#also TERF was invented was radical feminism themselves

[notchainedtotrauma]

I was looking for evidence that the radical feminists TERFs claim they worship, while having abhorrent views on specific subjects, are actually rolling in their graves when they hear whatever TERFs are spouting and I discovered that Andrea Dworkin’s life partner was self identified gay man named John Stoltenberg ? Who is still alive ?

John Stolbenger: this is is part of the the blurb I found “ Since its original publication in 1989, Refusing to be a Man has been acclaimed as a classic and widely cited in gender studies literature. In 13 eloquent essays, Stoltenberg articulates the first fully argued liberation theory for men that will also liberate women. He argues that male sexual identity is entirely a political and ethical construction whose advantages grow out of injustice. His thesis is, however, ultimately one of hope - that precisely because masculinity is so constructed, it is possible to refuse it, to act against it and to change. “

“ He argues that male sexual identity is entirely a political and ethical construction whose advantages grow out of injustice. “

“ the first fully argued liberation theory for men that will also liberate women. “

He married Andrea Dorkwin in 1998 but they started their life long partnership, way before. While still a couple Andrea Dorkwin identified as a lesbian and John Stolbengher as gay. And if people want sources, just look up his name, it’s very much associated with Andrea Dorkwin.

Oh and also John Stoltenberg (again, this is her living-gay- life partner) explains that Andrea Dorkwin very much believed ion and supported trans liberation.

[boreal-sea]

"There are no terfs" - so no woman on planet earth is a transphobic radical feminist?

"There are no Karens" - white women can't be racist?

I actually want to talk about this! I want to talk about the semantic drift of TERF and Karen - and I want to talk about how why slut, whore, bitch, and "mean girl" are not in the same category.

If she'd said "the label terf has been inappropriately expanded past its original description of transphobic radfems, and is now applied to transphobes who are not radical feminists, and is even sometimes applied to any person - including trans people - who talk about feminism", I'd agree with her. I've been called a terf, and I'm a whole ass tranny.

If she'd said "Karen has been inappropriately expanded past its original meaning, which was to call out white women utilizing institutionally racist systems to terrorize black people, and is now applied to any woman who complains about anything", I would agree with her.

The expansion of these terms past their original meanings is actually really important to discuss. They came into the vernacular for really important reasons: to call out women who were expressing bigotry. Being called a TERF or a Karen was, at one point, a serious accusation; it meant that person was a transphobic bigot, or a racist bigot.

However, people have definitely blurred the lines on what those terms mean.

Nowadays, "TERF" is flung at one of two kinds of people: general transphobes, OR, anyone discussing sexism and how it's based on sex assigned at birth - even if that person is trans.

At best, TERF is usually flung at all kinds of transphobic people, who aren't always radical feminists. Sometimes they're cis men, which is extra funny because there aren't many cis men radfems since radfems in general do not accept that cis men can be feminists in the first place. But like I said, trans people also get called "terfs" or "terfy" if we discuss birth sex or sexism. It's happened to me a few times. It has in some cases drifted into actually being sexist/misogynistic, when it is used specifically to shut up someone who is a woman, or afab, who is speaking up against sexism or misogyny.

The reason it works is because the original meaning of "TERF" meaning "transphobic radfem" is still lingering there in the background, which is why calling someone a TERF is still an effective way to try to silence them, and an effective way to try to get people to hate the target. "Oh no, they're a transphobe!? Unfollowed!". So folks are still utilizing the original anger that term summons in order to apply that term to a larger group of people.

And "Karen", a term invented by the Black community, also had a very specific meaning: calling out white entitled women who were so steeped in privilege that they felt comfortable using the racist institution of the police to threaten black people, including children. The meaning of that term has also, unfortunately, migrated. It now gets applied to any woman who is being assertive, or complaining about anything at all, even if it has nothing to do with race. It has actually migrated far enough that it's now equivalent to "bitch" in the sense that it is now sometimes used as a sexist/misogynistic slur against women who are just standing up for themselves.

Again though, the reason "Karen" still works as a way to silence women is because the people misusing it are capitalizing on the original meaning of the term as "racist entitled white woman".

The migrated meanings of both of these terms would not have power if the original meanings of those terms didn't have power.

Calling a woman a transphobe isn't sexism or misogyny if she is actively being transphobic. Calling a woman racist is not sexism or misogyny if she is actively being racist. It is ok to call out bigoted women for being bigots!

The claim that anyone using "TERF" or "Karen" is being sexist or misogynistic is blatantly untrue.

I can only speak on TERF with regards to this semantic drift. As a trans person, it is incredibly frustrating that people have stretched the meaning of TERF so far, and it is frustrating that some people are using it in a misogynistic and sexist way, because that weakens it as a tool to call out women who are actually being transphobic.

Now when a trans person says "this person is a TERF", people like OP call us sexists and misogynists, claiming we are using a "slur specifically design to target and silence women".

And speaking of sexism and misogyny, slut and bitch and all the rest are not in the same category as TERF or Karen, as they are not terms originally created to call out bigoted women. These terms are slurs and derogatory phrases meant to criticize a woman's sexuality or her behavior when that behavior is outside what is expected of her by the patriarchy. This is a completely different can of worms: it is in fact actually sexism and misogyny.

And conflating these terms is harmful and very fucking frustrating as someone who, you know, has been damaged by TERFs.

