#terf bioessentialism is a myth

[kimyoonmiauthor]

I 100% endorse this with my BA in Anthropology. It's solid stuff since most bioessentialism looks at European gender standards retconned into history by mostly the Victorians and later Edwardians.

Don't forget in European history, women were chopping off people's heads as executioners, and lifting hot pots, lifting water buckets, etc. Who is seriously going to argue those Medieval women were weak when they were dealing with LYE, hefting cheese curds and doing laundry by hand. Have you done laundry by hand? I have. I cry at how long it took and how much labor and how much it built up my arms. And you have bread kneading, scrubbing the floors by hand.

And what? Your man is having a go at a plow? Who was weak? This is why hefty women in history were more desirable. Who wants a puny woman who can't do the household chores?

It's because people 100% think that women were weak and devalued women's work, but does any of that sound like *not* hard work that's not backbreaking, not physically intensive?

It's a massive retcon on actual European history and a massive ignoring of all of the different gender standards around the world. Trobriand Islander tribe where men take care of the children while women chase prestige~ OMG, terfs say it's not possible that women and men would switch gender norms.

I'd also argue that terf bioessentialism ideology is highly class dependent as well.

But then I'm looking more at the social science and history side than the biological.

helen “trans people are perpetuating gender steriotypes” joyce is now upset that the scientific american is writing about how women were hunters too back in the day, not just mothers and caretakers. feminist win!

[moondharse]

I replied to a post yesterday about 'radfems' talking about that radical isn't just for transphobic and or man hating women, because it's a very brought descriptor.

And my enteire coment chain was deleted/restricted even tho I didn't day anything wild? I just asked a question and then stated some facts? I am not entierly sure how this site works yet but I feel like someone shut my mouth against my will. I don't like it.

Hell, feminism as a whole is radical, for fucks sake.

---

radical

adjective

1.

(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.

"a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework"

2.

advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.

---

Wanting to change and or abolish the partiarchy is, most of the time, radical. These 'gender criticals' are the opposite of radical since they pick and chose outdated features of the patriarchy like bioessentialism, genderessentialism, the binary myth, stuff like that and enforce them, aka try to stifle actual progress. Progress always starts as a radical idea.

For feminism that probably started with the then radical idea that women are, in fact, people. And should be treated as such. As women got more legal protections and rights, queer women entered the official conversation with the then radical idea, that they too, are people. And deserve rights. And so on.

The main radical idea now is probably that men need to be included in the conversation/ true intersectional feminism. Be it men/mascs in general or the conversations around trans men/mascs. And thats were the zeitgeist is at. Thats why those who focus on feminism but are stuck in their mindset/unable to evolve, tend to be terfs and stuff.

Intersectional feminism is oposed to bigotry and small mindedness, not being radical.

Now, some people don't stop at 'let it stay like it is' and actually want to revert backwards/against the direction of progress and if they go far enough, they could be right wing radical (yk, like fashists). To be fair, thats a lot of terfs. But that still doesnt mean they 'own' the term radical.

Aside from feminism, radical ideas are the cornerstone of all progress. ALL. I know public schools avoid the topic or tell you about "bad radicals" at best to scare you off, but that capitalist propaganda is something you should decode for yourself.

Yk, messages like "radical means so out there it's absurd" like.. bruh

Also, extremism and being radical are also two different things that many actors in out current climate wanna see muddled together. Learn the difference.

Moral of the story: men are and always have been included in real feminist conversations and feminism is inherently radical. Otherwise, what are you fighting for? What do you acomplish by NOT changing anything??

[sometimesraven]

"this is only on tumblr" read the transfeminist manifesto by emi koyama. read TERF Wars: An Introduction by ruth pierce and sonja erikainen and ben vincent. read disregard and danger by b comminga. read whipping girl by julia serano. read just one of the guys by kristen schilt. read "female socialization" is a transphobic myth by dr devon price, a trans guy. literally transmisogynists have dealt w motherfuckers like you going to the michigan's womyn's festival forever while trans women and real transmasc allies picketed outside bc ftm ppl were allowed in while trans women were beaten for trying. trans men will always be preferred over trans women. we (ftm) are seen as potential converts and trans women are seen as the enemy. get it through your skull. you wanna hear about something that's only on tumblr? "transandrophobia". it's bioessentialism to suggest that transmascs aren't actually experiencing privilege bc of their deep down afab experiences or whatever. it's not bioessentialism to understand that gender, irregardless of "biological sex," is going to be the determining factor in oppression. go rant about how afab ppl are being oppressed by anti-abortionists or whatever else terfs like you do.

