#radtransfem

[nothorses]

Hey, I mean, it's been a year- I'm happy to reflect and re-evaluate.

I spent about a month doing research for this post- ranging from internet searches (of all kinds) to interviews (which I posted separately here and here), and the dilemma I ran into was essentially:

Like you noticed, most Baeddel blogs have been taken down. There are actually quite a lot of Baeddel-originated posts left over, but the problem is that they tend to be quippy one-liners that don't spell things out super clearly, and tend to exist more as part of a larger contextual understanding- or are intentionally phrased in such a way as to appear inoffensive at first glance. The other problem is that the other posts are mostly just vague bigotry, without explaining the internal logic.

And the third problem is that enough of these beliefs are accepted at face value today that a lot of folks would see "this is normal" instead of thinking about the underlying reasoning.

So the challenge I was facing was, essentially, the fear that citing sources that didn't spell themselves out would net me backlash from people who needed handholding through it. Which I consider pretty valid, considering the harassment campaign I was dealing with at the time.

The closest thing to a solution I could come up with was to use sources that did spell those beliefs out more explicitly- which did tend to be critical, but which were also consistent enough with each other's claims that I felt there was validity to them- and to encourage people to then look further into compilations of firsthand sources that would make the larger picture clear. (Like these ones: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] which I also linked in the OP.)

In regards to MYC specifically: Her blog has been deleted. There was no possibility of tracking down firsthand sources for everything, and similar to the issues I had with Baeddel posts overall, her posts tended to be quippy one-liners that sounded good on first read and made up a larger picture. My solution to that was similar; lots of secondhand accounts that were more concise/succinct and in keeping with each other, a couple of relevant posts/words from her, plus a link to a relevant tag on her blog that had been archived.

The TERF post was included for this quote:

"And then you have the earliest mtf theorists on tumblr like radtransfem and ciscritical-not-cisphobic – drawn to radical/lesbian feminism – around whom the baeddel group coalesced and their ideology developed, i.e. “radical transfeminism.”"

As it was also discussing MYC and her ideology. Again, regrettable to use shitty people as a source; also happens to be a connection other people have made. And the fact that radical feminists themselves connect Baeddelism to radical feminism does seem significant here.

That said, I could absolutely have included a disclaimer on that, and I didn't. I should have done that. I'm sorry.

I can also recognize where some of these claims come off as transmisogynistic stereotyping; the worst of these are claims that individuals have made in their own posts, which I linked for entirely different reasons.

I don't think MYC was "grooming" cis men, and I have never claimed that. What I did say was that the idea that cis men are "potential trans women" also lead to the belief that trans men are "irredeemable"; we had womanhood handed to us, and we rejected it, and that makes us Worse. This isn't an uncommon idea, and MYC was far from the first person to bring it up; it's extremely common for cis women to feel we've "abandoned womanhood" and try to punish us for it. But it's part of the way she and others view trans men, and that's relevant.

The unfortunate reality of criticizing trans people on the internet is that inevitably, transphobes will hop on board for all the wrong reasons and turn it into a reason to harass trans people. They'll add their bigoted bullshit to the conversation, and then you have to scramble to distance yourself from them while onlookers start to draw conclusions about your Real Intentions. Again, I could have done this better in my post; I'm sorry I didn't.

The "turn me into a girl" site was included because I remember looking into it at the time and feeling it was in line with the claims from the paired post that also linked it, but on second look, I can absolutely see that it's pretty genuine and wholesome. I also had mistakenly interpreted that post to mean that the site was created by MYC & co., but again, I jumped to that conclusion and I can see now that it isn't true. (Honestly I'm not sure why- my guess would be the context I found that link in, but what that was or if it existed is a mystery to me now.) That's my bad- I should have looked more closely.

And like... you got me, I'm not a historian. I'm also not a journalist. I do genuinely apologize for failing to look more closely at that source, and for failing to properly contextualize others. I do genuinely appreciate that you took the time to look through those sources, and I appreciate the feedback from a historical documentation standpoint.

I also don't think it's fair to call the whole thing bullshit, considering the arguments you're using show that you also failed to read and/or comprehend... honestly, a good majority of the post.

You ask why any of this matters, and funnily enough, there's a whole section dedicated to answering that question in the post: "Why It Matters".

You ask where the source texts are, but you literally quoted the answer:

“Baeddelism” was only one name for a set of beliefs that existed long before the specific term did, and hasn’t gone anywhere since the original Baeddel movement died down." So where are the source texts for this ideology? Where is the Baeddel manifesto? Influential and thus potentially dangerous ideologies have books written and published expounding them, where are the baeddel books?

The "Baeddel" clique was a group of people who shared certain beliefs that had already been popularized (hence the inclusion of MYC, who is known for popularizing a lot of the foundational beliefs). They centralized and amplified those ideas amongst themselves, they gave themselves a name, and then the abuse they enacted turned people off from them and they quietly disbanded. But those people and ideas didn't go away.

The point of this post is not to say "look out of anyone calling themselves a Baeddel"- though people absolutely should. The point is to talk about the ways in which radical feminism has influenced the trans community as a whole, using Baeddelism is a microcosm and example.

You say that radical feminism is inherently incompatible with any kind of trans acceptance, and I agree with you!

I said it in the OP, but Baeddelism was never really about Empowering/Protecting Trans Women or whatever; it was about empowering a specific group of white, "fully transitioned" (or trying to be), binary trans women. The ideology actively hurt trans women. The movement fell because they aggressively defended someone who raped a transfemme.

Baeddels tried to make radical feminism work for trans women, and it fucking didn't. The trans community still tries to make radical feminism work for us; it still fucking doesn't!

Radical feminism believes that womanhood is biological and that misogyny is The Root Of Oppression because of ~biological woman factors~. "Trans-inclusive" radical feminism follows the same tenants, but they drop the bits that make it logically incoherent when trans people are included; worst is the "gender is a choice so you should choose to be a woman" version, but the more popular versions insist that your real gender is always present in you and shapes your life from the beginning (true for some trans people, but not a universal experience).

It doesn't hold up, but like, you're asking for texts and books and manifestos from a loose ideology developed by some would-be academics on the internet. You're saying that this can't exist if it doesn't have formal academic writings, but the point is that this is less of a coherent ideology, and more of an interaction between radical feminism's influence on the queer community as a whole, plain old bigotry, and crab-in-a-bucket mentality. It doesn't need to follow solid internal logic; it just needs to sound good in a 100k note tumblr post & empower some abusive people to keep abusing.

I'm not comparing this to TERFism ("TIRF" isn't even my word). It's not a coherent movement on the scale of radical feminism. I'm outlining a set of common beliefs that already existed and continue to exist, and how they briefly came together even more potently to prove their inevitable harm to others.

I'm asking people to recognize that those ideas still exist, to point them out and talk about them, and to try to prevent that harm from occurring again- either in a Baeddelism 2.0, or just in the way these ideas more passively influence the queer community and trans theory.

Let's Talk About Bæddels: A Comprehensive Retrospective

(This post on Medium)

(@thequeer-quill's video reading)

Disclaimer

This post is not claiming that trans women do not suffer, or do not suffer as much as other groups of trans people. It is not claiming that all trans women are Baeddels (or adjacent), nor is it claiming that trans women oppress anyone else.

Transmisogyny is real, and requires much more acknowledgement than it currently receives. The trans community is very much capable of transmisogyny, and often does enact or enable it; likewise, trans people also often enact and enable transphobia against other parts of the trans community.

If you take only one thing from the following, take this:

We all need to work on being better allies to each other. None of us can gain anything without the rest of us.

Setting the Stage for Baeddelism

We can’t talk about Baeddelism without talking about Tumblr user @monetizeyourcat (“Cat”), and the ideology she popularized on the website in the early 2010’s.

Cat was a loud voice with a huge blog in the early days of Tumblr. Most of her popular content was humor-based, but she also championed an ideology that synthesized certain aspects of feminism, transfeminism, and communist ideals. Cat’s ideology is better explained here, and can be further explored here, but this is the foundation:

Manhood is inherently oppressive, and cannot exist outside the context of oppression.

Gender can be, to some extent, a choice.

Because of the above, one’s gender is an ethical choice with ethical consequences.

Being a man is, therefore, ethically harmful and wrong; particularly if you are giving up womanhood in order to be a man.

Being a woman is, therefore, ethically correct; particularly if you are giving up manhood in order to be a woman.

You may recognize some of the ideas here as a version of Radical Feminism: namely, the idea that manhood/men are inherently oppressive, and that womanhood/women are inherently victims.

All Cat had to do was map Radical Feminism onto the trans community. If manhood is Bad, and men are Bad, then trans men who reject womanhood in favor of becoming men are Bad. If womanhood is Good, and women are Good, then trans women who reject manhood in favor of womanhood are The Best. Which, of course, would also explain why society hates them more than any other trans person (something taken for granted by Cat and many others at the time).

This foundation was built upwards into a more complicated system of beliefs: cis men were viewed as “potential trans women”, people who did not yet know whether they were trans, had not made that choice, and could, conceivably, still choose to be women. As such, cis men were often seen as “better” than trans men. Trans men were encouraged to detransition, men in general were encouraged to reject their manhood in favor of womanhood, and “sissification” became a hallmark “joke” that the community forming around Cat latched onto.

The “gender is a choice” part of this ideology is a bit hard for most trans people to swallow, and Cat herself did not entirely ascribe to the idea that gender was always a choice. Still, even if men were intrinsically and inherently men, and even if they couldn’t simply choose not to be men the way she had, the idea remained that the so-called “ethical consequences” of being a man, and the harm this did to The Collective, vastly outweighed the personal harm suffered by “remaining” or “becoming” a woman. It was, in short, more ethical to suffer dysphoria in pursuit of womanhood than it was to accept one’s manhood.

It’s unclear whether Cat ever identified as a Baeddel, and she certainly didn’t begin the movement herself. She was definitely close to it, though, and many attest that her ideology constituted the building blocks of the Baeddelism movement.

Establishing an Ideology

The first post on Baeddelism was by Tumblr user @unobject, on October 2nd, 2013, and liked by @lezzyharpy, also one of the original Baeddels:

(Credit to @AcesArosandEnbies)

This post first provided the name and defining ideology of the Baeddel movement. The conclusion drawn from the post was, essentially, that because the root of the word “bad” was “baeddel”, and because “baeddel” referred to intersex people and “womanish men”, this old English slur was proof that transmisogyny was the worst form of bigotry; and even, perhaps, the root of all bigotry. (It’s worth noting that this etymology is likely inaccurate and ahistorical, along with problematic in several other ways.)

While @unobject was the first person to make this connection, @autogynephile (“Eve”) eventually became, in essence, the figurehead of the movement. Of the other Baeddels, some of them were explicitly aware and supportive of the ideology behind Baeddelism, some of them were young or newly-out trans women seduced by the personalities involved, and some of them were tangential enough to the movement that they didn’t really even know what it was. Baeddelism was a sort of trend, for a time, and many participants wore the name without entirely knowing what it meant.

It’s important to acknowledge that as much as there were dedicated members of Baeddelism, and as much as there was a unified ideology behind it, there were also individual Baeddels who did not understand- let alone support- the ideology.

That said…

The Belief System

Baeddels essentially built upon the foundation of @monetizeyourcat’s ideology that had been gaining traction on Tumblr in the years prior, with some additions that ultimately defined their movement:

Transmisogyny is the form of oppression from which all (or most) other forms of oppression stem.