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

Hey I know that my blog looks fake because it’s 10 seconds old but i promise this isn’t bait, I am a trans woman and new to radical feminism thru trying to interrogate my feminism bc of recent irl developments (big fight with a radfem close friend who is also trans) and that’s why my account looks sus

I’m wondering what you mean by trans radical feminism & how you think it’s in your recent post? Like I dunno maybe im super naive bc I am only recently online again but to me a radfem critique has been really valuable in understanding my position as a woman & I don’t see it as transmisogynistic , but maybe my understanding is based on a different interpretation of it. Id appreciate your time and consideration in this 🖤🖤✨

Sure. I also recommend you read my posts and other peoples posts on this. I understand how reading some radical feminist theory or ideas could be helpful in understanding how patriarchy and gender works in our society, and I think a very critical reading of radical feminism can be valuable in certain ways. But the fundamental issue with radical feminism is that it can never truly escape essentialism, whether that’s bioessentialism or gender essentialism (they are one and the same really). It is also lacking in intersectionality because the reason it is called radical feminism is because of the belief that patriarchy is the “root” of all oppression. This reflects that classic “radfem” ideology was only meant to serve one group of women: white cis women. In reality, all oppressions are inseparable and intertwined. We cannot divorce patriarchy from capitalism, white supremacy, antisemetism, ableism, and all other oppressions that exist. Patriarchy didn’t develop in isolation: it is a product of how various human societies has been specifically working for about 10,000 years, which is only a small fraction of human history. There is nothing in nature that predisposes beings to patriarchy or heterosexuality. It is invented, and this is important, in tandem with all other oppressive systems in human society. Not in isolation.

Classical radical feminism is indistinguishable from TERFism because it posits not only that misogyny based on “biological sex” is the root of all oppression, but that sex and gender are immutable, binary traits. I just ask how anyone can take that ideology and make it trans inclusive without changing it completely. There is nothing radical feminism that doesn’t reproduce white cis feminism even if the people calling themselves radfems aren’t those things. Liberation from patriarchy can only be achieved with all trans people.

Classical TERF radical feminism says that trans women are dangerous men invading women’s spaces, and trans men are gender traitors/lost lesbians with internalized misogyny, and nonbinary people don’t exist. The only difference in “TIRFism” or “inclusive” radical feminism, is repeating all the same arguments as the classical radical feminist, but then supposedly “including” trans women as women. The transandrophobia and exorsexism remains, and so does the transmisogyny - it is just more veiled. But make no mistake, “trans inclusive radical feminists” still only accept trans women who can be neatly slotted into classical, gender essentialist ideas of what womanhood is. Multigender people, who identify as both men and women? Bisexual people? Radical feminists do not like them..

I suggest intersectional feminism, which acknowledges patriarchy as connected with all other struggles and rejects gender essentialism.

[molsno]

I can actually see why some transmascs may talk about "hatred of masculinity" in a good faith (and still be wrong).

Before realizing that they were men they were probably identifying as women heavily dissatisfied with being women and probably also heavily gender non-conforming. Neither of those are considered fully acceptable by wider society, but totally accepted by feminist movement, at least here where I live. And the most prominent feminist organisations here are radfem-adjacent.

Now, saying that those organisations at large are "anti-men" or even "against masculinity in men" is wrong, considering how they tried to portray their enemies as effeminate as some kind of own. And, though I have never witnessed it myself, how straight girls who use radfem rhetoric are willing to invent new definitions of lesbianism to call their cishet boyfriends "lesbians", men for them have higher priority than lesbians at least.

Still, running into people there who did just hate men was a daily occurrence, and many more were parroting their rhetoric ("feminine energy" as some kind of fix for civilisation and so on). If some transmascs allied more with people like this, discovering that they are what they considered to be some ontological evil might have been traumatic.

Still, posing misandry as big societal problem and not fringe worldview that they internalized is silly at best (I am using misandry here as personal attitude, not system, hence no quotes). And I always assume that people who talk about it as something important are either doing it in bad faith or repeating someone's bad faith arguments without analysing it.

(Now it's up to question how many transmascs actually joined those organisations in any way, considering how for unrealised trans girl that I was any idea about how good men or masculinity are even (in not ridiculous form) was an instant "no" on all levels, but who knows)

yeah, that's pretty much my understanding of it, too. basically all transmascs who believe in transandrophobia display at least some level of internalized gender essentialism underlying their entire ideology.

and like, I get it. the feminist wave of the 2010s was so deeply entangled with radical feminism that for a good while, anyone heavily involved in the movement was exposed to the biological essentialist worldview central to radical feminism that declares that men are ontologically evil, and I have no doubt that many young, repressed trans people at the time internalized that idea to an extent. I certainly did, and it only amplified my dysphoria as a teenager. it was traumatizing to me, and I can completely understand why it would be traumatizing to transmascs to come to terms with the fact that they were something they had always believed was inherently bad.

it's just like you said though, it's a mistake to frame misandry as a society wide issue when really it's a very small minority of people. but a lot of trans men never question or challenge the worldview they developed in their youth, so when they start getting read as men when they're adults and inevitably face transphobia, they start attributing it to a societal hatred of masculinity instead of recognizing that the actual cause of their oppression is a society that seeks to protect the concept of the immutable gender binary that enables the patriarchal hierarchy of power at all costs.