again, I never said we don't experience privilege (though it's deeply flawed to believe we're all treated with privilege just through merit of being men, usually that's just fully-transitioned and stealth trans men while the rest of us get scraps), just that the oppression we do face is different. Erasure is a form of oppression. We experience a unique kind of erasure that is a combination of transphobia, cissexism, "misdirected" misogyny and biological essentialism and it's ridiculous to suggest we can't come up with a word for it just bc y'all had a word for yours first

[aliceundrground]

Took me a couple reads to parse so to put in other words;

If, for example, you say that "different regions evolved to have different brain structures, that's why Asians are so smart" -> the thing you said is technically a compliment but all you're doing is reinforcing eugenic ideas (and racist stereotypes). Not only does this hurt minorities who are set as contradictions to this compliment ("Black people are just naturally lower IQ" which hey look! Literal nazi shit! Woah! /sarcastic), it also hurts the group being 'complimented' as well ("Model Minority" myths, etc) AND attempts to sow division between those groups.

Whenever you see talk like "[group] is just naturally better at [thing]!", think about what the implications are there; who's on the other side of this? What is this saying about them? How can this be twisted? What does believing in this achieve?

This isn't just for racial minorities either, I've often seen this kind of thing crop up with the "trans women have female brains (and trans men have male brains)" talking point. As far as Im aware, 99% of functional mri studies are basically just astrology for academics (fun fact- nazis fucking loved astrology), so there isn't actually a solid basis for that claim. Even if there was- basing our validity as trans folks on it does much more harm than good (pathologizing transness and queerness, requiring medical intervention/authorities to prove we're "valid" or "trans enough" to access rights, excluding anyone who doesn't fit neatly into a gender or sex binary). We can easily see where "women are just naturally more empathetic and men are better at problem solving" makes a beeline straight to rad fems and terfs (as well as the broader patriarchal/misogynistic societal ideas of gender/sex) and that is just as couched in the "brain differences" mindset.

Buying into bioessentialism is never the way forward, even when you or people you like are the ones being complimented (or the people you don't like are the ones being put down).

Ex, "Men are inherently more violent" -> something I've seen in progressive and queer spaces even when terfs say this to frame trans women (/fems) as dangerous predators all the time

"But trans women suppress their testosterone, its the testosterone that makes men violent" -> what about trans fems who don't want or can't get hrt? What about trans men (/mascs) on hrt? What about cis black women who (on average) have higher testosterone than cis white women? What about intersex folks? "Well, trans women have female brains, so even with testosterone, they're biologically different, they don't have male brains"-> back on trans men and intersex folks, what about them? What about black men (and boys) who are constantly framed as Extra Dangerous and regularly murdered because of it? What about men who are abused and their cases dismissed or even ridiculed ("men are more aggressive, men are stonger than women, how could a man ever be a victim?").

While OPs point was focused on biological essentialism, the problems exist for non biological/pseudo spiritual essentialism too (see ideas like the "divine feminine"). Mirroring the previous biological example, terfs will say anyone amab has an inherent Evil or Malice (the real belief behind terf "male socialization" arguments) and some trans-inclusive rad fems will still parrot this same belief, just with the caveat that trans fems are actually exempt though because they have a female soul and/or they 'gave up being men' and are thus True and Good for willingly giving up their Power and Repenting (and some will openly express the end of that logic too- that trans mascs are Doubly Evil for 'choosing to become an oppressor' even after seeing the Evils men commit).