Privilege is granted on the basis of assigned sex. (“AFAB” or “Assigned Female at Birth” vs. “AMAB” or “Assigned Male at Birth”)

These fundamentals of Baeddelism were essentially a rebranded form of Radical Feminism, much like Cat’s ideology. In particular, they drew from the Radical Feminist idea that misogyny was the “primary” form of oppression; that which all other oppression stemmed from. Baeddels only tweaked this idea to replace “misogyny” with “transmisogyny”, which led to the rest of the conclusions Baeddels drew:

Men are inherently oppressors, and women are inherently oppressed.

Trans women are inherently victims.

Because only AMAB people can experience transmisogyny, they are inherently more oppressed than AFAB people.

“AFAB Privilege”: The idea that within the queer and/or trans community, AFAB people receive unique privilege and positions of power that AMAB people do not.

There is no “transphobia” separate from “transmisogyny”. All transphobia stems from transmisogyny first, and transphobia as it impacts non-transfeminine trans people is incidental at most.

It’s important to note that these ideas were not all as universal as the first two, and different individual Baeddels held them to different extents.

Trans Lesbian Separatism

… was what the movement was ultimately defined by, as the logical conclusion of their other beliefs (much like Lesbian Separatism was the logical conclusion of Radical Feminist beliefs).

Baeddels believed that only trans women can understand, or be truly safe for, other trans women; therefore, contact with anyone who was not a trans woman was deemed “dangerous” and highly discouraged.

Trans Men

… also played an important role in Baeddel ideology, and the resulting treatment of trans men is what is often remembered today. Baeddels generally believed the following, either explicitly or implictly:

Trans men are not oppressed, nor marginalized at all.

Trans men do not experience transmisogyny.

Trans men do not experience misogyny, even prior to transition.

Trans men have access to male privilege.

Trans men have an easier time passing, and frequently go “stealth”; thus benefiting from male privilege as well as cis privilege.

Trans men are often (or always) misogynistic and transmisogynistic, and are not held accountable for this.

Trans men actively “choose” manhood even when presented with the “option” of womanhood.

Trans men oppress cis women.

Trans women enacting violence on trans men is “punching up” at oppressors, and therefore not only permitted, but encouraged.

Trans men become aggressive and violent when they go on testosterone HRT.

Nonbinary People

… are often overlooked when summarizing Baeddelism, but Baeddels did have plenty to say about them. Baeddel ideology relied on the idea that privilege was granted on the bases of assigned sex, and nonbinary people’s genders were thus treated as irrelevent; they essentially did not believe nonbinary people truly existed.

CAFAB nonbinary people are either trans men attempting to invade women’s spaces, or cis women pretending to be trans.

CAMAB nonbinary people are actually just trans women who haven’t accepted it yet. They must transition, or they are transmisogynistic.

Intersex People

Intersex experiences, and intersex history, were often co-opted and erased by Baeddelism. This was often more a byproduct of their beliefs than an overtly-stated idea, but most notably, the term “Baeddel” itself is likely more applicable- if not exclusively applicable- to intersex people, rather than trans women. Making their reclamation of it as a “transmisogynistic slur”, or their claim that the word’s existence means that “transmisogyny is the root of all oppression”, incredibly ignorant- if not actively harmful misinformation.

Notably, Baeddels also believed that intersex people- being “more androgynous” (a harmful misonception)- were able to pass more easily as the opposite assigned sex, and that intersex people even within transfemme spaces had “intersex privilege”. Some even believed, and openly claimed, that intersex people were “hermaphroditic”; a slur against intersex people, and typically implying that the individual has both sets of reproductive systems simultaneously.

Trans Women

… did not receive universally positive treatment, either. Baeddelism was very much a cult-like group built around the firmly-held conviction that they were absolutely correct, and that anyone who disagreed with them was The Enemy. Trans women who disagreed with them were generally seen as brainwashed and self-hating, and trans women who did agree with them were expected to subjugate themselves to the ringleaders of the movement.

Within Baeddel circles, trans women were most frequently victimized by the abusers allowed to run rampant because “trans women do not, and cannot, harm anyone else.” - Including, apparently, each other.

“They were also bad shitty abusive people in general. “… a bunch of them passed around a pile of smear campaigns and false rumors about virtually any trans woman that they had a even the slightest animosity for. Including the victim of the kinkster rapist. They’ve done other fucked stuff, like chased two twoc off this site for trying to make a zine, but yeah. That’s like, just some of it. I’m not up for going over the messy details of the whole shitparade “Full disclosure, I made a lot of excuses for these sacks of crap, even while they were out there spreading false crap about me […] I wasn’t aware of the worst shit they were doing until much much later." - @punlich

Inside the Movement

Though individual Baeddels often existed in vastly different social circles from each other- particularly offline- those who lived through the movement highlight commonalities in their experiences.

One interviewee recounts the manipulation present in their initial involvement with the movement:

“It came to me at a point where I was very quick to weaponize anything anyone told me about their experiences, because I was always a fighter. I’ve been an activist for a long time, you know, and when these trans women would come to me with their experiences I would believe them. I wanted to. But the way they acted didn’t add up when compared to what they were saying. I felt really lonely there, and stupid all the time. I felt like I was being a bad trans person.” […] “Online they were more willing to say things that were, for lack of a better word, stupid. They would say things that lacked any kind of logical sense. But in person, they would go into this kind of toxic femininity- this weaponization of weakness. And I think that’s because online they were often in these echochambers, but in person they had to rely on much more subtle manipulation.” - Vera

It seems at points that the environment created within this movement- and the social circles that composed it- was almost cult-like in nature and in need for control.

“It was very isolating. I didn’t see my friends for a while, I was kind of just living with them, cooking and cleaning for them, starving myself, and slowly growing crazy. I was just being consumed by this weird academia and theory that had no basis, because everything was online and Tumblr-based.” - Vera

When Bæddels Took Them: An interview and reflection on the Bæddelism movement

Perhaps most chilling, however, are the patterns in their attitudes toward sexual assault. One interviewer recounts being subject to sexual assault, and upon posting about their experience to a Facebook group, being met with hostility from Baeddels present in the group- who quickly used their social influence to have them banned from some of their only support systems at the time.

“I ended up with pretty much no one to talk to about the experience at a time when I was already really, really struggling, and it’s one of several factors that led to me dropping out. “The Baeddel who got me banned also messaged me directly at some point during all of this, and I tried to get her to understand the pain she was causing me. She basically laughed it off and said it was my fault. She seemed to find a lot of joy in how much it hurt me, and blocked me soon after.” - Anonymous

Another recounts sexual consent violations from a friend-turned-Baeddel:

“[My ex-friend] had previously been fetish-mining me for her mommy kink. I was freshly estranged from my own mum, and she stepped in to be like, “I’m your new mum now,” and would pester me to call her “mum” in Welsh- as at that point she was going by a Welsh name. I played along, but it transpired that she was basically using that to get off, and she had a thing for infantilising transmascs and being this mum/mom figure.” - Luke

And yet another interviewee discusses verbal sexual harassment during interactions with another Baeddel:

“I had one [Baeddel] directly tell me that I’m beneath her as a trans man, and that I should “Shut my smelly cooch up” and only use my voice to uplift trans women. I was a minor at the time. “She then sicced her followers on me, and they bombarded me with messages telling me I’d “never be a real man”, that I needed to “sit on the side and allow them to have the spotlight”, and even telling me to kill myself- because I was inherently toxic to them. I was 16 years old, pre everything, and I couldn’t even pass at the time. They didn’t seem to care that I was a minor, or a newly hatched egg.” - Anonymous

Brushes with Bæddels: Recalling the Bæddel movement

While Baeddel ideology itself does not explicitly condone or excuse sexual assault, it’s striking how common these stories are; especially considering how small in numbers actual Baeddels were.

It was, in fact, this exact problem that would eventually cause the movement to dissolve.

The Downfall of Baeddelism

Sometime between the group’s formation in 2013 and their downfall near the end of 2014, @autogynephile (also “Eve”), the defacto “ringleader” of the Baeddel movement, began what Baeddels referred to as a “transbian safehouse”.

This was apparently intended as a place for unhoused trans woman lesbians and trans women who, in general, had sworn off contact with men; the ultimate goal of the lesbian separatist ideology at the core of the Baeddel movement. It was thus also referred to as a “commune” by some, and as a “cult” by others.

One occupant of the “safehouse”- Elle- later posted to Tumblr that they had been raped by Eve during their stay, and detailed their experiences.

The Baeddels, rather than believing the victim and ousting the rapist from their movement, chose to close ranks around Eve.

Various reasons were given for this:

The victim must be lying

The victim- and anyone who believed them- was simply transmisogynistic.

Anyone who disagrees with the Baeddels is an Enemy Of The Movement, a “carceral thinker”, and a danger to trans women as a whole.

Trans women are incapable of sexually abusing anyone.

“Standing with Eve” was the ultimate sign of loyalty to the movement, and thus a mark of pride and honor.

It was okay to keep being a Baeddel no matter what, because Rape Accusations Should Be A Personal Matter.

(You can read more about Eve’s own denial of these events here and here.)

Years later, even people involved in the initial group have spoken out against the movement and actions of those involved:

(@lezzyharpy was one of the original Baeddels, and one of the first people to like the first “Baeddel” post by @unobject).

This was not the only instance of abuse by people associated with Baeddelism.

Elle posted their statement on August 4th, 2014; between that time and September of the same year, another user by the name of Quinn posted about her own experiences with abuse at the hands of @monetizeyourcat. Cat’s roommates in Seattle posted about their experiences with Cat shortly after Quinn did. Both parties alleged that Cat had been a manipulative and abusive roommate, friend, and partner.

Cat first attempted to argue the accusations, then later admitted that they were true and left the site. Her blog still contains her parting message. It has been pointed out that this is not necessarily an action taken in good faith and desire for growth.

The reception of her abuse allegations followed a similar pattern to Eve’s: people who ascribed to her ideology, Baeddels included, believed that Cat was not and could not have been abusive, as a trans woman. Others ignored warnings about her past and potential future actions, citing transmisogyny as the reason she must have been accused at all.

It has also been pointed out that Cat’s ideology (and, relatedly, Baeddel ideology) was extremely conducive to abuse- if not entirely constructed in order to allow abuse.

Why It Matters, and Why Baeddelism Never Really Fell

Baeddelism itself has seen multiple attempts at resurgences by various individuals, including documented experiences with self-proclaimed Baeddels as recently as 2018- well after the movement first “fell” in 2014.

Most proponents of “Baeddelism 2.0”, a revival of the original movement, argue that the abuse that occurred within the original movement was either completely fabricated by detractors (sound familiar?) or, at minimum, not actually inherent to the ideology.

And, of course, there are some original Baeddels still active on Tumblr today.

Baeddelism never actually went away.

“Baeddelism” was only one name for a set of beliefs that existed long before the specific term did, and hasn’t gone anywhere since the original Baeddel movement died down.

What the Baeddels did was put a name to the ideology @monetizeyourcat was cultivating before them, and what Cat did was popularize, centralize, and justify a way of thinking that had existed before she ever made her blog.

This ideology has since been referred to, loosely, as “TIRF-ism”: Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminism.

It is rare that anyone actually refers to themselves as a “TIRF”, and there is no real centralized TIRF movement; rather, a loose collection of radical feminist beliefs circulates various transgender spaces. The validity of these beliefs is generally taken for granted: of course (trans) women are The Most Oppressed People; of course (trans) women are Inherently and Unequivocally Victims In All Situations; of course (trans) men are Inherently Oppressors; of course (trans) men are Dangerous and Evil… and so on.

Like Radical Feminism, and subsequently Trans-Exlcusive Radical Feminism (TERF-ism), those ideas are fundamentally dangerous.