I don't really have any sympathy for them, though. like yeah, it sucks to be made to feel like you should hate yourself just for existing, but like, that isn't unique to them. the gender essentialism so many of them have internalized is a big reason a lot of transandrophobia truthers start aligning themselves with terfs, and I don't think I need to tell you how I feel about that. 😑 they have an alternative, they can just reevaluate their beliefs until they come to realize that man and woman are completely neutral categories entirely devoid of value judgment and don't say anything meaningful about any given person other than what they like to be called. I'll admit from experience that accepting that truth can be difficult but it's not impossible, and challenging your worldview is something you're going to have to do a lot in life if you actually want to meaningfully change how you interact with people and the world around you.

but why do that when they can demand trans women bend over backwards to appease them? it must feel good to get a taste of that male privilege when a few trans women are actually self-hating enough to listen to them. that is, at least until they get too much backlash from the rest of us who have enough self esteem to stand up for ourselves and they recede into the open arms of terfs for comfort from the mean trannies.

[meangirlpolitics]

I think TRAs, who invented the term “TERF,” have doublethought themselves into believing that radical feminists started calling ourselves TERFs on our own. We consistently point out that a) we fight for the liberation of trans-identified women; b) we are deeply concerned about the health and rights of dysphoric (or simply GNC) children who are being indoctrinated into the trans movement; and c) radical feminism is NOT ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE. The reason that radical feminists even talk about trans people at all is because the trans rights lobby has positioned itself in direct opposition to women’s liberation. Radical feminism came about as a distinct ideology and theoretical framework half a century ago, and the original radfems did not have any need to discuss trans people because they were not, on any meaningful scale, trying to prevent women from identifying sex-based oppression, criticizing pornography and sexual exploitation, or defining lesbianism as female same-sex attraction. We have to talk about trans issues now, even though it detracts from many more interesting discussions that we’d rather be having, because if we don’t address the increasing problems of misogyny and homophobia that are being directly exacerbated by the trans rights movement then we will be unable to fight for any of our goals. How can we fight against porn when criticizing porn gets you called a TERF if we don’t also talk about the people calling porn critics TERFs? How can we argue that replacing “sex” with “gender” is homophobic and sexist if we don’t acknowledge the groups that are actively trying to replace “sex” with “gender”?

[womenfrommars]

okay sorry to do this, I won’t send anymore asks but I want to respond to the person who replied to the ask I sent (I’m anon who said radfems are turning away women). You can delete this if you don’t want drama, i don’t mind.

you said your goal is to peak women, not recruit them. peak them on trans issues? on issues of gender roles? on abortion? on homophobia? on racism? on porn? on capitalism? many women do “peak” on one or two or even three of these issues and yet if they don’t believe in every single one of your beliefs to the T you attack them, just like the admin of this blog, who is gencritfem and not radfem.

I’ve lurked around the radfem community long enough to see that your longtime goal isn’t to “peak” women on certain issues (that’s short term), you want them to agree with most to all of radfem points. maybe you have negative stigma surrounding “recruitment”, I wasn’t meaning that as anything negative. I was criticizing behavior.

And I didn’t say you all were trying to recruit Christian women, I specially acknowledged how there’s a mutual agreement that Christians can’t be radfems. I said other women who ARENT Christian. I’ve seen women who still agree with radfem theory calling themselves “ex radfems” because of the behavior.

to the admin, perhaps the reason you’re being attacked is because the lack of reading comprehension that prevails in all sections of tumblr. anyway, the only reason I even saw the reply is because I was looking at your blog again to see other posts you’ve made. As a BIPOC, I didn’t see anything racist, so I don’t know why they’re accusing you. It’s really reminiscent of how the libfems and that side of politics see someone say one thing wrong and accuse all their past words as being bad too. I don’t know of many women who are gender critical feminists yet not radical feminists, so now I want to look into that version of feminism to see what all that entails.

I think a lot of women call themselves ''radical feminists'' just because they are gender critical and anti-porn. Those views are indeed part of radical feminism, but radical feminism encompasses much more than that. It's a known issue that a lot of women online self-identify as radical feminists without properly researching radical feminist literature beforehand. On Tumblr, I think very few women here have actually read any at all. I tend to assume most haven't read a lot, if I'm completely honest.

I haven't read a lot myself either, but then again I don't call myself a radical feminist nor do I speak on radical feminist literature as if I'm very familiar with it. A few times people have made assumptions about me. People are telling me I shouldn't call myself a radfem, presuming I do that in the first place. A few have also assumed I must be attracted to women based on the fact I am a gender critical feminist (?) which is hilarious because it confirms the TRA logic that ''TERF'' = lesbian. I would much rather that people judge my views based on their merit instead of the degree to which they adhere to radical feminism.

A lot of people also invent ''extras'' to radical feminism. Most famously a few on here said that radical feminism opposes ''fatphobia''. Fetch me one radical feminist author who said this. ''Fatphobia'' is just modern liberal feminism, I'm afraid. Dworkin herself passed away from complications related to obesity and even had weight loss surgery, I think

The accusations of myself being racist are related to discourse from my old blog, to which I no longer have access seeing as it was deleted. It relates to a discourse that was mostly given rise to, again, based on a lack of understanding, I think

[joannerowlingfans]

Great article from June by Eileen Blair. Here’s some excerpts: 

“The Bodily Function Which Must Not Be Named

Daniel Radcliffe knows some things about menstruation. Recently he wrote a statement assuring us that the correct word for those who experience periods is not “women” or “girls,” but “people who menstruate.” However, when he told us this, he didn’t actually tell us this. He never used the word “menstruation,” or “period,” or “blood,” or any related word. There was no mention of clots, or cramps, or dysmenorrhea, or endometriosis. He did not name the “people who” experience these things.