Buying into framing that takes a part of someone's identity or body and assigns inherent moral judgments, projected personal beliefs, or personality traits to it (good or bad) is buying into fascist ideals.

reifying bioessentialist claims about brain differences is going to bite marginalised people in the ass even if you're opening with something 'positive' or complimentary to them. all you've done is accept the same eugenic premises and temporarily reverse the valence signs; it's still strengthening, not subverting, the knowledge system that produces the oppression you want to eradicate

[thelezzer]

i think i am pretty well-informed about this! sorry for putting an essay length response on your post :,). i did a deep dive into second wave and radical feminism a couple years ago, and i have a lot of information on what radical feminism was supposed to be vs. what it has become.

first of all, you are correct that people use "radfem" interchangeably with terfism, including the vast majority of radfems and/or TERFs themselves. calling oneself a radfem while not being a TERF would lead to a lot of misunderstandings in the current climate.

the contemporary radical feminist movement is so far removed from what radical feminism is supposed to be (as conceptualized in the 60s-80s) that it is effectively something completely different. most notably, radical feminism is specifically NOT supposed to be bioessentialist!

radical means "from the root." radical feminism was a school of thought that identified patriarchy as an

ideology (i.e. not apolitical)

with an origin that can be traced (i.e. not natural)

and dismantled (i.e. not permanent or unchallengeable)

detour:

when you see trans-inclusive or intersectional radfems today, this ^ is usually the framework they're using and the reason they call themselves "radical" feminists. they may also call themselves radfems to distance themselves from modern liberal feminism, which they see a slew of problems with. some of the common complaints are that liberal feminism:

1. centers men and their feelings. large amounts of the discourse are taken up by talking about how patriarchy harms men, too. serious topics are softened to coddle potentially sympathetic men. 2. fails to recognize misogyny as an axis with women as oppressed and men as oppressor. patriarchy comes from nowhere and benefits no one. 3. focuses on women's inclusion in business and politics rather than seeking systemic change. 4. is too supportive of the prostitution and porn industries. (unfortunately, even the ones who are trans-positive are still SWERFs)

the bioessentialism that we see in radical feminism today is actually a leftover from second wave liberal feminism, specifically the idea of "difference feminism." proponents of difference feminism believed that there are innate and natural differences between the sexes that made each uniquely suited to complementary tasks: men protect and work, women nurture and raise children. since these beliefs fall comfortably in line with patriarchal ideas of sex/gender, the goal for these feminists was just for women to be more respected while performing their "natural" gender role. this all hinges on the idea that patriarchy arose naturally from the biological differences of males and females.

and that's what radfems parrot today! their myth on the origin of patriarchy is as follows: men wanted to amass more resources and ensure that the surplus they gather will remain with their bloodline after they die. to ensure this, they used their superior physical power to overpower the women of their time and make them (specifically their wombs) property to the men. from then, the surplus gathered in a generation is passed down from father to son. thus: patri-archy, fathers' rule. this myth cites the biological capability for reproduction as the ultimate reason behind the origin of patriarchy -- the proto-patriarchs needed wombs to incubate sons.

there are several problems with this story that make it inherently at odds with radical feminism:

this is still not an origin.

the story rests on a pre-existing sexed division of labor, in a society that encourages the gathering of cross-generational surplus, with significant gender-based tribalism by men with comparatively weaker bonds between women. true radical feminism would involve looking for the sources of those.

by claiming that the commandeering of reproductive capability was the originating goal of patriarchy, they ascribe a natural source to it.

"women have womb. man need womb." is not only an oversimplification, it is defeatist. if biology is the source of patriarchy, and biology is innate and unchangeable, then patriarchy is undefeatable.

i could get into the nitty-gritty of breaking apart this story, but that's not the point of the post so i will leave it at those two points.

to loop back to the point, the answer to "what is a radfem" heavily depends on if you're taking a scholarly historical perspective or a modern observational one. the scholarly framework that radfems of decades past used has mostly been abandoned, and the people who call themselves radfems today are doing something completely different.

if anyone has questions/corrections/comments/grievances lmk!

what is a radfem. i genuinely dont know anymore

im probably not the best person to ask but my understanding of it is that it has stock in terfism, people often use the terms interchangeably which is why it’s hard to discern a solid definition that doesn’t equate the two but both stem from a bioessentialist view of gender (& the world) & tend to demonize/dehumanize trans women in particular. some people call themselves radfems while remaining trans inclusive, with emphasis on “radical” to highlight perceived or anticipated shock value; however i think many of these individuals also still hold transphobic beliefs, though are just not as bold or outspoken about it. if anyone else who has more insight on this wants to expand, i welcome it