comments ("Cis shouldn't exist as a term") even if the person isn't a TERF. To see some short poster say "YEAH IT'S A SLUR!" then bop out of the convo. Then to see a moderator dismissively throw it off with an identity politics comment. It's just not acceptable.

If anyone comments on this, I'm not going to bother responding - not to get the last word or whatever, I just don't have the damn energy anymore. I don't care. If you want to be right on a forum, whatever. Just... whatever. I don't care about explanations or justifications. I might not come back to this thread.

I might not log back on at all, because I'm thinking I'm more than likely - after 10 years - of never coming back. I don't say this to sound somber or dramatic, I don't post enough for people to really know who I am or care. That's fine. I do want anyone reading this to care about one thing though:

Assuming I do leave, it's because I don't feel comfortable here anymore. I don't feel like it's a safe space for trans-people. And like I said before, I don't speak for all trans-people and I'm certain not all would feel the same way. But I'm also certain that at least a moderate amount - enough worth noting - would have become very uncomfortable with the turn this thread has taken. And the fact that the reaction ended up not being "woah - this is a leftist forum - let's all sit down and evaluate exactly what's going on so we can make this a safe space" but rather an intellectual tug where in the end it was mostly only the trans-community standing up for the trans-community, in my opinion, makes this a potentially unsafe space either now or in the future for trans people, and a betrayal of the idea that oppressed minorities can't be crapped on here. Disappointing.

So if I leave, it's not that I left, I've been an irrelevant poster here. But please, do care why.

[TC]

You know why you can have a nice warm cup of go fuck yourself, mate? Have a seat and let me explain.
...

And watch you close this, because you're a fucking coward. Or suspend, or ban me. Technically aren't I your "forum elder", you donkey shite? Some toughass poster who joined in 2011. Pssht.

You want sugar in that fucking tea, mate?

GET FUCKED.


I can't read that through your condescension and privilege you MASSIVE SHITE.


Orange Juche, I'm sorry you're upset. But what you're writing is not based on anything I've written, anything PhoneixAsh has written, or anything that Bad Ideas Actualized By Admins has written. You're throwing a fit and lashing out because you haven't gotten everyone to utterly submit to and defer to you. It speaks of a lot of entitlement and not a serious effort to engage. No one else has even come close to the level vitriol you've been employing.

And as far as I can tell you're the only person who is being highly condescending complete with claims of privilege and authority as a 'forum elder' and telling Phoenix Ash to have a seat while you "explain" (i.e., insult).

Ironically just a page ago you suggested "I believe people are too quick to jump down people's throats and I have no interest in doing that, if you say you support trans-rights I'll believe that, I think one has to talk to someone and find out what their perspective is before making a valuable assessment."

Why not follow that?

[#FF0000]

And then - any further discussion on this as being "identity politics" basically feels like... well, imagine you live a certain life, poverty, trans, whatever it is and it's your experience, and you know it, and you've experienced pain because of it, and oppression, dehumanization, etc - this is a part of who you are, right? And it sucks, but you go on, you're living your life. And there's a place - this one place that you go every once in a while - where marginalized people are actually a foundation of who is thought of as who should be protected, respected and such, right? (Obviously RevLeft's focus isn't that particularly - but that's an aspect of it.)

k I think i see where you're coming from. It wasn't so much anything one thing TC said but more like the dismissive "identity politics" comment being the last straw on top of ~life~, yeah?

[Orange Juche]

k I think i see where you're coming from. It wasn't so much anything one thing TC said but more like the dismissive "identity politics" comment being the last straw on top of ~life~, yeah?

Well it was a few things TC said - I'm not saying she is a TERF (I'm saying as far as I know right now, in fact, she's not), because she hasn't said anything trans-exclusionary. But saying "Cis" shouldn't exist as a term and "normal" works and is okay is transphobic - end of story (and trans-people would overwhelmingly agree. Not all, but most). She should be put in OI for that, end of story - but we're represented like shit and I'd bet money the mods/admins* would continue to let that be said (oh, I'd love to be surprised, believe me). It would be very different if someone came in here saying "stop calling me heterosexual, call me 'normal'". So that kind of permeating attitude, continuing - everything I covered in that long post, got old quick. The weird things, red flags like I said - they made me uncomfortable really quick (and probably Danielle, and any other trans-person who would have seen those posts) I should have said something at first, and it would have been fairly calm. But is that what we want here? It to be just okay that somebody says transphobic stuff that makes a marginalized group uncomfortable, people go "meh" and a moderator goes into some b.s. about identity politics?