Instead, Radcliffe did name author J.K. Rowling, who recently came under fire for stating the controversial opinion that the word “woman” is still of use, and that this now-contested term may even provide a more appealing way to describe human beings than “people who menstruate,” or the more streamlined “menstruator.” But while Radcliffe invoked Rowling’s name, he did not acknowledge her ideas, which she has expressed publicly in a number of tweets and in a recent essay. Instead, he opened his statement by simply insisting that there is no “in-fighting” between him and Rowling, without mentioning why anyone might think there is. He anticipated that “certain press outlets” might seize on the opportunity to report on a conflict between Radcliffe and Rowling, which they promptly did. The Guardian, the Independent, and the Times all referred to a “row” between Rowling and Radcliffe.

On social media, many enthusiastically shared Radcliffe’s statement, but I have yet to see any of Radcliffe’s fans mention that he both failed to identify the topic at hand and neglected to consider Rowling’s ideas about it. In 2020, it seems, if someone mentions Rowling, however obliquely, and with even the slightest hint that they disapprove of her for some reason they need not even state, they can count on being showered with unreserved praise.

The Menstruators Who Must Not Be Named

There is more that is not mentioned. The third sentence of Radcliffe’s statement asserts, “Transgender women are women.” Curiously, he does not go on to say, as anyone familiar with scripture would expect, “Transgender men are men, and nonbinary people are who they say they are.” In fact, there is no mention of transgender men or nonbinary people anywhere in Radcliffe’s statement, even though the ultra-specific term “people who menstruate” is intended to accommodate these groups—people who have periods who do not identify as women.

Why does Radcliffe choose this occasion to remind us that trans women are women? Trans women do not menstruate. This is why it is now considered exclusionary for those women formerly known as women to claim that menstruation is related to being a woman. That’s pretty much the point of terms like “menstruator.” By intoning “transgender women are women,” Radcliffe associates women, and only women, with the expression “people who menstruate.” This is exclusionary and transphobic. Not all women have periods, and not all who have periods identify as women.

Among those who cheered Radcliffe, I have yet to see anyone call out Radcliffe for his exclusionary and transphobic refusal to acknowledge “people who menstruate.”

The Silencing That Must Not Be Spoken Of

There is yet more that is not said. Rowling has been on the receiving end of misrepresentation and verbal abuse for over two years, simply for suggesting that women formerly known as women have the right to discuss the word “woman.” For advocating free speech, she has been derided, slurred, and even threatened.

Into the fray saunters Daniel Radcliffe, who, without any apparent effort, scribbles a few words calculated to score points with his base. His four-word magic incantation, “transgender women are women”—again, this is transphobic and exclusionary of people who menstruate—ignites passions and encourages continued demonization of Rowling. Readers need not even know what Rowling has said, for Radcliffe’s magic spell sanctifies him and positions him securely on the moral high ground. Rather than discuss menstruation, or Rowling’s point of view, he describes the discrimination young transgender and nonbinary people have self-reported. It goes without saying that this should be eradicated, but it is a diversion. Rowling, the prop he uses to display his righteousness, is at this very same moment being mercilessly bullied online and in the press. By ignoring this, by saying her name only to turn away from her, by making the sinner a foil to his own saintliness, he lazily enables those who would consign her to the online ducking stool.

Rowling has taken pains to be considerate and measured, just as women formerly known as women are still expected to do. Nevertheless, she has been described as “hateful” and “transphobic.” She has been accused of saying trans people “don’t exist.” Rowling has been called a “bitch,” a “cunt,” a “whore” (also “hoe”), and even—gasp—“a Karen.” (In reality, the offense seems to be not that Karen has demanded to speak to the manager but that she is the manager.)

As expected, Rowling is also called a “TERF.” (Rhymes with “serf.”) Proponents of “letting people be who they are” have proposed that “TERFs” like Rowling deserve to be physically assaulted or killed. One TERF-hunter calls upon a well-known veteran to do the honors: “I’d pay to watch [Charlotte] Clymer put on her army camo and shoot the TERF.” Another goes for the DIY approach: “Smack JK Rowling so hard I give that fool a lighting scar on HER forehead.” Rowling has been challenged to a duel by Tara Flik Wolf: “Oi JK rowling ow about you meet me outside! Hyde park! Lets fucking have it you cunt!” (In 2018, Wolf was convicted of assaulting Maria Maclachlan in Hyde Park in London.)

The demeaning comments are not limited to the blue circle of hell known as Twitter; otherwise reputable news outlets have also adopted the term “TERF.” Mainstream publications insist that this is not a misogynistic insult but a neutral term, an acronym radical feminists invented and applied to themselves. No matter how many times we insist that we consider this term a slur, no matter how many times we see “TERF” joined to “bitch” or “cunt,” we are informed that we have misunderstood, that this term is not intended to demean us. We really do like it, we are told. And a minute later we receive, for the 83rd time, a cartoon image with a gun pointed at us, an anime character threatening, “Shut the fuck up, TERF!”

