TERFs.. i just don't get it

[Rudolf]

So i've been trying to understand these "gender critical feminists" and i just can't make heads or tails of it. I know, i probably shouldn't bother but still it confuses me no end.

So i don't understand how they claim to be gender critical. From all the ones i've come across online they're guilty of some serious biological essentialism. I can't count the number of times i've seen these fools reducing womanhood to having a vagina, being able to give birth, breastfeed etc. I'm no expert on feminist theory or anything but that sounds remarkably like patriarchal bullshit.

Its more than that though.. how the fuck can they claim to be feminists when they make light of rape and reject bodily autonomy?


I'm wasting my time aren't i?

[Zoop]

You probably are wasting your time, honestly. They're nothing but transphobic asshats. Just because they call themselves feminists doesn't mean they aren't hideous bigots too.

TERF's lose our support as soon as they introduce a particularly vile form of bigotry into feminism.

[Rudolf]

Yeah you're right, they are just transphobic asshats. But you know when you've got a cut or a bruise and you just cant help poking it? It's kinda like that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes. Essentially.

Although the issue they seem to have with transgender is the socialisation part of gender resulting from assigned biological sex. Essentially they find Transgender to be an affirmation of gender itself and an acceptance of the gender binary. They view gender entirely as a social construct within a privilege based system and as a result their rather perplexing conclusion is that women (ass. male at birth) are essentially banking on this privilege to adopt a gender role while men (ass. female at birth) simply try to usurp male privilege for themselves.

[Rudolf]

Yes. Essentially.

Although the issue they seem to have with transgender is the socialisation part of gender resulting from assigned biological sex. Essentially they find Transgender to be an affirmation of gender itself and an acceptance of the gender binary. They view gender entirely as a social construct within a privilege based system and as a result their rather perplexing conclusion is that women (ass. male at birth) are essentially banking on this privilege to adopt a gender role while men (ass. female at birth) simply try to usurp male privilege for themselves.


The thing around the gender binary is just more confusing. As far as i'm aware the gender binary has as its implicit assumption that gender is set in stone and we can tell at birth (well, a bit before) based on genitals. It's just mind boggling that a bunch of people calling themselves gender critical can go and actively perpetuate the oppression of people whose very being conflicts with this.

[Comrade Jacob]

I can't count the number of times i've seen these fools reducing womanhood to having a vagina


I'm wasting my time aren't i?

There is so much more to being a woman than having vagina, so yes you are wasting your time. I don't see how feminists deserving of any credibility can be against gender minorities.

[BIXX]

Listen, there can be no rhyme nor reason to this madness, so don't try to figure it out. It's honestly better to eat glass.

[Armchair Partisan]

TERFs are a strange, self-contradictory bunch; they are not intersectional or progressive enough to be revolutionary feminists, yet for the moderate branches of feminism which aim to become institutionalized in patriarchal society, they are too radical. Ultimately, people hold self-contradictory views all the time, this is just one example.

[Luís Henrique]

So i've been trying to understand these "gender critical feminists" and i just can't make heads or tails of it. I know, i probably shouldn't bother but still it confuses me no end.

So i don't understand how they claim to be gender critical. From all the ones i've come across online they're guilty of some serious biological essentialism. I can't count the number of times i've seen these fools reducing womanhood to having a vagina, being able to give birth, breastfeed etc. I'm no expert on feminist theory or anything but that sounds remarkably like patriarchal bullshit.

I am very wary of "radical feminism", which I think is basically petty bourgeois ideology fancying itself as "radical" by making a pastiche of Marxist terminology (men and women become "classes", and normal feminine behaviour becomes "false consciousness", for instance). But I don't think that they reduce womanhood to "having a vagina", much less to maternity related issues such as giving birth or breastfeeding (if anything, they seem to think that having children is more or less tantamount to "class treason").

What I have seen, or rather read, they arguing is that womanhood is a social construct that is imposed from very early childhood - and consequently, that transwomen are not socialised as women, or that they are rather socialised as men, as oppressors consequently, and so that they miss an important, or the most important, constitutive part of being a woman.

I agree that their "gender criticism" isn't very convincing, for while they argue that gender should be abolished, they seem in practice to merely intend to reform genders (or, at least, the feminine gender) into something different (as in, not wanting to abolish gender stereotypes, but rather to impose different stereotypes of their preferences).

But I have read a person who reportedly "discovered" she was "a woman" because she went to a party in crossdress and "realized" that this was she wanted to be. Misguided as the radfem gender criticism may be, I find it impossible to not agree with them that there must be something more to being a woman than dressing as a woman.


Its more than that though.. how the fuck can they claim to be feminists when they make light of rape and reject bodily autonomy?

The rape part is something that I also think they do not do; rather they seem obsessed with rape and to live in a fantasy world where all women are raped all the time. Unless by "making light of rape" you mean they misclassify other kinds of sexual misbehaviour as rape.

I am not sure of what you mean by "rejecting bodily autonomy", but I would say I have read my fair share of bullshit in which "bodily autonomy" becomes a propertarian cornerstone for randians and miseans (it is my body and as such my property, and this justifies private property of anything I have "worked" upon).


I'm wasting my time aren't i?

Yes we are, but did we really had something better to do with it?

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

The rape part is somewhat more complex because they and usually a part of sex neg rad fem interpretations. They interpret consent within the confines of gender oppression and as such sexual preferences of women are modelled and socially constructed and enforced. From that follows that consent within such a context is always a false consent based on unequal hierarchy and social pressure. ...which leads to their logical conclusion that there is no actual consent. Every form of sexual intercourse is therefore based on a form of pressure and misguidance....and to them thus qualifies as a form of rape.

[Rudolf]

I am very wary of "radical feminism", which I think is basically petty bourgeois ideology fancying itself as "radical" by making a pastiche of Marxist terminology (men and women become "classes", and normal feminine behaviour becomes "false consciousness", for instance). But I don't think that they reduce womanhood to "having a vagina", much less to maternity related issues such as giving birth or breastfeeding (if anything, they seem to think that having children is more or less tantamount to "class treason").They were claims i came across on a terf blog. Interestingly though Germaine Greer has utilised the "smelly vagina" trope for the same purpose.



What I have seen, or rather read, they arguing is that womanhood is a social construct that is imposed from very early childhood - and consequently, that transwomen are not socialised as women, or that they are rather socialised as men, as oppressors consequently, and so that they miss an important, or the most important, constitutive part of being a woman.I think it's just a cover tbh. There are transwomen who were socialised as female from an early age who would still be rejected by terfs. Hell, i'm pretty sure if there was a female socialised as male against her will and during adulthood reclaimed her female identity that the terfs would accept her so long as her anatomy conforms.



But I have read a person who reportedly "discovered" she was "a woman" because she went to a party in crossdress and "realized" that this was she wanted to be. Misguided as the radfem gender criticism may be, I find it impossible to not agree with them that there must be something more to being a woman than dressing as a woman. I don't see what purpose this random anecdote has other than to imply that being trans is to do with gender roles.



The rape part is something that I also think they do not do; rather they seem obsessed with rape and to live in a fantasy world where all women are raped all the time. Unless by "making light of rape" you mean they misclassify other kinds of sexual misbehaviour as rape.I mean like this:

"All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves" - Janice Raymond.


Like somehow existing is raping women




I am not sure of what you mean by "rejecting bodily autonomy", but I would say I have read my fair share of bullshit in which "bodily autonomy" becomes a propertarian cornerstone for randians and miseans (it is my body and as such my property, and this justifies private property of anything I have "worked" upon). Dont' know why you'd bring up property rights. We all use the concept of bodily autonomy on this board when discussing abortion, it's only a logical extension of the same thing to use this when discussing trans medical care which terfs have a history of opposing.

[Luís Henrique]

words

I am sorry, I misunderstood your original post as proposing a meaningful discussion of "radical feminism".

Now I see, you only wanted to get social validation for your belief that these political critters are beneath meaningful discussion.

Yes, you are right. They are absurd, sexist, contradictory, and reactionary. Congratulations for your profound insight.

Luís Henrique