The defining tenants of radical feminism are that misogyny is the root of all oppression, and that rather than misogyny being an issue of power and control on a society-wide level, it is instead, or also, a matter of oppression and privilege on an individual level: men are always oppressors, and women are always victims.

These beliefs fundamentally exclude and erase the experiences of other marginalized people.

Namely, people of color and indigenous people, who’s experiences with and concepts of gender do not fall within the strict and rigid lines that white, western, colonialist people’s do.

Radical feminism is not a redeemable ideology. It cannot be reshaped into something good. It is fundamentally broken, and the movements born from it- lesbian separatism, political lesbianism, TERF-ism, TIRF-ism, and Baeddelism- are proof enough of that. They each promote only surface-level variations of what is fundamentally cult-like thinking: only the in-group can be victimized. Only the in-group is safe; the out-group is inherently and universally dangerous. Only the in-group understands you. All members of the in-group are, fundamentally, incapable of abuse.

We cannot allow these ideas to be perpetuated within or without the trans community.

Learn the Signs & Prevent the Harm

Here’s what we can do to prevent this from happening again:

Learn what Baeddel ideology and TIRFism look like, even detached from the name.

Learn what radical feminism looks like, even detached from the name. Even from people who claim to oppose radical feminism.

Act on dogwhistles. Call them what they are.

Do not allow people to downplay the harm all forms of Radical Feminism have caused. Remind each other that Radical Feminism is not a redeemable ideology, and seek out other branches of feminism instead.

Remember the harm that has been caused. Remember that it will be caused again if these things are allowed to go unchecked.

Listen to and uplift marginalized people. Allow them to speak to their own experiences, identify their own needs, and name their own oppression.

Remember who the real oppressors are, and do not pit marginalized people against each other. The people perpetuating and benefiting from transphobia are cis people- and more specifically, cis people in power.

Build solidarity with other marginalized people. One group of trans people cannot gain liberation without liberating all trans people, and one group of trans people cannot be targeted without the rest of us suffering as well.

Remember that there is no group or identity incapable of enacting abuse, violence, harassment, or other harm against another. Victimhood should not be determined based solely on an individual’s identity.

Remember that there are no acceptable targets for violence, cruelty, harassment, and abuse.

Red Flags to watch out for:

Using, or interacting with people who use, “Baeddel” as any form of self-description.

Downplaying the harm original Baeddels did: calling them “misled”, their actions “mistakes”, etc. without acknowledging the specific issues.

Obfuscating, ignoring, or erasing the abuse and rape allegations against members of the Baeddel movement.

Obfuscating, ignoring, or erasing the harm done to other transfemmes by Baeddels.

Dismissing, erasing, punishing/ostracizing, disavowing, or treating with suspicion transfeminine people who do not agree with Baeddel or radfem ideology. Insisting all or most transfemmes agree with Baeddel or radfem ideas.

Claiming TERFs only target, harm, or have ill will for trans women/transfemmes. Using “TWERF” or “TWEF” instead of “TERF”.

Claiming transmasculine people should not have any say in conversations about misogyny, transphobia, and/or TERFs.

Talking about “AFAB Privilege”, or otherwise implying that AFAB people share any qualities aside from being assigned female at birth.

Referring to trans people by AGAB, TME/TMA distinction, or even transfemme/transmasc frequently or exclusively; actively erasing or not allowing room for nonbinary and intersex experiences that do not fall within those binaries.

Implying men- cis or trans- would be better if they were made into women instead.

Implying attraction to men, or being a man, is somehow a “curse” or a “burden”, or otherwise unfortunate.

Implying a fear of men, including trauma-induced phobias, should never be healed from or sought treatment for. Implying men, cis or trans, cannot also experience trauma around men.

Treating trans men or transmasculine people as “acceptable targets” in any way; for harassment, for abuse, for misgendering, for inducing dysphoria, etc.

Implying transmasc dysphoria is “toxic masculinity”

Characterizing transmascs as hysterical, whiny, delusional, crazy, or otherwise using feminine stereotypes.

Implying it is femininity, specifically, that is targeted by the patriarchy; that feminine people are targeted more than masculine people, etc.

Using “listen to transfemmes” to silence other groups of trans people, and otherwise implying transfemmes are a monolith who happen to agree with you.

In general: espousing the ideas, fundamental or otherwise, that defined the Baeddel movement. (including TIRF and radical feminist ideology)

This list is not comprehensive, nor is any one thing on this list 100% certain to indicate that someone is a Baeddel- or if they are, that they are necessarily dangerous. It’s important to keep in mind how many people are groomed into this movement and abused within it; some of those who espouse Baeddel rhetoric may themselves be victimized by others.

But until we recognize these ideas for what they are and where they’ve come from, history can only repeat itself.

Educate Yourself and Others

It would take a long, long time and a lot more space to detail all of the damage done, the people hurt, and the dangers of continuing to allow these ideas to be perpetuated. Instead, I have compiled some resources and references.

I urge you to check these out, bookmark them for later, or whatever else works for you! (They’re also all much, much shorter reads than this has been.)

@baeddel-txt and @rejectedbaeddeldiscourse, two blogs dedicated to documenting various posts and beliefs held by original Baeddels.

Another blog’s tag for Baeddel history.

Baeddel.net, another archive of Baeddelism.

@AcesArosEnbies thread, and @gothmyths thread, on Baeddelism.

@quinndolyn’s recount of Baeddelism.

My own post on the origins of the Baeddel movement.

My own post including posts from Baeddels (and others) as recently as 2018.

An archive of assorted Baeddel posts.

[radicaltransfeminismzine]

Radical Transfeminism Zine presents: Film x Poetry

'what if it doesn't get better, and what if this is all there is?' Radical Transfeminism zine presents films by Mijke van der Drift and Natasha Lall, alongside poetry from Nat Raha. This will include Mijke van der Drift and Alex Reuter’s A way of dying… (2017). Friday 6th July 2018

7 - 8.30pm

Godfrey Thomson Hall, Thomson’s Land, University of Edinburgh, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ Free. Wheelchair accessible. * A way of dying.... is an experimental film presenting and discussing contemporary North European trans contexts. The film presents the case for trans defeatism. It is concerned with the questions 'what if it doesn't get better, and what if this is all there is?' From this premise A way of dying.... addresses both the problems with transnormativity: the agglomerate of 'proper' ways of being trans, as well as the problem of trying to live alternative forms of life. A way of dying.... addresses mainstream violence, but does not claim alternative communities are harmless. The film addresses the problems of forming new lives both on the personal and the communal level. A desired innocence about the violence that is operational upon various levels makes this harder, thus A way of dying.... invites the viewer to swallow this and to see what form of life can happen from there. The emotional scope ranges from anger to tenderness to sadness, alternating between stillness and energetic outbursts. The texts of A way of dying.... are assembled from fragments of Kathy Acker, Luce Irigaray, and Jackie Wang - varying from lyrical to abstract to direct and poetic, and aim at destabilising the viewer and inviting a variety of interpretations.

A way of dying.... is the second project in the collaboration of Mijke van der Drift and Alex Reuter. Escaping into Common Places, having Gothic Adventures in the Neoclassical and Other Ages. Or: My Life is Framed by You, their first film, addressed hypervisibility of trans bodies.

* Natasha Lall is a multi-disciplinary artist dominantly working with sound, text and film. Lall’s work explores dysphoria in the contemporary realm. Recent work includes an installation of film, sound and sketches for It Gets Better V (2017) at The Insitute of Contemporary Arts, London. Previous solo shows include SCRUB (2016) at Life Gallery, London. Group shows include Ecocide (2015), Clubdead (2016) and Swatch (2017).

Lall regularly gives academic papers and talks on queer politics in the world of sound and music. Recent presentations include a talk on her novella SQUELCH (2017) at The Women’s Library, Glasgow and a paper entitled Brown Girls in the Club (2017) at Sonic Cyberfeminisms, Lincoln University. Lall has recently started a regular slot on the show Queerphonie on Sound Art Radio. Continuing on from much of her previous radio work, Lall uses the show to document contemporary queer histories in the form of interviews and music.

*

Nat Raha is a poet and trans / queer activist, living in Edinburgh. She is the author of three collections of poetry: of sirens / body & faultlines (Boiler House Press, forthcoming), countersonnets (Contraband Books, 2013) and Octet (Veer Books, 2010). Her essay ‘Transfeminine Brokenness, Radical Transfeminism’ appeared in the South Atlantic Quarterly. Nat is co-editor of the Radical Transfeminism zine, and is currently completing a PhD on queer Marxism and contemporary poetry at the University of Sussex.

*

Accessibility: the venue is wheelchair accessible, and has a hearing loop. All discussions will use a microphone. Subtitling of films TBC. Visual copies of the poetry will be projected at the event. The event will not have BSL interpretation. If you have additional access requirements, please contact Nat Raha.

[loveamongthesailors]

Honestly big shout out to radtransfem's writing ( https://radtransfem.wordpress.com ) for helping me to snap out of a lot of harmful ideas I had about sex that I got growing up exposed to online communities w tons of porn and kink since childhood and also sex positive feminism later

[silver-and-ivory]

tfw you used to really respect someone and then you reread their blog and you’re like holy shit I can’t believe I actually admired this

also like

this is about radtransfem, not anyone else. because holy shit. I thought she was really cool why did I think she was really cool

[merfemmedistro]

Radical Transfeminism

I'm so so so so excited and honored to include this amazing zine in my distro!! It's called "radical transfeminism". 

"It involves centering trans women, trans femmes and non binary transfeminine people in particular (next to other trans and non-binary people more generally) : to centre our bodies, needs, experiences and importantly our desires within our political, academic, activist and organising work. Our bodily autonomy is at the heart of this. (...) "

A very powerful and great piece of work!

[bubbly-suffer-girl]

This is an appreciation post for:

unobject, radtransfem, and ciscritical-not-cisphobic

I consider these 3 to be a great influence on me, and have learned so much from them. Your posts are great and I just wanted to let you all know that you have had large influence on my writing.

[deconstructingtransphobia]

A progressive, trans*-inclusive view of the political ‘woman’ does not mean we have to redefine the term to mean, “cissexual women, including transsexual women who are the same”. I suggest not a redefinition of the term ‘woman’, but an expansion. Just as we can recognise that women worldwide have differing experiences, perhaps we can also understand that women may experience different abuses during our childhoods and still make our way to a place where we share common experience of present-day womanhood.

Lisa Millbank

If I had to label my feminist ideology, I'd call it trans-inclusive radical feminism.

[snowflakeespecial]

Hi, you recently mentioned that radtransfem is misogynist despite their affinity for second wave feminism. I'm a bit confused about this statement since I've liked some of their work. Could you go into more detail as to why you think their work is harmful/misogynist? (I don''t have a tumblr account so I'm anon)

Radtransfem doesn't respect the right of women to have female-only space. That says it all! Here are some of my interactions with her.

[radicaltransfeminismzine]

Radical Transfeminism Zine

“We are dreaming, and have been dreaming for decades, of forms of radical social transformation, rooted in Black radicalism, anarcho-communism, Gay Liberationist and other collectivist politics. We have been necessarily working towards alternatives to capitalism and practicing them on a micro level (when we can steal the hours to do so). Our feminism has emerged through the experiences of our lives of transgressing gender norms (gender norms that are always racialised, classed and abled); through challenging the gender identity police (psychiatrists) and the bourgeois politics of trans and queer liberalisms; through imbibing feminist writings and the writings of women and men of colour, of queer and trans writers, through pulling a transfeminist herstory out of obscurity.”

Featuring writing, visuals and manifestoes on transmisogyny, boredom, erasure, agency, trauma and embodiment, strikes in the university, sexual politics, healthcare, activist and cultural spaces, reproductive justice, justice, desire, poetics.