The mainstream media has also joined in telling Rowling to “STFU.” The Washington Post says it directly in an article titled, “J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Shows It’s Time To Put Down The Pen.” Molly Roberts informs us that Rowling is flailing; she’s a bigot; she’s even—middle-aged! And therefore obsolete. Other prominent publications have described her tweets and essay as “transphobic” or “anti-trans.” This is eerily reminiscent of how second-wave feminists were described as “man-haters.” In the 1970s, we were said to hate men. Nowadays we are said to hate trans people. Fifty years ago, we learned to speak about our bodies. Nowadays, we learn how not to.

Major advocacy organizations have issued patronizing “reminders,” as if Rowling has forgotten her lines. The Human Rights Campaign laments, “We see JK Rowling is at it again. Helpful reminder: If your feminism isn’t trans-inclusive, then it’s not feminism.” A GIF of Emma Watson as Hermione is included for no extra charge, mocking the author with her own invention.”

“Radcliffe’s statement has been applauded online by people like me: college-educated, feminist, middle-aged American women of the sort formerly known as women. I haven’t seen any of them mention the gleeful dehumanization of Rowling; nor I have I seen any of them object that Radcliffe has remained silent about the abuse, or that it was taking place as he crafted his “response.” While he is not directly responsible for others’ treatment of Rowling, he is responsible for contributing to a hostile climate, and not just among anonymous Twitter trolls.He is responsible for what he does and does not say, and for what he does and does not know (or pretends not to know).”

“The final paragraph of Radcliffe’s statement offers consolation to those who feel betrayed, who feel as though their experience of Rowling’s fiction has been sullied by Rowling’s continued existence. He assures fans that they may still be nourished by—well, by “the books,” “these stories,” and “the book that you read,” despite “these comments.” He doesn’t say whose books, whose stories, or whose comments.

The explicitly violent tweets and the contemptuous journalistic dismissals are unsettling enough on their own, and it’s troubling to think that Radcliffe’s failure even to address the matters at hand may have amplified them. But here he moves from omission to erasure. Whereas he began his statement by focusing on Rowling’s name and not her ideas, now he appropriates her ideas while refusing to utter her name. This final negation is pernicious in its own way. Radcliffe opened his statement with an acknowledgment of J.K. Rowling’s influence on his life, but just a few paragraphs later, he seems to have forgotten that he played Harry Potter in the movies based on the books rather than inventing Harry himself. At the same moment when Rowling is being “cancelled” by those who loved her books, as her former fans and even major publications demand that she surrender her agency and autonomy, Radcliffe steps in and arrogates the right to speak for “these stories.” He assures his base that they may still find meaning and solace in the books, despite the mortal sins committed by—She Whose Name Must Be Erased From The Covers Of Her Own Books. Chillingly, Radcliffe assures his readers that “nobody can touch” their experience of the books, implying that the unnamed, erased author has been purged entirely. How magnanimous of him. How inclusive.”

“I haven’t seen any complaint that Radcliffe fails to mention the trans men and nonbinary people who menstruate, or that he pretends not to know Rowling has already been fending off verbal attacks for years, or that he erases her name as he refers to “the books.” 

“Daniel Radcliffe seems to have forgotten Harry Potter began as an idea in J.K. Rowling’s head. But he wants “women” to be an idea in his own.

For all its popular appeal and re-postings, “Daniel Radcliffe Responds” does not respond to what J.K. Rowling expressed, and much is communicated by what he did not say. Radcliffe did not acknowledge the terminological issue or the content of what Rowling said about it. He did not mention the “people who” are affected by the issue or even credit Rowling as an author of “these stories.” Nor did the thirty-year-old honor Rowling as an elder who carries significant wisdom and experience—and who just might know something he doesn’t about the word “woman” or the practice of menstruation. He expressed fervent opinions about who counts as a woman, but didn’t show respect for this woman. Perhaps it is Daniel Radcliffe, not J.K. Rowling, who should “put down the pen.”

[terflies]

You can't be a male radical feminist, therefore you can't be a male TERF. You also can't be a trans TERF. Your excuses are weak and your ideology is bunk.

@creepitalism reblogged this post with a similar argument:

A man can’t be a TERF. Radical feminists believe that as males themselves are not victims of the oppression FEMALES face, they can not be feminists but rather allies to the cause. Radical feminists (and the English language) define men as adult human males, so no, a man can’t be a TERF because he can’t even be a RF.

If you want to call someone a transphobe, just call them a transphobe.

As did @tr1angl3 here:

How exactly can there be male Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists? Radical feminism is male exclusionary - in fact that’s precisely why yall hate us so much.

You guys couldn’t make it more fucking obvious that you don’t even know a single thing about the boogy(wo)men you’ve created and instead just scream TERF at anyone who slightly bothers you.

There is no such thing as a male TERF because there by definition is no such thing as a male radical feminist.

Maybe try at least understanding one (1) thing about the group youre supposedly so against

so I’ll respond to these together.

In brief, the context was whether ‘TERF’ is a slur that targets (“biological”) women specifically. I asserted that it is not, since there are male TERFs and trans TERFs and that TERFs are a minority of women.

Now, I have exactly zero interest in policing who can, and who cannot be, a trans-exclusionary, radical feminist. As far as addressing TERFs and their transphobia goes it’s a moot point—there is no value in distinguishing TERFs and TERF “allies” when their words and actions are indistinguishable.