The dismissive "identity politics" mixed with life, I would agree, set that off - yes, if it weren't for that combination I would have been pissed but said nothing, probably. I don't mean this as some "FUCK YOU GUY!" comment, but PhoenixAsh is acting like a Manarchist, there's no two ways about that.

Here's the big problem - cis people with more privilege talking over trans people with less, telling them how it is. That's a problem. Society at large shits on trans people, the LGBT community shits on the T, and honesty, leftists at large don't really understand trans issues that well so leftists aren't very good defenders of trans-people nor are very protective. So, people get into philosophical semantics and absolute rubbish, cis people start talking over trans people (think of it in different social contexts and it becomes more apparent how messed up it is), and nothing happens. People just get away with it. I can't think of another marginalized group this would happen with.

*they're not all bad, just enough of them are that nothing's being done. there are really good ones, fyi

[Rosa Partizan]

where did TC say that normal is the right term for non trans people?

I only found this, and it's the exact opposite.


I do think that using "real" or "normal" or whatever as an alternative to "cis" is bigoted.

[...]

I also reject the concept of "normal [anything]" because what is normalized is dictated by hierarchical gender role ideology which is incompatible with equality.

[Orange Juche]

You think simply rejecting the political label of "cis" is concerning? I thought one of the a core political commitments of trans-rights was predicated on respecting the self-identification and labels people want to adopt rather than imposing them on others.

This

[Rosa Partizan]

either my English skills are inadequate or there is nowhere in this post implied that being cis is normal. I'd like to hear some other opinions on it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You have however provided an illustration of how imagined and paranoid witch hunting suspicion over 'TERFs' creates a political pretext to bully feminists.
The only problem with that is the people frequently calling out TERFs are themselves feminists (sometimes even pro-trans radical feminists). The only feminists I routinely see complain about "bullying" are TERFs. If you say you're not anti-trans, fine, but perhaps you can appreciate how I got that impression.

[Orange Juche]

either my English skills are inadequate or there is nowhere in this post implied that being cis is normal. I'd like to hear some other opinions on it.

I will admit that I misread the one sentence, and I read it like twice the first time I read it (after it was posted) so I don't know how that happened. I apologize for that mistake, to everyone involved.

It's still transphobic to position it as trans and non-trans though, so the point still stands.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't see the problem with cis anyway, beginning from a linguistic point of view. It's just latin and means sth like "here" or so, not "over there" as trans.

[Orange Juche]

either my English skills are inadequate or there is nowhere in this post implied that being cis is normal. I'd like to hear some other opinions on it.

And "non-trans" vs "trans" comes with the innate implication that "cis is normal", regardless if one rejects "cis", "normal", or both. It naturally implies "this one is default" (the one that isn't this thing we have to label) "and this one isn't" (the one that IS this thing we have to label). It'd be like "gay people" and "people that aren't gay". It's kinda really fucked up.

[Orange Juche]

Yeah but like I said, and I'm sure a number of you'll be glad to see the back of me, I'm out and won't be back unless this place drafts a policy that OIs/bans transphobic bullshit and stops it from happening I'm hoping trans people don't join because other people shouldn't have to deal with that nonsense.

And like I said, I've been an irrelevant poster, so this isn't about some bullshit dramatics of me leaving. It's about why. This forum failed when it came to one of the most marginalized groups.

I'm cissplained to enough elsewhere, thanks, I don't need it from here of all places.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Cis is a problematic because in the widely understood meaning it is defined as one whose brain sex, or innate gender identity, is in harmony with the gender that they were assigned at birth.
Perhaps that's how you interpret it, but cis is simply the opposite of trans, i.e. not trans. That's its most widely understood meaning in this context. When most trans activists use it, that's what we use it to mean.


In this way, it is perfectly consistent to support rights and equality for trans people while rejecting the notion that non-trans people are *cis*.
Since "cis" means "not trans", describing non-trans people as "cis" isn't inappropriate in a context of distinguishing between trans and non-trans people. Indeed, it's the least problematic way to do so.


It is however not consistent to insist that self-identification must be respected while imposing an unwanted label on other people that implicitly requires them to accept a theoretical position that they reject.
If the worst thing that happens to a person in a day is they get described somewhere as "cis", they have a pretty privileged life. No one is asking anyone to adopt an identity of "cis". It's simply being used in context as a descriptor.


This blog post elaborates (as usual offered without any endorsement):
Are you telling me there's no other way to elaborate except for quoting from a TERF site?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What she is however saying, and with which I strangely (given out history of completely disagreeing) agree, is that the accusation of being trans-exclusionary is used against feminists who are not trans exclusionary to shut them up.
The reality is that the people calling out TERFs are most often other feminists, so to say anti-feminists use the label TERF to silence feminists in general is fucking absurd.