Autumn 2017. 64 pages.

Pay what you can/donations: £1 - £2 - £3 - £4 - £5 - £6 - £7 - £8

When using the PayPal link, click ‘I’m paying an individual’, and add the following note: ��radical transfeminism and enter your postal address’.

Free UK/International Postage.

We’ll be doing more accessible copies of the zine on request - including digital copies (available) and audio copies (not yet available). Please contact us at radtransfemzine (at) gmail (dot) com.

Illustration by Mukund.

[cronehead-blog]

Power and violence are not even just qualities of sex acts in the same way as sexual positions, forms of touch and the romantic/erotic connection are qualities of sex acts. They also precede and follow the act, coercing participation and silencing women who only understand a sex act as rape after the event… . So it shouldn’t be a surprise that sometimes those scripts lead to something nice, and that sometimes they enable rape. If anything, it should be a surprise that they lead to sex which is nice as often as they do.

Lisa Millbank, The Ethical Prude: Imagining an Authentic Sex-Negative Feminism

I read this a few days ago, and I cannot stop thinking about it. 

[invincibleswordprincess]

Introduction "A slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you," write Dossie Easton and Janet Ha...

Every time I am reminded of this article and go back and reread it, it just gets more and more relevant. Like this is probably the single best piece of feminist writing I have ever read.

[hollowedskin]

I'm still writing up my answers and responses to ratransfem's post on cisgender feminist allies. My brain is fluffy though and I'm having a lot of trouble putting together thoughts.

I'm not willing to put off taking my meds at this point in time,  even though it will make thinking clearer. So it is going to take me a while longer to write it in stages.

I think it's really important to do properly, and I encourage other cis people who would consider themselves allies to have a read and analyze your own actions and answer the questions.

I posted it independently of my own answers last night, because I didn't want to take the emphasis off such an important peice of writing with my own commentary, but I AM working on my own responses (I don't want to have it seem like I'm not responding to it or don't feel like I'm accountable because of my vague genderfeels, my confusion does not equal the oppression suffered by transwomen, and I experience cis privilege the same as if I had no genderfeels because I don't experience transmisogyny) . It's just taking me longer because marshmallow brain.

[bubbly-suffer-girl]

I found out today that radtransfem and I made it to r/tumblrinaction (Don't look if you don't want to see privileged people talking about things they don't understand) off radtransfem's response to me be calling called a born again radfem

[radicaltransfeminismzine]

Sciopero! Strike! A statement from the transfeminist strikers of the CIRQUE conf (bilingual version)

Riceviamo & pubblichiamo da* scioperanti della conferenza CIRQUE

[Questo comunicato nasce come testo bilingue, ma per facilitare la lettura trovate la versione solo italiano qui e la versione solo inglese qui]

[this statement was born as a bilingual text but to make the reading easier we have a only-english version here and a only-italian version here]

Bilingual version:

Siamo trans*, lesbiche, camioniste, ricchioni, femministe, persone trans-queer nere. Siamo ricercatrici senza stipendio o con stipendi intermittenti, attivist*, performer, traduttrici, professori a tempo indeterminato cui l’accademia neoliberale rende la vita impossibe perchè troppo critici, troppo emotiv*, troppo soggettiv* o troppo “di nicchia”. Proveniamo da contesti geografici e culturali diversi.

We are trans, lesbians, butches, femmes, queers, feminists, trans-queers of color. We are wageless scholars or with intermittent wages, activists, performers, translators, tenured professors whose lives are made miserable by neoliberal academia for being too critical, too emotional, too subjective or too “niche”. We come from and live in different geographical and cultural contexts.

Sentiamo l’urgenza e il bisogno di condividere il racconto di come, all’interno di una conferenza accademica politicamente problematica come ce ne sono tante, ma forse un tantino peggio delle altre, ha preso corpo quella che per noi è stata una forma di SCIOPERO dal lavoro accademico precario, ma anche dal surplus di sfruttamento e alienazione che subiamo in quanto lavoratrici/-tori trans, lesbiche, froce, razializzate dell’industria accademica e della produzione culturale. Uno sciopero che vediamo in profonda connessione con lo sciopero internazionale delle donne dell’8 marzo.

We feel the need and the urge to share how, during a conference politically problematic as many others, but maybe a little bit worse than others, something emerged that we came to see as a form of STRIKE from precarious academic work, but also from the additional exploitation and alienation that we suffer as trans, queer, lesbian, racialized workers in the academic industrial complex and in the cultural production industrial complex. We see this STRIKE deeply connected to the 8th march women’s global strike.

Di tentativi di depoliticizzazione e appropriazione del queer ne abbiamo visti e ne vediamo tanti. Bisogna dire però che quello portato avanti nella conferenza organizzata a L’Aquila dal CIRQUE (Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca Queer) dal 31 marzo al 2 aprile scorsi si è distinto per la sfacciataggine, la pretesa di legittimità, la violenza e la particolare rozzezza dell’operazione.

We witnessed many times people trying to depoliticize and appropriate “queer”, but we have to say that the way this was done in the conference in L’Aquila by the CIRQUE (Interuniversity Centre for Queer Research), from the 31st March till the 2nd April was worse than usual, in terms of sense of entitlement, violence and lack of sensitivity.

Così l’ultimo giorno della conferenza, esasperat* e stanch*, abbiamo scioperato dai panel ufficiali nei quali eravamo attes* chi come speaker, chi come pubblico: abbiamo occupato un’aula, e ci siamo pres* il tempo e lo spazio fisico e simbolico per una sessione di discussione transfemminista autonoma e autogestita.

The last day of the conference, we were drained and we had had enough. We striked from the official panel were we were supposed to be, some of us as audience, some of us as speakers, and we carved out the time and the physical and discursive space for a self-managed, autonomous transfeminist session.

Uno spazio in cui discutere fra soggettività diverse ma unite dal mutuo riconoscimento e dalla pratica politica del posizionamento. Uno spazio per far avanzare il nostro pensiero e con esso le nostre lotte. Uno spazio in cui non essere sempre riportat* indietro dall’ignoranza del privilegio dei gruppi dominanti.

We created a space in which we could discuss among different subjectivies, united by mutual recognition and the practice of politics of positioning. A space where we could advance our thoughts and therefore our struggles. A space where we could not be pushed back again and again by the ingnorance stemming from the privilege of dominants groups.

In questo modo, abbiamo scioperato dal lavoro pedagogico e di cura delle classi dominanti, quel lavoro non riconosciuto e non pagato che ci viene richiesto come dovuto ogni volta che subiamo violenza fuori e dentro l’università: ogni volta che ci si aspetta che spieghiamo con pazienza al povero etero pieno di buone intenzioni (o gay-cis bianco, o qualunque altra posizione di privilegio si dia nella specifica situazione) perché un certo comportamento ci offende ed è politicamente problematico; ogni volta che dobbiamo supplire all’ignoranza o soddisfare la curiosità delle persone “normali” come condizione per farci “accettare” – una situazione in cui la conferenza CIRQUE ci ha messo innumerevoli e insopportabili volte.

We interrupted the pedagogic labour, the emotional labour and the educational labour toward the dominant classes, that unrecognized and unpaid labour that is expected from us each time we suffer violence in and outside university, each time people expect us to explain carefully and patiently to the poor straight white male full of good intentions (or the white cis gay male, or any other subject in a position of privilege in the specific situation) why this or that behaviour of his hurts us and is politically problematic; each time we have to remedy the ignorance or satisfy the curiosity of the “normal” people as a condition to be “accepted”. The cirque conference put us in this situation many, too many and unbearable times.

Abbiamo scioperato interrompendo l’estenuante lavoro di cura delle pubbliche relazioni che dovrebbe servire a farci avere un domani l’ennesimo contratto sottopagato (forse). Ci siamo pres* invece il tempo e lo spazio per prenderci cura collettivamente di noi e dei nostri bisogni (e ne avevamo bisogno, dopo tutto quello che avevamo dovuto subire!).

We interrupted the exhausting work of networking that is supposed to be important in maybe getting us a job one day, maybe just another underpaid job. Instead we took the space and time to collectively take care of ourselves and OUR needs (and we needed it, after all the shit we went through).

Ci siamo sottratt* al dovere di “farci vedere”, dando invece consistenza e visibilità a tutto il lavoro invisibile che in continuazione dobbiamo ri-produrre.

We refused to comply with the imperative of “being visible”, instead we gave visibility to the invisible work that we re-produce all the time.

Abbiamo smesso di competere e sgomitare per ottenere il riconoscimento del nostro lavoro e ci siamo pres* uno spazio in cui scambiarci orizzontalmente riconoscimento e conoscenze basate sui nostri vissuti.

We stopped competing with each other to get the recognition of our work and we made space to exchange/share recognition among peers in a horizontal way, and to share knowledges embodied in our lives.

Questo spazio ce lo siamo preso e lo abbiamo difeso. Alcuni organizzatori della conferenza si sono presentati nella candida convinzione che anche quel tempo e quello spazio fossero destinati a interagire con loro; per loro era impossibile immaginare che lì, in quel momento, i privilegi potessero essere nominati, le relazioni di potere sfidate, la pedagogia interrotta, fino a farli sentire a disagio, fuori luogo, insopportabili, espulsi e farli uscire dalla stanza.

We un-occupied this space (we took this space ourselves) and we defended it. Some of the organizers showed up, naively convinced as they were, that even this time and this space were devoted to adressing them; for them it was impossible to imagine that in this space privileges could be named, power relationships challenged, pedagogy interrupted to the point that they would feel uncomfortable, in the wrong place, unwelcome, expelled, so that they had to get out the room.

Chiediamo migliori condizioni per il lavoro produttivo, affettivo e di cura non riconosciuto che svolgiamo per l’accademia. Già dobbiamo combattere quotidianamente contro le molteplici forme di oppressione che subiamo nella società: non abbiamo più intenzione di doverci ritagliare faticosamente il nostro spazio e svolgere questo lavoro di pedagogia continua anche in un ambiente che si proclama ‘friendly’ e ‘progressista’, e che invece si rivela ostile e violento.

We demand better conditions for this unrecognized, economic, affective and care labour that we produce for the academy. Given that we already have to resist multiple oppressions  in society, we refuse to have to make space and perform with difficulty unpaid labour in a supposedly “friendly” and “progressive” academic environment which proves instead to be hostile and violent.

Il nostro sciopero è uno sciopero contro la violenza epistemologica, contro il lavoro gratuito di spiegazione di sé e di educazione delle classi dominanti che ci viene estorto, contro la precarietà, lo sfruttamento e l’oppressione imposta alle lavoratrici/lavoratori della conoscenza, contro il razzismo, l’islamofobia e il pinkwashing. Ma se scioperiamo contro queste cose è perché hanno delle conseguenze materiali sulle nostre vite di persone queer, trans, precarie ben oltre l’università.

Our strike  is against the epistemic violence, against the unpaid and unrecognized labour, that is extracted from us, the labour of explaining oneself and educating dominant classes; against precarization, exploitation and oppression that academic workers suffer. Against racism and slamophobia and pinkwashing. We strike against these things because they have material consequences on our lives of queers, trans, precarious folks far beyond university.

Grazie alla solidarietà e alla creatività che ci hanno permesso di trasformare almeno in parte l’esasperazione, la rabbia e il dolore in un momento di resistenza, le nostre ferite stanno guarendo. Noi stiamo guarendo, ma perché chi ci ha ferito non sente il bisogno di mettersi in discussione e non viene messo di fronte alla responsabilità delle proprie azioni? Noi non staremo zitt*.

Thanks to the solidarity and creativity that allowed us to partially transform our irritation, anger and pain into a tool for resistance, friction is healing. We heal, but why do those who hurt us not see the need to question themselves or face accountability for their actions? We won’t shut up.

Il pensiero queer (o frocio, lesbico, ricchione..) e trans dentro e fuori dall’accademia è radicato nelle vite froce, nasce dai movimenti, e deve essere a supporto delle nostre vite e delle nostre lotte.

Queer and trans thought in and outside the academy is experience based and must support our lives and our struggles.

Non possono fermarci, resistiamo, scioperiamo, cospiriamo. Il patriarcato cis-sessista-abilista-capitalista-bianco-maschio-eterosessuale cadrà a pezzi e morirà e al suo posto sorgerà un meraviglioso mondo transfemminista queer.

Utimately, they can’t hold us down, we resist, we strike, we fight back. The cissexistableistcapitalistwhitemaleheteroptriarchy will crumble and die and a more beautiful transfeminist queer world will arise.

***

Per saperne di più: alcune “perle” dalla conferenza CIRQUE…

To know more: “the best of” the CIRQUE

Queer? L a qualunque (tanto va bene tutto) /

QUEER?: WHATEVER, ANYTHING GOES

Nell’intervento di apertura della conferenza, l’idea che il queer dovrebbe sganciarsi dalle soggettività e dai corpi lgbt per diventare uno strumento di decostruzione astratto, utilizzabile da chiunque per qualunque cosa, ci è stata spacciata come il nuovo orizzonte degli studi queer.

The conference’s opening speech proposed the idea that queer theory should be detached from queer bodies and queer subjectivites to become an abstract tool of deconstruction that can be used by anyone and for any purpose.

Mettiamo le cose in chiaro: come transfemministe siamo le prime a fare attivismo in gruppi composti da soggettività diverse, e pensiamo che il queer, come pratica politica e di conoscenza, può essere praticato da chiunque, a patto però di posizionarsi e di sapersi assumere la responsabilità e la parzialità del proprio posizionamento e del sapere che da lì si produce; a patto di saper riconoscere i privilegi, i punti ciechi, le complicità che derivano – anche tuo malgrado e a dispetto della tua grande buona volontà – da quel posizionamento. E a patto di riconoscere una genealogia che parte dalle esperienze incarnate di lesbiche razializzate, froce, camioniste, checche, travestite e trans*.

Tutto il contrario di ciò che è stato fatto, ed esplicitamente rivendicato dagli organizzatori della conferenza dell’Aquila.

Bisogna essere chiari sugli interessi che ci spingono a studiare determinate esperienze che non sono la nostra. Rifiutiamo ogni tentativo di ricodificare la neutralità sotto falso nome. Chi può parlare per chi? A beneficio di quali interessi? Il punto, evidentemente, non è che puoi studiare le/i trans solo se sei trans, ma che senza politica del posizionamento anche il sapere più critico e apparentemente sovversivo torna ad essere uno strumento nelle mani delle classi dominanti. La conferenza CIRQUE ce ne ha dato innumerevoli esempi.

We want to make it clear: as transfeminists we are doing activism in groups in which different subjectivities are present, and we think that queer, as a political and epistemic practice, although generating from the embodied experiences of racialised lesbians, queers, butches, queens, trasvestites and trans people, can be practiced by anyone at one condition – that you position yourself and recognize the privileges, the blind spots, the collusions that stem from your position despite your good will.

The opposite of what has been done and explicity claimed by the conference organizers.

You have to be clear about the interests that move you to study certain experiences that are not yours. We have had enough of all these attempts to recodify neutrality under false names. Who can speak for whom? For the benefit of which interests? The point is clearly not that you have to be trans to study trans people, gay to study gay people etc. but that without politics of positioning even the most subversive and critical knowledge becomes again a tool in the hands of dominant classes. Cirque gave us plenty of examples in this direction.

Durante la conferenza, abbiamo visto utilizzare il termine “queer” per designare qualunque cosa vagamente non normativa, qualunque pratica che apparisse “trasgressiva” agli occhi del ricercatore, qualunque prospettiva critica su questo o quell’argomento (del tipo, “queerizzare questo e quello”), senza nessuna svolta queer nella metodologia, così che qualunque cosa potesse essere legittimata fintanto che “scientificamente” accreditabile.

Throughout the conference, we have witnessed the term “queer” being used as a signifier to characterize anything vaguely non-normative, any critical perspectives on x or y field or topic (queering this, queering that…), and in particular, practices that seemed “transgressive” (whatever that means) to the researcher’s eyes. But their conservative and still straight epistemological framing and methods were never adressed. All the contrary: they were kept in place in order to pass as “scientific”.

“Queer” è ritornato a significare ciò che è scioccante, strano, ciò che la moralità vede come raccapricciante. Questo uso manipolatorio del termine “queer” mostra il pericolo di scivolare verso atteggiamenti queerfobici o anti-queer. Ma non è esattamente un atteggiamento anti-queer che informa questo tipo di interpretazione del queer? È chiaro che la ragione più ovvia per questo tipo di scorciatoie è il fatto che per l’occhio etero accademico, “queer” rappresenta un concetto di nicchia ricercato da pochi, che lo rende “intrigante” e “figo”.

“Queer” went full circle, essentially going back to a shocking word for the “strange” and “what morality sees as creepy”. This kind of tokenistic and manipulative use of “queer” shows the danger of slipping back into queerphobic or anti-queer attitudes. Or isn’t it precisely an anti-queer attitude that informs that kind of interpretation of queer? It’s clear that the most obvious reason for such smokescreens and shortcuts is that to the straight academic eye, “queer” is another obscure niche that no one’s looking at, which makes it “edgy” and “cool”.

Per esempio, alcune presentazioni alla conferenza hanno utilizzato il termine “queer” per accreditare indirettamente motivazioni per il sesso intergenerazionale non consensuale. Mentre studiare la pedofilia può essere una cosa legittima, in questi casi specifici era davvero poco chiaro perché ci si appellasse a questa accezione di queer come significante di qualsiasi cosa. Per di più senza riguardo per le implicazioni etiche di tale prospettiva, e nella completa non considerazione dell’esperienza delle persone che avevano subito abusi da piccol* presenti nel pubblico, tutto ciò anche dopo che queste sono intervenut* nel dibattito.

For instance, some presentations in the conference used “queer” to indirectly or tacitly bring in arguments about non-consensual, intergenerational sex. While studying paedophilia can be a legitimate endeavour, it was unclear, in these specific cases, why the talks would be conflated with queer anything. This, of course, without regard for the ethical implications of such an outlook, and with contempt for the complete erasure of survivors in the audience, even *after* they have spoken out.

Il titolo della conferenza era “Cosa c’è di nuovo negli studi queer?”. Ma niente di nuovo può arrivare da chi non sa nemmeno di cosa sta parlando. Eppure, cosa ci dice questo titolo a proposito del significato di “queer”? Chi è legittimato a chiamare la propria ricerca queer? Chi ha improvvisamente interesse a strombazzare di fare “ricerca queer”? Queste sono le vere domande dietro “cosa c’è di nuovo nei queer studies”.

“What’s new in Queer Studies?” was the title of the conference. It was but a lure: nothing is new from those who have no idea what they’re even talking about! But what does that say about the meaning of “queer”? Who is legitimate to call their research queer and who is now claiming queer studies? These are the real question behind “what’s new in queer studies”.

Conosciamo bene il desiderio dell’accademia di capitalizzare il queer, le esperienze e i corpi trans*- e in particolare le trans povere e nere. Abbiamo conosciuto e viviamo ancora sulla nostra pelle cosa significhi diventare oggetti di studio spersonalizzati, abbiamo visto in tutti questi anni le nostre pratiche di lotta e resistenza ridotte a pura estetica depoliticizzata, continuiamo a vedere come i pensieri che produciamo insieme alle nostre comunità ci vengano sottratti per diventare materiale e dati per speculazioni teoriche che saranno poi rivendute come “produzioni scientifiche”.

In Italia, in particolare, in questo momento è in atto un vero e proprio tentativo di imperialismo epistemologico: cancellate le esperienze di dissidenza dai generi ed eccentricità in cui cui siamo cresciut* come attivist* e pensator.ici queer (o froce, o ricchione) oggi l’accademia italiana si affanna a dimostrare di essere all’altezza degli standard anglofoni, producendo una norma di ciò che il “queer” dovrebbe essere e riproducendo le proprie gerarchie anche in questo spazio.

We know too well the desire of accademia to capitalize on queer and the experiences and the bodies of trans* people – in particular of poor trans women and trans women of colour. We know through our own skin how it feels to be treated like dehumanised objects of study. Our practices of struggle and resistance are reduced to mere depoliticized aesthetics. The thought we produce in our communities are stolen and become raw material and data for theoretical speculations that will be marketed as “scientific productions”.

In Italy in particular, in this moment there is an attempt to carry on epistemic imperialism: italian academia is trying to erase the experiences of gender dissidence and eccentric sexuality in which we grew up as queer activists and scholars, and to demostrate that it can catch up with the anglophone standards, thus producing a norm of what queer is or should be and reproducing its own hierarchies in this space.

Il paradigma indiscusso della bianchezza: razzismo culturale a 360 gradi / WHITENESS UNQUESTIONED, CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, RACISM ALL OVER

La conferenza era satura di bianchezza, appropriazione culturale e appropriazione della produzione intellettuale del femminismo nero e postcoloniale.

Relatori bianchi si sono appropriati del concetto di razza (“trans-race”) semplicemente perché fa figo, spesso grossolanamente travisando argomenti o usando citazioni selettive per manipolare i testi per i loro fini, in contrasto con gli scopi esplicitamente sostenuti dalle/dai scrittrici/scrittori nere/i e postcoloniali. Perché non c’erano persone nere alla conferenza, mentre le persone bianche che reclamano un’identità nera sono viste come l’avanguardia della sovversione anti-identitaria?

The conference was saturated with whiteness, cultural appropriation, and the appropriation of the academic work of women of colour.

White panellists appropriated race to look “cool” (‘trans-race’), often grossly misrepresenting arguments, or using selective quotation to make texts work for their own means contrary to the arguments of the writers of colour they were citing. Why were there no Black people in the conference, while people who have appropriated Blackness are said to be transgressive?

Allo stesso tempo è stato affermato che l’atto di performare le altre culture è radicale perché (citando un professore cis etero bianco alla conferenza) “queer è performatività per cui anche la razza puo essere performata”. La sola persona evidentemente non bianca presente alla conferenza, una donna trans, ha dovuto spiegargli perché la performance sull’indian face (due ragazze bianche che perfomavano un’immaginaria quanto orientalista India) fosse un’appropriazione culturale estremamente offensiva e razzista. Nononstante ciò lui non ha voluto ascoltarla e ha continuato a interromperla.

Meanwhile it was claimed that performing Othered cultures is radical because (quoting a cis straight white man at the conference) “queer is about performance so race too can be performed”. The only visible person of colour, a trans woman of colour, in the conference had to explain imperialism/colonialism to him – to explain why an “indian face” performance (two white women performing an imaginary and orientalist India) is a cultural appropriation extremely offensive and racist. And he would not listen, kept interrupting her; he simply would not hear.

E ovviamente non poteva mancare un tocco di islamofobia, nel momento in cui, con l’intento falsamente neutro di “problematizzare” e “riflettere”, in nome della libertà di parola si tendeva a legittimare il discorso islamofobico e a delegittimare l’attivismo queer anti-islamofobico, facendo passare per innocente il meccanismo per cui la figura di una persona lgbt ex-musulmana viene usata per mettere a tacere voci musulmane e queer, e voci queer mussulmane. L’islamofobia ha preso corpo nelle parole di uomini bianchi che hanno usato la presunta “oppressione delle donne e delle/dei froci/e” nell’Islam a supporto del proprio privilegio.