Can a man be a feminist? I don’t think a TERF can be a feminist, but I can’t deny that they are without the risk of ad hoc redefinitions—the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I certainly can’t deny their right, such as it is, to identify themselves as a feminist.

But, more to the point, one cannot defend the claim that “TERF is a slur for biological women” by claiming that men and/or trans people can’t be TERFs. The argument must be based on how the term is used—who it’s directed at. You cannot assert a different definition—that excludes men and trans people—to justify the claim that it’s a slur for biological women. If you do, then it’s a slur of your own invention, not the people you criticise for using it.

Besides which, I’d like to call a transphobe a transphobe. As I’ve said before, TERF isn’t a slur but a euphemism. It doesn’t mean “women who slightly bother us”; it means Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (and allies).

[femvulvaphile]

let’s break that weird shit down, then

“We’ve been here since the beginning. I know your hate group, your little Nazi sub-sect, has this lie you like to spread that we suddenly spring into being from whole cloth in the 1970s, but that fighting all through history? WE’VE. BEEN THERE. FOR ALL OF IT.” cool but that’s literally not what I said. transwomen’s and women’s fights are inherently different. Sex-based oppression doesn’t DIRECTLY affect transwomen: you will never be shunned for menstruating, you will never be afraid of having your prepubescent vulva mutilated for the sick pleasure of a men five times your age, you will never be afraid of being impregnated against your will, or of miscarriage of a wanted child, or of all the pregnancy and birth complications who are still killing women all over the world. you will never know what it’s like to have men catcall and grope you when you’re nine years old just because your boobs already began to grow.   

"The demonization of trans women is a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of human history and it is one that you have helped re-surge into the modern world.” that’s bullshit. the “demonization” you’re talking about can refer to one of two things: either the conservative view that transwomen are “deviant men” (which I definitely agree is shitty), or the radical feminist view that transwomen retain their male socialization and so, as a group, can represent danger to women (which is backed up by research, btw, and the amount of “receipts” in the form of news reports of transwomen hurting and murdering cis women AND in the unending threats and harassment that radfems receive online and irl).

"The idea of ASAB and tying it to gender in some inviolate and unchangeable way is something colonizing white people brought to this country, and others they invaded.” cool but that’s bullshit? pretty much every culture on earth has a history of identifying biological sex and applying sociological roles to them. that’s not a white invention, that’s not the fruit of colonialism. the concept of “gender” as behaviors and roles based on reproductive function has existed for as long as people have existed. some cultures have stricter rules about them, others are more loose. some cultures refuse to acknowledge non-conforming people as their “original gender”, and then you have things like two-spirit or hijras.

"Whether you realize it or not, and…let’s be honest, you probably do, your actions, your hate group, is just a laser-guided subsection of what fascism and white supremacy stands for.” wtf tho. fascists and white supremacists and nazi want a “pure” world without “lesser” groups, like black people, jewish people, homosexuals, gnc people. how is female-only radical feminism the same? are you aware that plenty of radical feminists are woc themselves, and even jewish? are you aware that the vast majority of people you’d call “terfs” aren’t even american, or english speakers? we literally just want men to stop fucking murdering us.

“Without colonization, without white supremacy, your argument, your constant, hammering on “male” as if to conjure some demon from the word, would mean nothing.” male violence has been a reality in human history. it’s not a theory, it’s not up to debate. it’s a fact. you know it is, according to your original post talking about men posing the most danger to transwomen. women all over the world are victims of men. it doesn’t change whether we talk about it, or use the words male, men, amab.

"I don’t mean that in the rhetorical sense, I mean literally, your words would not have a cogent basis without that.” again, bullshit. male violence is everywhere, in every culture, in every part of the world, regardless of how much contact with europen colonization the culture has had. japanese men are violent, russian men are violent, french men are violent, english men are violent, american men are violent, cuban men are violent, argentinian men are violent, brazilian men are violent. nazis didn’t invent misogyny.

“How fucking dare you invoke my dead sisters, how fucking dare you bring up that most of us getting murdered are PoC, while peddling Nazi approved propaganda.” uh. it’s “nazi approved propaganda” to say that women face violence from men and therefore need safe spaces from them? and I brought up the groups that murdered transwomen belong to because YOUR GROUP likes using them, using your so-called dead sisters, as argument points, as proof that a white middle class educated men with a dress and lipstick is somehow more oppressed than any woman on earth.

“Meanwhile, asshole,” oh cool name calling when I wrote a relatively calm and non-offensive post. “I was talking about SHARED SPACES. LGBT focused communities, the ones you are perpetually try to focus trans lesbians out of because you view us as the worst of what you already consider the worst.” yeah, maybe we wouldn’t need to do that if “lesbian” transwomen could stop demanding so much from women, or if they’d stop claiming protagonism when they don’t even experience SAME-SEX ATTRACTION, which historically has been, you know, the entire defining poing for “lgbt” people.

“You didn’t even notice it, did you? You were just launching into Pre-Written Terf Rhetoric #5 without so much as reading what I actually. Fucking. Said.” dude, you’re calling me a nazi literally just because I said women deserve female-only spaces and transwomen should create their own safe spaces away from men instead of demanding entry and protection from women.

"Your insistence that we’re “straight men” only serves to try and push us out of those communities as well." you have more in common with straight men than with lesbians, tho. you don’t experience same-sex attraction, you’re not female, you can impregnate a female lesbian (depending on transition specifics, but let’s be honest: the big problem is the transwomen who claim “there’s no need to need to transition bc my dick is a woman’s dick”), if you’re not “passing” you don’t need to fear homophobic violence from strangers.

“Jesus fuck, like did you even notice that was the fucking point? Like your shoving us aside as non-women is already fucked up but that wasn’t even the point of this particular post.” the point of your post was vilifying women who question the notion that “transwomen are exactly the same as women”. the point of your post was putting the blame on women, “terfs”, for what men do.

"The idea that men view us as also men is so beyond laughable I can’t even properly convey it.” they view you as “DEFECTIVE” men. they definitely don’t view you as women. men are violent towards you as a result of toxic masculinity - a non-conforming male is a threat to their notion of rigid male-female roles. the violence towards you is closer in motivation to the violence towards gay men, rather than the one towards women.

"But I’m just going to say: You don’t live our lives. You don’t live our experiences.” yes. just like you don’t live the lives of women. which is exactly why I said transwomen do deserve safe spaces, but not by invading female-only safe spaces.

"If you don’t know how wrong you are it’s because you’re incapable of treating our words as anything but the words of the target of your hate and thus discarded.” you’re lumping me in with nazis (I’m a latina gender-non-conforming lesbian, I’d be raped and killed by actual nazis faster than you could type “op is a terf”), refusing to actually ACKNOWLEDGE the things I said, bringing up way more arguments than the ones on your original post, and then blaming me for not being able to read your mind.

“The power you hold is that you have been aligning yourself with right-wing christian groups,” bullshit. again: women can’t even get men to stop raping us. how exactly do you think we have any power, any voice, over THE most misogynistic men on the planet?

"the power you hold is that your ilk has been speaking to audiences wherever they can find them in academia for decades,” again, bullshit. women have been in academia for, like, two years, in comparison to how long men have been dominating every public and private space.

"the power you hold is that you went into the communities that might have helped us stay alive and sowed false accusations to turn others against us,” b u l l s h i t. YOU came into OUT communities demanding we treat you as equals, when we are observably NOT equals. sex-based oppression doesn’t affect transwomen the same way it does women. men’s violence is distinctly different based on your sex.

"the power you hold is in helping, insidiously, to uphold the institutional biases that keep us marginalized, alone, and dying.” the same can be said of modern trans rights activists, tho. you’re all contributing to the strengthening of gender as a hierarchy - and not because you need to conform to survive. no, your original message (the one we can still hear from drag queens and transvestites from stonewall, for instance, that your kind likes to claim as “transwomen”) has been corrupted to the point where people look at a feminine gay boy and tell him he must be trans, he must transition, he must be a woman because he likes makeup and is attracted to men. your kind tells parents of vulnerable children that their little boys and girls will KILL THEMSELVES if they don’t take hormones as soon as possible. your group tells lesbians they need to suck dick to be proper lesbians. your group supports (and breeds) more murderers, rapists, and pedophiles than radical feminism could. your group tells women of color, lesbians, survivors of all sorts of male violence, that they’re the problem. you tell us we’re even worse than men. you tell us to die, you threaten us with rape, with baseball bats. you punch sixty year old women who dare take a picture of people trying to silence women. you rape and murder a twelve year old girl. you rape and forcibly impregnate a female trans person, and then brag about it. you support rapists and pedophiles being housed in women’s prison because of their “gender feels”. 

you tell women to shut up about their own experiences. you tell women they’re not the “right kind” of women. you tell women they’re not woman “enough”. you tell them to sacirfice themselves for yet another male.

“And yes, before you even start, I’m blocking you. I don’t debate Nazis or Nazi bootlicks.” still nowhere near being a nazi, but alright.

bonus:

“also do they just have a terf blog name generator somewhere, i swear all terf blogs read like a bunch of synonyms for vagina and spellings of rad and possibly a wolf reference or phile or fetishist, all put in a random name generator” that’s hilarious to men because I literally saved this url after I seeing an asshole claim that lesbians aren’t allowed to call themselves lesbians if they don’t suck dick, and that they’re actually vagina fetishists. the person used -phile on something, I can’t recall what, and I immediately thought “hmm, yes. I love vulvas. I’m a vulvaphile. A female vulvaphile.” 

[devilsskettle]

@zeesqueere​ “queer is a slur” is a recent argument that was started by terfs because the oppose the inherent ambiguity of the term and the fact that queer as an identity blurs the lines between sexuality, gender, and politics (being radical and anti-fascist). this is a known conceit

respectfully i don’t really want to argue with you but i don’t think that’s right. i’ve seen a lot of debate around the word queer from a lot of different kinds of people for a lot of different reasons in online spaces over the past decade (i’m assuming that’s what you mean by recent? unless you mean even more recently than that?), some based on personal experience, some on it’s origins as derogatory (since the late 1800s before being reclaimed in the 1980s), or the more obvious negative connotations of being deviant and strange. there’s also been plenty of debate about lgbt as an acronym (again, “drop the t” is a common idea among terfs). of course i’m not going to argue with the fact that a lot of terfs have latched onto “queer is a slur” and i do think we should be critical of what that means about that argument but they didn’t come up with the idea. imo it’s reductive to point to something that has nothing to do with trans exclusionary radical feminism when there are plenty of people who aren’t terfs including people who are trans who don’t want people to call them that and i’m just basically uncomfortable with trying to force people to use a term for themselves they’re uncomfortable with. i also really disagree with people attacking others for “using a slur” by calling themselves queer because i’m also uncomfortable policing the terminology people are “allowed” to use for themselves and i don’t think it’s a problem to use it more generally either as long as the people you’re calling queer are fine with it. it seems like most people feel positively about the word anyway so it’s kind of a moot point. but i also don’t see how it necessarily follows that using “queer” means someone is inherently more radical and antifascist. i understand why terfs wouldn’t like the ambiguity provided by the term but it also makes sense that some people want their identity to be more defined and don’t feel like such an ambiguous term fits their personal experience of gender or sexuality. neither way of talking about your identity is inherently better. and anyway i know plenty of people who use the word queer who aren’t all that politically progressive lol. also it’s a “known conceit” to who. just saying “well it’s common knowledge” isn’t a source. a group of people agreeing on a public online forum isn’t a reliable source. you can’t assume everyone is listening to the same voices in this echo chamber as you are. and look i might be wrong and “queer is a slur” is more directly tied to terf shit than i realize, in which case i’ll have to think more about it and probably change my tune but all i’m really trying to say here is that i think it’s more case by case and i don’t want to make people feel bad for not feeling comfortable getting stuck with a label that makes them feel bad. and that calling an opinion “terf-y” that doesn’t have anything to do with trans exclusionary ideas makes a straw man out of this honestly kind of useless debate instead of addressing the real problem with terfs, which isn’t that they think queer is a slur, but that they specifically hate trans women, and i guess that’s why i don’t like how many unrelated issues get called terf-y without any real critical thought behind it. i’ve also seen the claim that ace exclusionist discourse was started by terfs and i know that’s not the case because a few years back, that idea was circulating around plenty of otherwise completely inclusive, progressive blogs including from trans people. people have described an “ace exclusionist to terf pipeline” and this pattern probably does exist, it makes sense, but they didn’t invent it, they just latched onto it, and i’m not saying anything at all about whether or not that actual belief is bad, just that it’s not specifically terf rhetoric. it’s not a good idea to water down what terf means

wish people would stop saying that not liking the term “queer” or preferring “lgbt” is terf ideology. you don’t have to agree with them lol but you can’t just call every opinion you don’t like terf-y. it has nothing to do with specifically trans exclusionary and transmisogynistic ideology (especially since “drop the t” from “lgbt” is the rhetoric around that acronym. just seems like common sense to me that the preferred terf terminology wouldn’t include trans people specifically but okay). like can we just recognize that people have different levels of comfort with different ways of referring to themselves based on their own backgrounds and personal experiences and just respect each other’s preferences. is that really so hard

[chantylay]

I never stated that any of those things were invented under capitalism. What I said was capitalism exacerbates things like this. Virginity especially became a more strictly imposed standard under capitalism. Foot binding was started in the 1700s and was not part of Chinese culture for more than a blip in time. Sati was a very occasional practice for showing devotion to a deceased spouse and was considered extreme in India, and pressuring a widow into doing it was strictly forbidden, some regions had always banned it. Racist British colonizers used it as an excuse to "civilize the savages." Hijab is a gender neutral requirement in Islam. Men are also supposed to dress like that. I also said that because of how central exploitation is to capitalism, almost all current structures imposing oppression would collapse if capitalism were removed.

Radfems do establish standards of decorum. Every time they say bullshit like "women cant consent to sex if money is involved" or "no woman should be permitted to wear a burka even if she wants to do it" "kink is the logical extension of patriarchy and women cant have kinks all by themselves" they infantalize women and police their behavior. Also if you think "our philosophy doesnt believe trans people exist" hasn't already become "we must stop trans people from existing at any cost" you arent paying any attention to anything radical feminism has been saying in the last ten years. This then not only affects trans people, but gender non-conforming cis women get thrown into the fire for not being obvious enough about their womanhood. Terfs will claim they are protecting these women by forcing out the trans people, then turn around and stab them in the back. This shit is documented time and time again. But you dont care. You just want to put some bigots on a pedestal for reasons you cant or wont articulate without falling back on a no true scotsman.

As to the helpless victims, again THEY DONT THINK WOMEN CAN CONSENT TO HETEROSEXUAL SEX or CONTOL HOW THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR LABOR. It is infantalizing, anti-proletariot, and absolutely vile.

Also if all you know about Marxism is "capitalism bad" apparently all things left of the furthest far right is Marxist. That's ridiculous. Read a book. Preferably one my great-great-great-great-uncle Karl ACTUALLY WROTE.

if a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman because they have a penis, is that transphobic?

This is so blatantly bait, but whatever. I’m the trans woman, so I’ll answer this.

In simple terms: no. It becomes transphobic when she decides to start being a douchebag about it. Like “you have a penis so you’re not a real woman” kinda thing. It’s when she turns it into an attack rather than a “I’m not attracted to the genitalia you have, sorry” statement. The latter is asserting her bounderies, the former is her trying to insist that this physical feature she’s not attracted to means we’re not real women.

It also becomes transphobic if she insists that because that’s a “deal breaker” (for lack of a better term) for her, it’s a deal breaker for all other lesbians too.

Is that a satisfying enough answer?

-Mod Nora