[consuming negativity]

Some of the posters ITT have the IQ of a toaster. How about we just call women "women" and move on? :glare:

[Rosa Partizan]

Some of the posters ITT have the IQ of a toaster. How about we just call women "women" and move on? :glare:

Don't get insulting, c'mon...my IQ is at least as high as a baking oven's one.

[PhoenixAsh]

The dismissive "identity politics" mixed with life, I would agree, set that off - yes, if it weren't for that combination I would have been pissed but said nothing, probably. I don't mean this as some "FUCK YOU GUY!" comment, but PhoenixAsh is acting like a Manarchist, there's no two ways about that.

Actually it is you, as a "forum elder" who is acting like a complete fucking asshole who misunderstood the entirety of my post which was written as an attack against TERFs and in defense of trans-inclusion.

But sure...I am talking "over" you and "mansplaining" and being a "manarchist" and directing my comments entirely against you and transpeople instead of attacking TERF positions.

I will remind you of this:


And the fact that the reaction ended up not being "woah - this is a leftist forum - let's all sit down and evaluate exactly what's going on so we can make this a safe space" but rather an intellectual tug where in the end it was mostly only the trans-community standing up for the trans-community, in my opinion, makes this a potentially unsafe space either now or in the future for trans people, and a betrayal of the idea that oppressed minorities can't be crapped on here. Disappointing.

What the fuck did you contribute to this? Nothing. That is what. In fact you yourself created an environment in this thread which is completely oppositional to your statement here and that is toxic to any reasonable evaluation.

Now what set you off exactly?

That I said some users here are surprised and seem to forget some feminists are reactionary? That we should not forget that even if it calls itself feminist groups can be thoroughly reactionary and have shit politics outside that one seemingly support worthy goal? That I said some self proclaimed feminists aren't feminists? That some people who claim they are feminists are actually reactionary? Of that eventually, when we are talking about identities...identity groups will define who does and doesn't fit a certain identity? And that this inclusion can be thoroughly reactionary, xenophobic, sexist, racist and mysogenist? Or that the vast majority of people active in identity politics operate within the spectrum and convines of liberalism and bourgeois mentality? Or that I implied that just because something claims to be a certain label doesn't mean it shouldn't be analyzed?

All this could have been surmised from what I wrote. Especially because of the included "BUT" as a transition to state that I think TC is not transexclusive and not part of the liberal bourgeois part of the feminist movement.

So unless you are under the mistaken impression that all identity political groups or supporters operate on a revolutionary platform as this site understand the term revolutionary...I am not entirely sure why my comments specifically directed at TERFs warranted you to write such an excessive rant other than you being thoroughly mistaken....just like you where mistaken about TC claiming CIS was normal.

[PhoenixAsh]

The reality is that the people calling out TERFs are most often other feminists, so to say anti-feminists use the label TERF to silence feminists in general is fucking absurd.

Feminists are not a uniform group and there are individual gripes, group feuds etc.

Aside from the fact the term most certainly is used by anti-feminists or self proclaimed feminists. The term TERF is also applied wrongly in many instances in order to shut a specific individual down. I have seen this happen in different groups.

To say it is absurd is absurd....but perhaps so as a result of different experiences.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Feminists are not a uniform group and there are individual gripes, group feuds etc.
As a feminist, I'm quite aware of that.


Aside from the fact the term most certainly is used by anti-feminists or self proclaimed feminists.
Anti-feminists and TERFs tend to share the same views on trans women, and they sometimes have allied themselves in common cause against trans women.

[PhoenixAsh]

As a feminist, I'm quite aware of that.

Anti-feminists and TERFs tend to share the same views on trans women, and they sometimes have allied themselves in common cause against trans women.

This is also true.

[Depardieu]

Regardless of whether or not this is true, I am curious to know how holding such a belief would impact your organising as a feminist? Would you organise in "women only" spaces, and who would be welcome in such a space?

transwomens' claim to the social condition of womanhood flies in the face of feminist ideology, as has already been elaborated upon in this thread

[Quail]

transwomens' claim to the social condition of womanhood flies in the face of feminist ideology, as has already been elaborated upon in this thread

You know what I think flies in the face of feminist goals and principles? Excluding from the movement some of the most marginalised women and people in our society.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Anti-feminists and TERFs tend to share the same views on trans women, and they sometimes have allied themselves in common cause against trans women.

There really should be a dating site for MRAs and TERFs. Jajaja! They'd go wonderfully together. :laugh:

[ClawsandAwws]

Found out about these types of Feminists recently and they seem like utter shit people. They are pretty much no better than MRA's, certainly not my comrades.:glare: