#‘separatist’ ideology

[radfeminized]

‼️‼️‼️ I created a Discord server that is radfem and TERF so please join if you would like to discuss things related to that and have a safe & private community without being judged and silenced‼️‼️‼️‼️ (im still working on the server so it will be constantly edited and better) 💜PLEASE REBLOG/SHARE THIS💜

[baabyydooll]

TRAs think that saying that a gc radfem is usually an old woman (and by their logic old means conservative and ignorant about the current things....somehow) like it's something bad. Lmao no, older women have experienced much more than a lot of them, know what they talk about and obviously have more knowledge about how the world is and works, how it's ruled by men even in female only spaces. I love them

[elysianmadness]

funny how you suddenly care about men harassing lesbians when you're the lesbian being harassed by men. but when other lesbians speak out against mspec "lesbians", you're suddenly jumping to defend them :)

Yes because I actually think we should blame the men harassing us instead of targeting and harassing innocent lesbians who did nothing but use a multifaceted label in a different way from you. Hope this helps! :)

[scratching92]

Okay I'm having more thoughts about Andor episode 7.

During this episode Mon Mothma makes reference in a conversation with an old friend that she's been attending Separatist Coalition meetings. Was Mon Mothma a Separatist? Palpatine's entire rise to power was precipitated upon the Separatist Crisis and the resulting Clone Wars, but from the way it sounds, it doesn't seem like the Separatist Coalition was an illegal organization so much as an organization to be infiltrated and monitored.

I'm fascinated by this. I've always been intrigued by Separatist ideology in Star Wars and curious about its roots and development (beyond Dooku's speeches). Maybe there were separate (ha!) schools of Separatist thought, and Dooku's was merely the largest and most influential. I'm curious if we'll get more on this in the rest of the episodes (especially since we already have the... weirdness of the Separatist-ship-that's-actually-a-Republic-ship in Cassian's backstory in the first three episodes).

[mithliya]

“so easily said from your teeny weeny disgusting putrid little LESBIAN™️ perspective” wow wondering how I as a celibate hetero woman haven’t disintegrated into thin air yet along with literal women only tribes or communities full of heterosexual women

thats the wild part to me, pretending my sexuality has anything to do with it when plenty of OSA women are saying this and are actively separatists (in a way MANY lesbians are not. being a lesbian doesnt mean being a separatist)

[is-this-really--life]

I actually do think separatism often leads to that type of anti-feminist thinking. Thinking that women who believe men can treat us like human beings and even find ones that do are stupid for not sharing your black and white ideology. You start out as a feminist and you end up something else entirely.

[cheesebearger]

"no no you dont understand! our separatist group is different and better! it won't succumb to any of the faults of exclusionary separatism at all, i promise!!!"

[oarfishing]

Alright, I'm sick of seeing TERFisms on my dash, so here's a handy list of TERF dogwhistles and talking points to think about before you reblog a post.

I've seen a few of these before, but it doesn't hurt to make more. Especially when we're seeing a lot of radfem rhetoric popping up in LGBT spaces from people who might not know better.

SCREENNAMES: these are terms that commonly appear in radfem usernames across the web

rad or radical

fem or femme

vulva, clit, uterus, womb, ovary, vagina, etc.

febfem

anything along the lines of "angry woman"

xx or chromosomes

wombyn, wimmin, womyn, etc.

LGB

feminist

BIOS: things that show up in radfem bios

♀ or ⚢

febfem

female separatist

female, human female, adult human female

xx

something along the lines of "the scary feminist you were warned about"; being an angry woman, being sick of being silenced, being an evil woman, being an angry lesbian

detrans (NOTE: detrans people are absolutely not always transphobic)

dysphoric female

males/men do not interact

LGB✂️

misandrist

feminist (NOTE: again, very few feminists are actually terfs, but this is commonly in terf bios alongside some of these other terms)

TERMS: terms that radfems use in their circles

TIM - trans-identified male, a way of saying transfems, trans women, and other trans people

TIF - trans-identified female, same as above but the other way around, less commonly seen

DSD - disorder of sexual development, a way to avoid saying intersex and to categorize intersex people as "still male or female" (you might see "males with DSD" or "females with DSD" for example)

females or males instead of women and men

alternatively, women and males to dehumanize men

"peaking" or "peaked" - referring to becoming radicalized as a radfem or TERF

womyn, wombyn, wimmin, wo**n, and any other spelling that takes "man" out of the term woman

mentally ill men/women

sex-based oppression

gender critical

"TIRF" - trans-inclusive radical feminist (don't be fooled by the name, they're very much not)

TRA - trans rights activist, derogatory

sex-based rights

female separatism/"women's land"

WBW - womyn-born womyn

autistic girls/children

troon - (ridiculous) slur for trans people

RHETORIC: general ideological themes in radfem rhetoric

men are inherently more violent than women

women don't or rarely rape men

(woman on woman rape is ignored by almost all radfems)

being nonbinary is a way to "stop being" your assigned sex while still acting as your birth sex

lesbians are not attracted to men/penises and can never have sex with men/penises (otherwise, you're bisexual)

men can and will never be lesbians

there is no such thing as a bi lesbian, only lesbians and bisexuals. labels are rigid and sex-based

all of the world's suffering is driven by men

women would be better off separate

an all-female society is utopia

sex is binary, and intersex people are "glitches" or "still male or female but DisorderedTM"

men should expect to be feared by women

female/female relationships are safer and more pure than straight or gay male relationships

men and women are more different than similar

intersex people should not be allowed in sports

intersex people and trans men are never in men's sports

terrible world events wouldn't have happened if women were in charge

men are stupid and aggressive

being a man is not a positive thing

men's problems are lesser than women's

penises are disgusting and vaginas and vulvas are beautiful

trans women are performing at being girls

trans men see themselves as above lesbians

attraction is sex-based

porn is rape

porn is inherently violent

watching porn makes you predisposed to inflicting abuse

BDSM is inherently violent and misogynistic

transitioning children (whether socially or medically) are being abused

"bitch" and "cunt" are slurs against women

only gay men can say faggot and only lesbian women can say dyke

When you see a few or more of these together, RUN! It's a terf.

[david-talks-sw]

Dooku didn't leave because of the Jedi.

At least, if you're going by George Lucas' word.

In deleted scenes of Attack of the Clones, when we learn about Dooku's departure and his values, there's no mention of the Jedi or "the Jedi Order as an institution".

And every time Lucas refers to Dooku's disenchantment and reason for falling, he doesn't mention the Jedi.

"When you realize that Dooku is Darth Tyranus, it explains what Darth Sidious did after Darth Maul was killed: he seduced a Jedi who had become disenchanted with the Republic. He preyed on that disenchantment and converted him to the dark side, which is also a setup for what happens with Anakin." - Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones, 2002

"[Dooku is] one of the few Jedi who became disenchanted with the Republic and left the order and he is leading a separatist movement." - Vanity Fair, 2002

"I wanted a more sophisticated kind of villain. Dooku’s disenchantment with the corruption in the Empire is actually valid. It’s all valid.  So, Chris plays it as, 'Is he really a villain or is he just someone who is disenchanted and trying to make things right?'" - Starlog Magazine #300, 2002

He probably meant the Republic/Senate in that last one, but you get the point. And you're seeing the pattern, right?

Dooku's problem isn't the Jedi, it's the Republic.

He's become disenchanted with a system that - according to Lucas' prologue in the 2004 book Shatterpoint - worked for 1,000 years...

"For a thousand years, the Old Republic prospered and grew under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the venerable Jedi Knights."

... but has been rendered ineffective because of 1) senators becoming corrupt and 2) corporations gaining political power.

"But as often happens when wealth and power grow beyond all reasonable proportion, an evil fueled by greed arose. The massive organs of commerce mushroomed in power, the Senate became corrupt, and an ambitious named Palpatine was voted Supreme Chancellor."

That's the message Dooku runs on, when he rallies the systems to form the Separatist Alliance.

"By promising an alternative to the corruption and greed that was rotting the Republic from within, Dooku was able to persuade thousands of star systems to secede from the Republic."

The Jedi aren't really a factor in his decision to leave.

Why would they be? Their political status isn't very high, they're virtually powerless, as illustrated by the film's narrative and stated repeatedly by Lucas.

On the contrary, as we already established in this post, Lucas full-on confirmed that Dooku actually carries the sympathies of most of the Jedi. Again:

Most Jedi agree with Dooku, ideologically.

As far as the Jedi are concerned, the politicians are effing up the Republic, and it sucks because the Jedi see this but aren't allowed to interfere in the political process. They have to resort to looking for loopholes in their mandates to actually get stuff done.

That's what that whole "she's a politician" scene is meant to hint at. In the commentary of Attack of the Clones, Lucas uses a similar turn of phrase as he does with Dooku.