The conference was rife with islamophobia, with the trope of the ‘former muslim’ lgbt person being used to silence queer and muslim and queer muslim voices. ‘Freedom of speech’ was used to ‘pinkwash’ Islamophobic hate speech and muslim-bashing. Pink Islamophobia manifested in white males using Islam’s supposed ‘oppression of women and queers’ to bolster their own privilege.”

Fenomeni da baraccone: patologizzazione e sessualizzazione delle/dei trans* / FREAKS IN THE CIRCUS: PATHOLOGIZING AND SEXUALIZING TRANS* FOLKS

Le presentazioni su tematiche trans* italiane o da parte di panelist trans italian* (nello specifico, si trattava solo di persone che si identificavano nello spettro del maschile) sono state per lo più collocate nelle sessioni intitolate “Sessualità”. Come noto, l’etichetta “sessualità” è molto problematica per molte persone trans, si rifà al linguaggio medico e mostra una non comprensione delle soggettività ed esperienze trans.

Presentations about Italian trans issues and/or by Italian trans panelists – in the specific case we had only people who self-identified as transmales – were mostly placed in the “Sexualities” panels. The label “sexuality” is very problematic and triggering for many trans people: it shows a miscomprehension of trans experiences and bodies stemming from a medicalised frame of reference.

Inoltre, vogliamo sottolineare la totale assenza di donne trans italiane alla conferenza, mentre abbiamo assistito alla presentazione di una ricerca su una comunità di donne trans da parte di una ricercatrice cisgender che si è distinta per la quantità di transmisoginia, classismo, puttanofobia e paternalismo che ha espresso, e per la corrispondente quantità di rabbia che ha causato alle persone trans, queer e femministe alleate presenti nel pubblico.

We also want to remark the complete absence at the conference of trans women and transfeminine people from Italy  contrasting it with the presence of a paper on trans women (by a cis female researcher) that was incredibly transmisoginist, whorephobic, classist and paternalist and raised the rage of the trans queer and feminist people in the audience.

Quando le è stato esplicitamente chiesto di situarsi rispetto all’oggetto della sua ricerca, la ricercatrice ha addirittura argomentato il suo senso di legittimità e di competenza in materia dicendo che “sono una delle poche non apparteneti alla comunità LGBT che stanno studiando queste persone” e che uno sguardo esterno è necessario per fare ricerca, mentre la chair del panel chiedeva alle persone trans* presenti in aula di portare pazienza e di “insegnarle”.

When we asked the presenter to position herself with respect to the subject of her research, the panelist affirmed her sense of entitlement and ‘objective’ expertise on the subject by saying “I’m one of the few non LGBT persons that is studying ‘these people'”. She went on saying that an external gaze is necessary for carrying on research. In the meanwhile the chair of the panel was asking trans women in the room to be patient and to educate the panelist.

Il sapere prodotto e legittimato dalla conferenza CIRQUE, nel contenuto come nelle modalità, lungi dal contribuire a contrastare o a criticare l’oppressione delle soggettività trans*, ne ha riprodotto alla perfezione i meccanismi: le femminilità trans sono state ipervisibilizzate, ridotte a feticcio e a mero oggetto di studio e di discorso altrui; le mascolinità trans sono state per lo più neutralizzate e invisibilizzate; le une e gli altri vengono esclus* e espuls* dalla scuola e dall’università, o inclus* a prezzo di sofferenza, marginalizione.

The knowledge produced and legitimized by the CIRQUE conference, the content and the practices dysplayed within it, did not contribute to contrast oppression toward trans* subjectivities in general, and Italian ones more specifically. On the contrary, mechanisms pushing trans oppression and specific to the Italian context were reinforced: transfemininities were fetishized, they were made supervisible as non trans people’s “object” of study, as objects of a speech not centered on their words; transmasculinities were erased and invisibilized. This happens in a cultural context (the Italian one) were all trans people are erased, excluded from educational settings or included but with a high price to pay: microaggressions, marginalizations, overworking and liability to be blackmailed.

NO ID, NO WI-FI ! : ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLENCE /Niente carta d’identità, niente WI-FI. La violenza amministrativa

Il cosiddetto comitato organizzatore della conferenza CIRQUE è arrivato perfino a chiedere ai/le partecipanti di fornire in anticipo una copia della loro carta di identità (ebbene sì!) per ottenere l’ accesso alla rete wi-fi durante la conferenza. Invece di vantarsi di aver scelto l’Aquila come sede della conferenza, forse gli organizzatori si sarebbero dovuti ricordare della violenza amministrativa che viene esercitata attraverso le carte di identità, sia sulle persone trans* sia sulle vittime del terremoto del 2009, confinate in campi gestiti da militari, sottoposte a coprifuoco e costrette a mostrare i propri documenti per entrare e uscire dai campi.

The so called organizing committee dare asking participant to provide beforehand with a copy of their ID (yes ID!) to get wifi access during the conference. Instead of showing off with the picking of L’Aquila as a location for the conference, maybe the organizers should have remembered about the administrative violence that comes with ID papers – be it for trans folks, or the victims/survivors of the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009, who ended up confined in camps ran by the military, subject to curfew and having show their papers to get in and out of the camp and at military checkpoints around the city.

Problemi di traduzione. Accesso negato ai non-anglofoni?

La traduzione non è mai stata menzionata né prevista durante tutta la conferenza. La traduzione è per noi una questione non solo linguistica, ma politica. Attraverso la barriera linguistica si sono messe a tacere ulteriormente le voci dissidenti. Così l’accademia italiana si affanna a dimostrare di essere all’altezza degli standard internazionali anglofoni, e nell’organizzare una conferenza in Italia – rivendicando la scelta dell’Aquila, la città che rinasce dal terremoto ecc. – ha più a cuore l’accessibilità delle presentazioni ad un pubblico anglofono rispetto a quello locale, in un’ottica colonialista/monolingue succube dell’imperialismo linguistico inglese.

La traduzione andrebbe vista in un’ottica di scambio più profondo fra lingue, culture e contesti intellettuali diversi, e non come un orpello aggiuntivo non necessario e non degno di essere retribuito, che ha portato gli organizzatori a dire che “non ci sono soldi per la traduzione” senza interrogarsi su altre possibilità. Perché la necessità della traduzione non è considerata, per esempio, al pari del catering o della cartellina da distribuire a inizio conferenza?

Translation issues were never mentioned and translation was not provided during the conference. The question of translation is not only a matter of linguistics but also of politics. Through the language barrier dissident voices were further silenced. The Italian Academy strives to prove to be up to international Anglophone standards, so that in organising a Conference in Italy is more concerned with the accessibility of the presentations to an English speaking audience rather than to a local one, in a colonialist and monolingual perspective, influenced by English linguistic imperialism. All this despite the fact that the choice of l’Aquila as location bears a strong focus on local history and hinted at notions such as rebirth from the ruins of the earthquake.

The translation should be seen in the perspective of a deeper exchange between languages, cultures and intellectual contexts, and not like an additional unnecessary frill not worthy to be paid for, that made the organizers say that there was no money for the translation without interrogating themselves on alternative possibilities. Why is the issue of translation not considered at the same level of catering or the conference pack distributed at the beginning of the conference?

La violenza del sistema / SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE

Questa conferenza è stata un’ulteriore manifestazione della violenza che subiamo tutti i giorni, dei colpi che riceviamo fuori e dentro l’università. Gli organizzatori hanno riprodotto ogni tipo di gerarchia, ignorando il fatto che siamo (più) precarie proprio a causa delle oppressioni del sistema e delle gerarchie accademiche. L’essere queer e trans ci relega al fondo della catena alimentare. Il fondo della catena alimentare ha bisogno di mangiare. Vogliamo essere pagat* per il lavoro che facciamo. Renderemo visibile il lavoro invisibile. Sciopereremo ancora.

This conference was another manifestation of the violence levelled at us everyday, of the hurt we experience in the world, in the academy too. The organisers reproduced every kind of hierarchy, ignoring the fact that we are precarious because of systemic oppressions and academic heirarchies. Our queer and transness puts us towards the bottom of the food chain. The bottom of the food chain needs to eat. We want money for the work we have undertaken. We will make visible the invisible work. We will strike again, whenever it is necessary.

Transfemministe in sciopero dalla conferenza CIRQUE (L’Aquila, 31 marzo- 2 aprile 2017)

Transfeminist strykers from the CIRQUE Conference (L’Aquila, 31st march – 2nd april 2017)

contatti: andystrikes2[ a t ]gmail[punto]com

[autolenaphilia]

I'm happy that you were able to take my criticism, and take responsibility and apologize for instances where you agree that you made mistakes.

And you have a point, an ideology doesn't need to have books published to be a real thing.

I still think you abdicate responsibility in significant ways.

The reasoning you give for not linking to the baeddel posts as sources for your post on them is "they tend to be quippy one-liners that don't spell things out super clearly, and tend to exist more as part of a larger contextual understanding- or are intentionally phrased in such a way as to appear inoffensive at first glance. The other problem is that the other posts are mostly just vague bigotry, without explaining the internal logic."

That does present a problem for analyzing an ideology. You have to not just link, but also quote and analyze those posts, re-contextualize them show how they express an underlying ideology underneath the surface and why it's bad. Do that second glance at them, if they look okay at first glance. It's hard work to be sure. But I think you still have the responsibility to your readers to do that work before you write a post like this. You need to do that work to back up your claims and arguments, for other people to take them seriously. Dismissing it as "handholding" is an abdication of responsibility.

And honestly, from what you are saying you don't even need to do tumblr archaeology to find posts expressing that material online. You are claiming the beliefs the baeddels had are still common. The "ideas didn't go away", it's "a set of common beliefs that already existed and continue to exist", they have 100k note tumblr posts. So you don't need to go on deleted blogs to find posts that express this ideology, you can just look at posts that are popular now. And that might even be more effective than something many people would view as ancient tumblr drama (not saying that was all the harm the baeddels caused, but many people would view it that way).

And again, I think you are insufficiently critical of these bad sources I talked about. Like these posts are spreading essentially queer recruitment/trans grooming propaganda, and have no sources themselves. That makes them not just biased, but bigoted sources, and thus utterly unreliable. If they are transmisogynistic, I don't think they are good sources about what a trans woman believes. And that's true even if that trans woman is a bad person.

You can't just "contextualize" them and still use them as factual sources. Whatever you might agree with them about, their claims about MYC's ideology are used to build an accusation of grooming vulnerable cis men into becoming trans women. That is another way they are "consistent enough with each other's claims."

And the reason I associated "their bigoted bullshit" (as you so aptly put it) with you is because you linked to them, and you are still defending their value as sources. The way you properly distance yourself from them is not by a toothless "contextualization" in which you still use them as sources of fact, but by not linking to them to back your argument. Bigots lie, especially about the people they hate, they are not trustworthy.

You justify using the terf post with how "the fact that radical feminists themselves connect Baeddelism to radical feminism does seem significant here." But again, bigots lie. Radfems believe that they are the one true feminism, and all other feminisms are but pale reflections of their ideas. I've seen them claim trans people's posts on gender abolitionism are plagiarisms of gender critical ideas. So let's look at that quote you said was the reason you linked to the terf post again.

"the earliest mtf theorists on tumblr like radtransfem and ciscritical-not-cisphobic – drawn to radical/lesbian feminism "

Let's check this quote, because Radtransfem's blogs are still up, both here on tumblr and on wordpress, and she has a uselul FAQ regarding her connection to radfem ideology: "I am not a radical feminist, and my feminism is not radical feminism. It’s not radical feminism done trans, but transfeminism done radical (and before you get clever, no, the “radical” does not mean the same thing in those two phrases)."

So yeah, terfs claim radtransfem is a radfem, but she explicitly does not. I suppose this is a question of who do you see as more trustworthy. I trust the trans woman herself about what she believes, even if I have my disagreements with her. Of course, you can claim that radtransfem is a secret radfem. But I think it's a more believable claim if you analyze her writings to find the radfem ideology, not trusting the word of a random terf blog.

And that gets us nearly back to my original point. When you are saying person x believes y, You should source that claim back to what person x actually said, not what person z says they believe.

Let's Talk About Bæddels: A Comprehensive Retrospective

(This post on Medium)

(@thequeer-quill's video reading)

Disclaimer

This post is not claiming that trans women do not suffer, or do not suffer as much as other groups of trans people. It is not claiming that all trans women are Baeddels (or adjacent), nor is it claiming that trans women oppress anyone else.

Transmisogyny is real, and requires much more acknowledgement than it currently receives. The trans community is very much capable of transmisogyny, and often does enact or enable it; likewise, trans people also often enact and enable transphobia against other parts of the trans community.

If you take only one thing from the following, take this:

We all need to work on being better allies to each other. None of us can gain anything without the rest of us.

Setting the Stage for Baeddelism

We can’t talk about Baeddelism without talking about Tumblr user @monetizeyourcat (“Cat”), and the ideology she popularized on the website in the early 2010’s.

Cat was a loud voice with a huge blog in the early days of Tumblr. Most of her popular content was humor-based, but she also championed an ideology that synthesized certain aspects of feminism, transfeminism, and communist ideals. Cat’s ideology is better explained here, and can be further explored here, but this is the foundation:

Manhood is inherently oppressive, and cannot exist outside the context of oppression.

Gender can be, to some extent, a choice.

Because of the above, one’s gender is an ethical choice with ethical consequences.

Being a man is, therefore, ethically harmful and wrong; particularly if you are giving up womanhood in order to be a man.

Being a woman is, therefore, ethically correct; particularly if you are giving up manhood in order to be a woman.

You may recognize some of the ideas here as a version of Radical Feminism: namely, the idea that manhood/men are inherently oppressive, and that womanhood/women are inherently victims.

All Cat had to do was map Radical Feminism onto the trans community. If manhood is Bad, and men are Bad, then trans men who reject womanhood in favor of becoming men are Bad. If womanhood is Good, and women are Good, then trans women who reject manhood in favor of womanhood are The Best. Which, of course, would also explain why society hates them more than any other trans person (something taken for granted by Cat and many others at the time).

This foundation was built upwards into a more complicated system of beliefs: cis men were viewed as “potential trans women”, people who did not yet know whether they were trans, had not made that choice, and could, conceivably, still choose to be women. As such, cis men were often seen as “better” than trans men. Trans men were encouraged to detransition, men in general were encouraged to reject their manhood in favor of womanhood, and “sissification” became a hallmark “joke” that the community forming around Cat latched onto.

The “gender is a choice” part of this ideology is a bit hard for most trans people to swallow, and Cat herself did not entirely ascribe to the idea that gender was always a choice. Still, even if men were intrinsically and inherently men, and even if they couldn’t simply choose not to be men the way she had, the idea remained that the so-called “ethical consequences” of being a man, and the harm this did to The Collective, vastly outweighed the personal harm suffered by “remaining” or “becoming” a woman. It was, in short, more ethical to suffer dysphoria in pursuit of womanhood than it was to accept one’s manhood.

It’s unclear whether Cat ever identified as a Baeddel, and she certainly didn’t begin the movement herself. She was definitely close to it, though, and many attest that her ideology constituted the building blocks of the Baeddelism movement.

Establishing an Ideology

The first post on Baeddelism was by Tumblr user @unobject, on October 2nd, 2013, and liked by @lezzyharpy, also one of the original Baeddels:

(Credit to @AcesArosandEnbies)

This post first provided the name and defining ideology of the Baeddel movement. The conclusion drawn from the post was, essentially, that because the root of the word “bad” was “baeddel”, and because “baeddel” referred to intersex people and “womanish men”, this old English slur was proof that transmisogyny was the worst form of bigotry; and even, perhaps, the root of all bigotry. (It’s worth noting that this etymology is likely inaccurate and ahistorical, along with problematic in several other ways.)

While @unobject was the first person to make this connection, @autogynephile (“Eve”) eventually became, in essence, the figurehead of the movement. Of the other Baeddels, some of them were explicitly aware and supportive of the ideology behind Baeddelism, some of them were young or newly-out trans women seduced by the personalities involved, and some of them were tangential enough to the movement that they didn’t really even know what it was. Baeddelism was a sort of trend, for a time, and many participants wore the name without entirely knowing what it meant.

It’s important to acknowledge that as much as there were dedicated members of Baeddelism, and as much as there was a unified ideology behind it, there were also individual Baeddels who did not understand- let alone support- the ideology.

That said…

The Belief System

Baeddels essentially built upon the foundation of @monetizeyourcat’s ideology that had been gaining traction on Tumblr in the years prior, with some additions that ultimately defined their movement:

Transmisogyny is the form of oppression from which all (or most) other forms of oppression stem.

Privilege is granted on the basis of assigned sex. (“AFAB” or “Assigned Female at Birth” vs. “AMAB” or “Assigned Male at Birth”)

These fundamentals of Baeddelism were essentially a rebranded form of Radical Feminism, much like Cat’s ideology. In particular, they drew from the Radical Feminist idea that misogyny was the “primary” form of oppression; that which all other oppression stemmed from. Baeddels only tweaked this idea to replace “misogyny” with “transmisogyny”, which led to the rest of the conclusions Baeddels drew:

Men are inherently oppressors, and women are inherently oppressed.

Trans women are inherently victims.

Because only AMAB people can experience transmisogyny, they are inherently more oppressed than AFAB people.

“AFAB Privilege”: The idea that within the queer and/or trans community, AFAB people receive unique privilege and positions of power that AMAB people do not.

There is no “transphobia” separate from “transmisogyny”. All transphobia stems from transmisogyny first, and transphobia as it impacts non-transfeminine trans people is incidental at most.

It’s important to note that these ideas were not all as universal as the first two, and different individual Baeddels held them to different extents.

Trans Lesbian Separatism

… was what the movement was ultimately defined by, as the logical conclusion of their other beliefs (much like Lesbian Separatism was the logical conclusion of Radical Feminist beliefs).

Baeddels believed that only trans women can understand, or be truly safe for, other trans women; therefore, contact with anyone who was not a trans woman was deemed “dangerous” and highly discouraged.

Trans Men

… also played an important role in Baeddel ideology, and the resulting treatment of trans men is what is often remembered today. Baeddels generally believed the following, either explicitly or implictly:

Trans men are not oppressed, nor marginalized at all.

Trans men do not experience transmisogyny.

Trans men do not experience misogyny, even prior to transition.

Trans men have access to male privilege.

Trans men have an easier time passing, and frequently go “stealth”; thus benefiting from male privilege as well as cis privilege.

Trans men are often (or always) misogynistic and transmisogynistic, and are not held accountable for this.

Trans men actively “choose” manhood even when presented with the “option” of womanhood.

Trans men oppress cis women.

Trans women enacting violence on trans men is “punching up” at oppressors, and therefore not only permitted, but encouraged.

Trans men become aggressive and violent when they go on testosterone HRT.

Nonbinary People

… are often overlooked when summarizing Baeddelism, but Baeddels did have plenty to say about them. Baeddel ideology relied on the idea that privilege was granted on the bases of assigned sex, and nonbinary people’s genders were thus treated as irrelevent; they essentially did not believe nonbinary people truly existed.

CAFAB nonbinary people are either trans men attempting to invade women’s spaces, or cis women pretending to be trans.

CAMAB nonbinary people are actually just trans women who haven’t accepted it yet. They must transition, or they are transmisogynistic.

Intersex People

Intersex experiences, and intersex history, were often co-opted and erased by Baeddelism. This was often more a byproduct of their beliefs than an overtly-stated idea, but most notably, the term “Baeddel” itself is likely more applicable- if not exclusively applicable- to intersex people, rather than trans women. Making their reclamation of it as a “transmisogynistic slur”, or their claim that the word’s existence means that “transmisogyny is the root of all oppression”, incredibly ignorant- if not actively harmful misinformation.

Notably, Baeddels also believed that intersex people- being “more androgynous” (a harmful misonception)- were able to pass more easily as the opposite assigned sex, and that intersex people even within transfemme spaces had “intersex privilege”. Some even believed, and openly claimed, that intersex people were “hermaphroditic”; a slur against intersex people, and typically implying that the individual has both sets of reproductive systems simultaneously.

Trans Women

… did not receive universally positive treatment, either. Baeddelism was very much a cult-like group built around the firmly-held conviction that they were absolutely correct, and that anyone who disagreed with them was The Enemy. Trans women who disagreed with them were generally seen as brainwashed and self-hating, and trans women who did agree with them were expected to subjugate themselves to the ringleaders of the movement.

Within Baeddel circles, trans women were most frequently victimized by the abusers allowed to run rampant because “trans women do not, and cannot, harm anyone else.” - Including, apparently, each other.

“They were also bad shitty abusive people in general. “… a bunch of them passed around a pile of smear campaigns and false rumors about virtually any trans woman that they had a even the slightest animosity for. Including the victim of the kinkster rapist. They’ve done other fucked stuff, like chased two twoc off this site for trying to make a zine, but yeah. That’s like, just some of it. I’m not up for going over the messy details of the whole shitparade “Full disclosure, I made a lot of excuses for these sacks of crap, even while they were out there spreading false crap about me […] I wasn’t aware of the worst shit they were doing until much much later." - @punlich

Inside the Movement

Though individual Baeddels often existed in vastly different social circles from each other- particularly offline- those who lived through the movement highlight commonalities in their experiences.

One interviewee recounts the manipulation present in their initial involvement with the movement:

“It came to me at a point where I was very quick to weaponize anything anyone told me about their experiences, because I was always a fighter. I’ve been an activist for a long time, you know, and when these trans women would come to me with their experiences I would believe them. I wanted to. But the way they acted didn’t add up when compared to what they were saying. I felt really lonely there, and stupid all the time. I felt like I was being a bad trans person.” […] “Online they were more willing to say things that were, for lack of a better word, stupid. They would say things that lacked any kind of logical sense. But in person, they would go into this kind of toxic femininity- this weaponization of weakness. And I think that’s because online they were often in these echochambers, but in person they had to rely on much more subtle manipulation.” - Vera

It seems at points that the environment created within this movement- and the social circles that composed it- was almost cult-like in nature and in need for control.

“It was very isolating. I didn’t see my friends for a while, I was kind of just living with them, cooking and cleaning for them, starving myself, and slowly growing crazy. I was just being consumed by this weird academia and theory that had no basis, because everything was online and Tumblr-based.” - Vera

When Bæddels Took Them: An interview and reflection on the Bæddelism movement

Perhaps most chilling, however, are the patterns in their attitudes toward sexual assault. One interviewer recounts being subject to sexual assault, and upon posting about their experience to a Facebook group, being met with hostility from Baeddels present in the group- who quickly used their social influence to have them banned from some of their only support systems at the time.

“I ended up with pretty much no one to talk to about the experience at a time when I was already really, really struggling, and it’s one of several factors that led to me dropping out. “The Baeddel who got me banned also messaged me directly at some point during all of this, and I tried to get her to understand the pain she was causing me. She basically laughed it off and said it was my fault. She seemed to find a lot of joy in how much it hurt me, and blocked me soon after.” - Anonymous

Another recounts sexual consent violations from a friend-turned-Baeddel:

“[My ex-friend] had previously been fetish-mining me for her mommy kink. I was freshly estranged from my own mum, and she stepped in to be like, “I’m your new mum now,” and would pester me to call her “mum” in Welsh- as at that point she was going by a Welsh name. I played along, but it transpired that she was basically using that to get off, and she had a thing for infantilising transmascs and being this mum/mom figure.” - Luke

And yet another interviewee discusses verbal sexual harassment during interactions with another Baeddel:

“I had one [Baeddel] directly tell me that I’m beneath her as a trans man, and that I should “Shut my smelly cooch up” and only use my voice to uplift trans women. I was a minor at the time. “She then sicced her followers on me, and they bombarded me with messages telling me I’d “never be a real man”, that I needed to “sit on the side and allow them to have the spotlight”, and even telling me to kill myself- because I was inherently toxic to them. I was 16 years old, pre everything, and I couldn’t even pass at the time. They didn’t seem to care that I was a minor, or a newly hatched egg.” - Anonymous

Brushes with Bæddels: Recalling the Bæddel movement

While Baeddel ideology itself does not explicitly condone or excuse sexual assault, it’s striking how common these stories are; especially considering how small in numbers actual Baeddels were.

It was, in fact, this exact problem that would eventually cause the movement to dissolve.

The Downfall of Baeddelism

Sometime between the group’s formation in 2013 and their downfall near the end of 2014, @autogynephile (also “Eve”), the defacto “ringleader” of the Baeddel movement, began what Baeddels referred to as a “transbian safehouse”.

This was apparently intended as a place for unhoused trans woman lesbians and trans women who, in general, had sworn off contact with men; the ultimate goal of the lesbian separatist ideology at the core of the Baeddel movement. It was thus also referred to as a “commune” by some, and as a “cult” by others.

One occupant of the “safehouse”- Elle- later posted to Tumblr that they had been raped by Eve during their stay, and detailed their experiences.

The Baeddels, rather than believing the victim and ousting the rapist from their movement, chose to close ranks around Eve.

Various reasons were given for this:

The victim must be lying

The victim- and anyone who believed them- was simply transmisogynistic.

Anyone who disagrees with the Baeddels is an Enemy Of The Movement, a “carceral thinker”, and a danger to trans women as a whole.

Trans women are incapable of sexually abusing anyone.

“Standing with Eve” was the ultimate sign of loyalty to the movement, and thus a mark of pride and honor.

It was okay to keep being a Baeddel no matter what, because Rape Accusations Should Be A Personal Matter.

(You can read more about Eve’s own denial of these events here and here.)

Years later, even people involved in the initial group have spoken out against the movement and actions of those involved:

(@lezzyharpy was one of the original Baeddels, and one of the first people to like the first “Baeddel” post by @unobject).

This was not the only instance of abuse by people associated with Baeddelism.

Elle posted their statement on August 4th, 2014; between that time and September of the same year, another user by the name of Quinn posted about her own experiences with abuse at the hands of @monetizeyourcat. Cat’s roommates in Seattle posted about their experiences with Cat shortly after Quinn did. Both parties alleged that Cat had been a manipulative and abusive roommate, friend, and partner.

Cat first attempted to argue the accusations, then later admitted that they were true and left the site. Her blog still contains her parting message. It has been pointed out that this is not necessarily an action taken in good faith and desire for growth.

The reception of her abuse allegations followed a similar pattern to Eve’s: people who ascribed to her ideology, Baeddels included, believed that Cat was not and could not have been abusive, as a trans woman. Others ignored warnings about her past and potential future actions, citing transmisogyny as the reason she must have been accused at all.

It has also been pointed out that Cat’s ideology (and, relatedly, Baeddel ideology) was extremely conducive to abuse- if not entirely constructed in order to allow abuse.

Why It Matters, and Why Baeddelism Never Really Fell

Baeddelism itself has seen multiple attempts at resurgences by various individuals, including documented experiences with self-proclaimed Baeddels as recently as 2018- well after the movement first “fell” in 2014.

Most proponents of “Baeddelism 2.0”, a revival of the original movement, argue that the abuse that occurred within the original movement was either completely fabricated by detractors (sound familiar?) or, at minimum, not actually inherent to the ideology.

And, of course, there are some original Baeddels still active on Tumblr today.

Baeddelism never actually went away.

“Baeddelism” was only one name for a set of beliefs that existed long before the specific term did, and hasn’t gone anywhere since the original Baeddel movement died down.

What the Baeddels did was put a name to the ideology @monetizeyourcat was cultivating before them, and what Cat did was popularize, centralize, and justify a way of thinking that had existed before she ever made her blog.

This ideology has since been referred to, loosely, as “TIRF-ism”: Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminism.

It is rare that anyone actually refers to themselves as a “TIRF”, and there is no real centralized TIRF movement; rather, a loose collection of radical feminist beliefs circulates various transgender spaces. The validity of these beliefs is generally taken for granted: of course (trans) women are The Most Oppressed People; of course (trans) women are Inherently and Unequivocally Victims In All Situations; of course (trans) men are Inherently Oppressors; of course (trans) men are Dangerous and Evil… and so on.

Like Radical Feminism, and subsequently Trans-Exlcusive Radical Feminism (TERF-ism), those ideas are fundamentally dangerous.

The defining tenants of radical feminism are that misogyny is the root of all oppression, and that rather than misogyny being an issue of power and control on a society-wide level, it is instead, or also, a matter of oppression and privilege on an individual level: men are always oppressors, and women are always victims.

These beliefs fundamentally exclude and erase the experiences of other marginalized people.

Namely, people of color and indigenous people, who’s experiences with and concepts of gender do not fall within the strict and rigid lines that white, western, colonialist people’s do.

Radical feminism is not a redeemable ideology. It cannot be reshaped into something good. It is fundamentally broken, and the movements born from it- lesbian separatism, political lesbianism, TERF-ism, TIRF-ism, and Baeddelism- are proof enough of that. They each promote only surface-level variations of what is fundamentally cult-like thinking: only the in-group can be victimized. Only the in-group is safe; the out-group is inherently and universally dangerous. Only the in-group understands you. All members of the in-group are, fundamentally, incapable of abuse.

We cannot allow these ideas to be perpetuated within or without the trans community.

Learn the Signs & Prevent the Harm

Here’s what we can do to prevent this from happening again:

Learn what Baeddel ideology and TIRFism look like, even detached from the name.

Learn what radical feminism looks like, even detached from the name. Even from people who claim to oppose radical feminism.

Act on dogwhistles. Call them what they are.

Do not allow people to downplay the harm all forms of Radical Feminism have caused. Remind each other that Radical Feminism is not a redeemable ideology, and seek out other branches of feminism instead.

Remember the harm that has been caused. Remember that it will be caused again if these things are allowed to go unchecked.

Listen to and uplift marginalized people. Allow them to speak to their own experiences, identify their own needs, and name their own oppression.

Remember who the real oppressors are, and do not pit marginalized people against each other. The people perpetuating and benefiting from transphobia are cis people- and more specifically, cis people in power.

Build solidarity with other marginalized people. One group of trans people cannot gain liberation without liberating all trans people, and one group of trans people cannot be targeted without the rest of us suffering as well.

Remember that there is no group or identity incapable of enacting abuse, violence, harassment, or other harm against another. Victimhood should not be determined based solely on an individual’s identity.

Remember that there are no acceptable targets for violence, cruelty, harassment, and abuse.

Red Flags to watch out for:

Using, or interacting with people who use, “Baeddel” as any form of self-description.

Downplaying the harm original Baeddels did: calling them “misled”, their actions “mistakes”, etc. without acknowledging the specific issues.

Obfuscating, ignoring, or erasing the abuse and rape allegations against members of the Baeddel movement.

Obfuscating, ignoring, or erasing the harm done to other transfemmes by Baeddels.

Dismissing, erasing, punishing/ostracizing, disavowing, or treating with suspicion transfeminine people who do not agree with Baeddel or radfem ideology. Insisting all or most transfemmes agree with Baeddel or radfem ideas.

Claiming TERFs only target, harm, or have ill will for trans women/transfemmes. Using “TWERF” or “TWEF” instead of “TERF”.

Claiming transmasculine people should not have any say in conversations about misogyny, transphobia, and/or TERFs.

Talking about “AFAB Privilege”, or otherwise implying that AFAB people share any qualities aside from being assigned female at birth.

Referring to trans people by AGAB, TME/TMA distinction, or even transfemme/transmasc frequently or exclusively; actively erasing or not allowing room for nonbinary and intersex experiences that do not fall within those binaries.

Implying men- cis or trans- would be better if they were made into women instead.

Implying attraction to men, or being a man, is somehow a “curse” or a “burden”, or otherwise unfortunate.

Implying a fear of men, including trauma-induced phobias, should never be healed from or sought treatment for. Implying men, cis or trans, cannot also experience trauma around men.

Treating trans men or transmasculine people as “acceptable targets” in any way; for harassment, for abuse, for misgendering, for inducing dysphoria, etc.

Implying transmasc dysphoria is “toxic masculinity”

Characterizing transmascs as hysterical, whiny, delusional, crazy, or otherwise using feminine stereotypes.

Implying it is femininity, specifically, that is targeted by the patriarchy; that feminine people are targeted more than masculine people, etc.

Using “listen to transfemmes” to silence other groups of trans people, and otherwise implying transfemmes are a monolith who happen to agree with you.

In general: espousing the ideas, fundamental or otherwise, that defined the Baeddel movement. (including TIRF and radical feminist ideology)

This list is not comprehensive, nor is any one thing on this list 100% certain to indicate that someone is a Baeddel- or if they are, that they are necessarily dangerous. It’s important to keep in mind how many people are groomed into this movement and abused within it; some of those who espouse Baeddel rhetoric may themselves be victimized by others.

But until we recognize these ideas for what they are and where they’ve come from, history can only repeat itself.

Educate Yourself and Others

It would take a long, long time and a lot more space to detail all of the damage done, the people hurt, and the dangers of continuing to allow these ideas to be perpetuated. Instead, I have compiled some resources and references.

I urge you to check these out, bookmark them for later, or whatever else works for you! (They’re also all much, much shorter reads than this has been.)

@baeddel-txt and @rejectedbaeddeldiscourse, two blogs dedicated to documenting various posts and beliefs held by original Baeddels.

Another blog’s tag for Baeddel history.

Baeddel.net, another archive of Baeddelism.

@AcesArosEnbies thread, and @gothmyths thread, on Baeddelism.

@quinndolyn’s recount of Baeddelism.

My own post on the origins of the Baeddel movement.

My own post including posts from Baeddels (and others) as recently as 2018.

An archive of assorted Baeddel posts.

[radicaltransfeminismzine]

“Liberalism cradles fascism by claiming it is progressive, and claiming it has the answers. Always right answers.” Within the long-term research itinerary Propositions for Non-Fascist Living, BAK asks artists, philosophers, scholars, and activists from multiple (political) geographies facing contemporary fascisms how they engage with the question of what constitutes non-fascist living. The responses are 1–5 minute video statements recorded with technology at hand: mobile phones, voice recorders, Skype. Throughout Propositions, these diverse perspectives are published online and screened at performative conferences. Online and offline, they become part of a growing constellation of reflections on ways to think, act, and bring about non-fascist living. Mijke’s Proposition for Non-Fascist Living, ‘To Manage is to Order - Let Loss into Disorder’. 2.20 mins, video with closed captions.