"[This scene gives us] a chance to talk a little bit about politics and the Jedi’s disenchantment with the political process, due to the corruption and the ineffectiveness of the Senate." - Attack of the Clones, Director’s Commentary, 2002

Considering all this, it becomes clear that the intended narrative surrounding Dooku's decision to leave the Order is not:

"The Jedi are dogmatic and asleep at the wheel except for Dooku, who is ahead of the curb and sees the system is flawed, so he left."

It's actually:

"ALL Jedi see the system is flawed, Dooku's the only Jedi who decided to take it a step further and leave the Order so he can try to get into politics himself and change things."

That's why they hesitate to accuse him of murder.

That's why in an earlier draft of the Attack of the Clones script, by the end of the second act, Mace STILL has his doubts that Dooku would sign a treaty with the Trade Federation to attack the Republic.

As far as the Jedi are concerned, Dooku is out there fighting the good fight, making noise because whenever they try to protest it falls on deaf ears... until his betrayal on Geonosis.

After all, let's not get it twisted: the Dooku we're introduced to in the films and The Clone Wars, isn't really just Dooku anymore.

He's Darth Tyranus.

A point Lucas makes sure to highlight in his Shatterpoint prologue:

"Unbeknownst to most of his followers, Dooku was himself a Dark Lord of the Sith, acting in collusion with his master, Darth Sidious, who, over the years, had struck an unholy alliance with the greater forces of commerce and their private droid armies."

It's not about doing the selfless thing for Dooku, anymore. He's knowingly part of the problem.

He's all about ambition, now. His personal goals are things like overthrowing Sidious and becoming the most powerful Jedi.

"[Anakin's] ambition and his dialogue here is the same as Dooku’s. He says “I will become more powerful than every Jedi.” And you’ll hear later on Dooku will say “I have become more powerful than any Jedi.” [...] It is possible for a Jedi to want to become more powerful, and control things." - Attack of the Clones, Director’s Commentary, 2002

"If you put two Sith together, they try to get others to join them to get rid of the other Sith. [When revealing the truth to Obi-Wan], Dooku's ambition is really to get rid of Darth Sidious. He's trying to get Obi-Wan's assistance in that and help in that, so that he and Obi-Wan could overthrow Sidious and take over." - Attack of the Clones, Commentary Track 2, 2002

Y'know? Selfish things.

Dooku - like all other Sith, and like the very corporations and Senators he had sworn to destroy - is consumed by his own greed.

[hyperlexichypatia]

This post reminded me of it, but my partner has observed that in contemporary gender discourse, maleness is so linked to adulthood and femaleness is so linked to childhood, that there are no "boys" or "women," only "men" and "girls."

This isn't exactly new -- for as long as patriarchy has existed, women have been infantilized, and "adult woman" has been treated as something of an oxymoron. Hegemonic beauty standards for women emphasize youthfulness, if not actual neoteny, and older women are considered "too old" to be attractive without ever quite being old enough to make their own decisions. There may be cultural allowances for the occasional older "wise woman," but a "wise woman" is always dangerously close to being a madwoman, or a witch. No matter how wise a woman is, she is never quite a rational agent. As Hanna K put it, "as a woman you're always either too young or too old for things, because the perfect age is when you're a man."

But the framing of underage boys as "men" has shifted, depending on popular conceptualizations of childhood and gender roles. Sometimes children of any gender are essentially feminized and grouped with women (the entire framing of "women and children" as a category). In the U.S. in the 21st century, the rise of men's rights and aggressively sexist ideology has correlated with an increased emphasis on little boys as "men" -- thus slogans like "Teach your son to be a man before his teacher teaches him to be a woman."

Of course, thanks to ageism and patriarchy (which literally means, not "rule by men," but "rule by fathers"), boys don't get any of the social benefits of being considered "men." They don't get to vote, make their own medical decisions, or have any of their own adult rights. They might have a little more childhood freedom than girls, if they're presumed to be sturdier and less vulnerable to "predators," but, for the most part, being considered "men" as young boys doesn't really get boys any more access to adult rights. What it does get them is aggressively gender-policed, often with violence. A little boy being "a man" means that he's not allowed to wear colors, have feelings, or experience the developmental stages of childhood.

This shifts in young adulthood, as boys forced into the role of "manhood" become actual men. As I've written about, I believe the trend of considering young adults "children" is harmful to everyone, but primarily to young women, young queer and trans people, and young disabled people. Abled, cisgender, heterosexual young men are rarely denied the rights and autonomy of adulthood due to "brain maturity."

What's particularly interesting is that, because transphobes misgender trans people as their birth-assigned genders, they constantly frame trans girls as "men" and trans men as "girls." A 10 year old trans girl on her elementary school soccer team is a "MAN using MAN STRENGTH on helpless GIRLS," while a 40 year old trans man is a "Poor confused little girl." Anyone assigned male at birth is born a scary, intimidating adult, while anyone female assigned at birth never becomes old enough to make xyr own decisions.

Feminist responses have also really fluctuated. Occasionally, feminists have played into the idea of little boys as "men," especially in trans-exclusionary rhetoric, or in one notorious case where members of a women's separatist compound were warned about "a man" who turned out to be a 6-month-old infant. There's periodic discourse around "Empowering our girls" or "Raising our boys with gentle masculinity," but for the most part, my problem with mainstream feminist rhetoric in general is that it tends to frame children solely as a labor imposed on women by men, not as subjects (and specifically, as an oppressed class) at all.

Second-wave feminists pushed back hard on calling adult women "girls" -- but they didn't necessarily view "women" as capable of autonomous decision-making, either. Adult women were women, but they might still need to be protected from their own false consciousness. As laws in the U.S., around medical privacy and autonomy, like HIPAA, started more firmly linking the concepts of autonomy with legal adulthood, and fixing the age of majority at 18, third-wave feminists embraced referring to women as "girls." Sometimes this was in an intentionally empowering way ("girl power," "girl boss"), which also served to shield women (mostly white, mostly bourgeois/wealthy) from criticism of their participation in racism and capitalism. But it also served to reinforce the narrative of women as "girls" needing to be protected from "men" (and their own choices).

I'm still hoping for a feminist politic that is pro-child, pro-youth, pro-disability, pro-autonomy, pro-equality, that rejects the infantilization of women, the adultification of boys, the objectification of children, the misgendering of trans people, and the imposition of gender roles.

[sophie-frm-mars]

The Cass Review, and what we can do about it

The UK government is making decisive moves toward banning trans healthcare outright. The NHS says it is adjusting its policies to be in line with the "cass report", a pseudoscientific report written by a transphobe that goes as far as to claim that little boys playing with trucks and little girls playing with dolls is biological, and which disregards dozens of scientifically sound previous studies into HRT and trans healthcare in order to reach its conclusions that trans healthcare for under 25s should be radically changed to discourage transition at every turn and make it as hard as possible for young people to transition.

These moves will kill countless young trans people. I would not have made it to 25 if healthcare wasn't available and I know so many other trans people wouldn't have either.

The mainstream reporting in the UK is keeping itself ideologically cohesive by claiming that trans people exist, nobody hates them, and they're very rare, and the big problem is the explosion of new cases of not-really-trans people who are clogging up the system (this is a lie, the system has been intentionally slowed by malicious neglect, it isn't even a resource issue, the clinics have far more capacity than the number of patients who are let through)

Once again, this is genocidal and is actually a commonplace methodology of genocide. The nazis asked GRT people to help them understand which Traveller families were "real" travellers and which were the fake ones, since they insisted it was only the fake ones who were the problem and who had to be exterminated (because a lot of nazi GRT policy was based on American indigenous reservation policy).

Labour, the main opposiiton party in the UK, has announced it will "follow the Cass Report", and implement these restrictions on trans healthcare once in government.

For the survival of young trans people, robust community structures must be developed immediately.

Efforts to change the electoral situation will proceed at a snail's pace and will be entirely at the whims of what is politically expedient. It will turn around, but it will take a long time. At the voting level, everyone in the UK who cares about trans people needs to make it clear that they won't vote for Labour unless they reverse position on this, and to be clear about this: Labour will not listen. They are PR Brained Psychopaths and they don't want to get into this "controversial" issue in a way that might cost them further popularity and the easy election win.

Wes Streeting, inhuman lab experiment and Labour Shadow Health Secretary has said that activists need to "stop protesting to ask us to be better opposition and start protesting to ask us to be better government", in other words their electoral promises are cynical reactionary bargains and deals to get them into power and the only point at which they will change anything is once they are in government, if at all. I know this sounds very "push Biden left" but I'm not saying give up now - to repeat, everyone who cares about trans people in the UK should tell Labour to get fucked right away, and then keep doing it as loudly as possible, but it's just not going to change until after the general election at least.

Another way to help could be through legal routes, like the work that The Good Law Project has been doing for trans people for several years now, but I don't know enough about the law to know if it can be used to challenge this at all.

We have to accept there is no electoral solution right now to this genocidal campaign against trans people in the UK, and while those efforts are ongoing trans people and cis allies need to fucking organise. Trans exclusive / separatist organising is riddled with issues, I don't want to cast hopelessness around but there are really very few of us and while it's absolutely necessary to privilege trans voices in trans organising and give us the deciding power and the autonomy, we need to utilise the support and time and labour of every cis person who is willing to help in whatever way they can.

Robust community structures means community structures that are helping young trans people get healthcare as an absolute basic starting point, but it means a lot more than that besides. We need community structures that are consciously organised by people who are taking responsibility for the community roles they are in and being completely explicit with each other about the nature and function of their organising. We need HRT community resources so young trans people can survive this medical segregation, we need drug user harm reduction spaces so that what people turn to in despair doesn't kill them, we need sober spaces so that people can get away from unhealthy coping responses, we need conflict resolution structures so that our problems are dealt with privately and nobody is left completely isolated, but more than any of those things, and in order to have all of those things, we desperately need trans assemblies

Assemblies are how we will get a community of robust radical organisers, because only by repeatedly practicing the ongoing process of democracy can people learn how to do it in a way that will facilitate their own organising. We have to empower the whole community to answer our own questions, come up with solutions, organise people into structures to enact those solutions and then do them. All this means is that an open door event convenes frequently (at least fortnightly) to discuss what is happening in the community. Trans people get the mic for allotted time, and discuss the issues, and then whatever voting structure the assembly uses facilitates further discussion, for example through working groups - the assembly breaks into smaller groups to discuss the topic and then representatives report the outcomes of those discussions back and consensus is reached from what the representatives report.

We have to get people engaging in this process because in order to effectively combat this situation trans people must agree on the solutions and then tell cis allies how to help and so far we haven't been doing that. We really really haven't been. But we could be with a little work. And as I'm saying, doing this will also empower everyone in the community to organise toward specific solutions for specific issues like HRT provision, sober spaces, housing, food, etc.

fuck

I'll have more to add to this post later I have to get to therapy I just got really mad when I saw the news this morning

[birdfem]

All the discourse makes me lose hope because there's so much of a focus on deciding who is and isn't a "real" radfem. What is and isn't a true radical action. Who's "valid" and who isn't. There are so many demeaning and degrading sentiments going around, and they shouldn't be.

I don't believe in the idea of "do what you want forever" as actions have repercussions, but I think the way some women on radblr are going about OSA relationships is so vile. The constant degrading terms (e.g. "dick-worshipping" and using terms like wh-re, sl-t, etc.) as well as insisting that anyone opposing them is lesbophobic… I'm just over it. There are conspiracy theories spawning over folks like @/radicalstoner being @/macroclit, polls about if its demeaning to use "Jakey" or "Nigel" (and women being shocked when some find it demeaning), and so on. It's meaningless and shows how little a lot of women care for other women when we're supposed to be the ones that do. Like seriously, what does any of this do aside from further dividing our (already small) community?

The point of feminism as a whole, at least in my opinion, should be to support women. In any branch of feminism you consider yourself to be part of, you should put women first. You cannot be any kind of feminist if you don't do at least that. Now, this doesn't mean you have to agree or see their choices as good. This doesn't mean you cannot critique decisions and point out the misogyny and/or harm within them. This doesn't mean that all choices a woman makes are good because it's a woman doing them.

But you should be there to support her when she needs it most.

If a woman enters a relationship with a guy, don't rescind your support. Instead, find ways to further help her. What if the guy does turn out to be abusive? Instead of going "I told you so, this is why you shouldn't date men", be a support system for her. Provide some way to escape and to protect her. What if she needs an abortion? Instead of going "that's what you get for being a dick-worshipper", help her in gaining what she needs to have a safe one. What if she's a single mother who has no other support system? Be that support system for her, find ways to help make her life easier.

So many 'radfems' on here will fight tooth and nail to prove that dating men is the least radical action you can take. And yeah, dating men isn't radical in the slightest. As far as I can tell, no one has been claiming it is. I agree that being celibate is a radical action. If you're a separatist, then more power to you.

But just because a woman isn't radical in every single aspect of her life doesn't mean she should be shunned and not have your support. It doesn't matter if she's a radfem or not in your definition of the ideology.

What should matter is if YOU, the supposed radfem, would help her in her time of need.

[ot3]

Obviously I am not a Female/Lesbian Separatist or whatever because there are tons of very severe problems with that as a political ideology, many of which are violently transmisogynistic among other things. But acting like the issues with that political movement extend to individual women (many of whom are trans) requesting that men don't interact with their social media accounts is just misogynist horseshit.

It's all "set boundaries in your online interactions" and "curate your space however makes you feel happiest and most comfortable" as advice to enjoy your time online until those boundaries and curation dare to exclude men. And 'exclude' is a strong word in this case because as has been pointed out so many times on this site, DNIs don't actually have any means of stopping anyone from doing jack shit and are really just a request for your boundaries to be honored.

[mithliya]

i think bc of the entirety of what female separatism entails as an ideological stance, it wouldnt actually be possible to entirely support female separatism while being those things. that said, its possible to solely support the thought of being free of men, so the very basic premise of female separatism as being apart from males, without holding all of the other tied beliefs that are part of separatism as a stance. so i agree u can somehow support it in a superficial way, but i still think claiming someone who isnt even a feminist could be a separatist doesnt make sense bc a separatist is by definition also a feminist

Misogynists are on radblr because they hate men btw. You don't have to be a feminist to be a separatist. They're literally just here because they hate men *and* the women who associate with them. That's why it's so important when feminists say to love women more than you hate men.

[anarkittyuwuuniverse]

At this point I'm actually a bit confused as to what a "baeddel" and "baeddelism" even is. From transunists it seems to be some sort of trans femme focused radical feminism that replaces bio essentialism with gender essentialism but I also feel like a lot of people I see who call themselves baeddels are just people who...acknowledge the existence of transmisogyny? Or is it just some sort of transfemme separatist contingent? Does it mean different things to different people? Why are so many baeddels also anti-civ? Does it have any relation to Baedan? The queer nihilist journal? 'Cause I've read that and it didn't seem gender essentialist to me at all or to have any of the ideological traits that I've heard associated with baeddalism. Anyone who knows more about this? I'm asking genuinely and in good-faith, I would like to learn more.

[0w0tsuki]

It really is disheartening to see how desperate transmisandry bros are committed to find SOME WAY, ANY WAY to call transfems who disagree with them TERFs. Like when it first started off it was lazy, dismissive, and just showed that they really had no idea what they were talking about. But then they doubled down and kept attempting to rebrand to try and spin it as progressive. Like it's this Holy Grail of trans andro theory that if they unlock it then they will be able to win all arguments forever and be able to shove any Transfem they don't like out of being able to describe her own oppression.

Like first it was drudging up the term beaddel from nearly a decade. A long dead group of "the one time a group of transfems were genuinely being awful" and mystifying them to warn about secretive "trans lesbian separatists" (literally a term based on "lesbian separatist". A term coined in the SCUM TERF manifesto) trying to sell you "radfem koolaid"

Then they thought "well it might work if we changed the E to an I" and started saying that any transfems using TME/TMA terminology were sex essentialists (even though it's not. Cis men and women are also TME) and "TIRF's" when literally no self respecting trans woman calls themselves that. The few people that do identify with the term TIRF are TME'S who think the trans people who are made with them "don't know how to read" instead of you know, recognizing their ideology is still rooted in bio essentialism.

Then they tried various tactics of redefining TERF. From "all trans people are equally targeted by TERFs and it does harm to say their primary target is trans women" (They see trans men as lost little girls and they want them to detransition and be "saved". They see trans women as violent predators, a threat to women by virtue of existing, and want us DEAD. These are not the same) to "actually their bigotry stems from a hatred of men!" (Actually most TERFs are trad wives. They constantly ally themselves with anti feminist movements. And one of their most prolific members posie parker infamously asked "fathers with gun" to walk into women's restrooms to kill trans women)

Then it was trying to delineate radfeminism from TERFism. Even though just referring to themselves as "radfem", just the same as "gender critical" was a part of a rebranding effort by TERFs themselves when the term TERF got widely recognized as a member of a bigoted hate group. Any "cis radfems who aren't TERFs" that they talk about are just TERFs who think the term is a slur. But that doesn't matter to transmisandry bros because it allows them to hold those terms as two separate things and more importantly as "something separate from TERF but functionally the same to label trans women as"

And now apparently it's "radical transfeminism"? Which come on. You aren't even trying at this point. It's honestly sickening how devoted the group that sells itself as being for "TransUnity" and "stopping the infighting" is so determined to find a term that will allow them to shut out and exclude any Transfem they don't like.