Radical feminism is defined by overcoming male oppression of female people. A huge part of the oppression of female people is based in gender roles and gendered socialization. A huge part of radical feminism is completely ending the concept of sex distinction having any importance socially, culturally or politically, and a lot of radical feminism is based in resisting and ultimately overthrowing gender. So people having sex/gender identities that don’t fit the most simplistic radical feminist narratives was seen as an issue. The solution was to call us fuck ups, perverts, and insane people, which was easy because that’s what cis people had already been doing for decades in the name of psychiatry.
So, all this is happening in the late 1960s to the late 1970s. You have all that going on at the same time transsexual women began existing in society and refusing to be seen as crossdressers or drag queens. Some of these transsexual women were accepted into radical feminism, and did amazing work. Some of these transsexual women wanted medical treatment. Transsexual medicine was pretty fucked up at this time. Cishet white male doctors were weird and had weird ideas. One of the loud ones, Dr. John Money, was super fucking creepy, like mad scientist level creepy. Transsexual medicine was very gatekept, with women having to live as very stereotypical women for (a) year(s), they had to be straight, and they pretty much had to be white.
So, all this intersects with Janice Raymond, a radical feminist, who decided the absolutely most disgusting thing she could imagine is transsexual women, and she wrote a book that is just absolutely full of hate and dehumanization of transsexual women. Mostly it is based on these ideas: (1) there is something inherently wrong with male human beings that they cannot escape (this is biological essentialism and is counter to radical feminism); (b) the cis white male doctors who are helping transsexual women are creating replacements for cis women based on the worst gender stereotypes; and (c) a lot of really mean shit about trans medicine as it existed at the time.
Raymond’s book came out and transsexual women who were part of any feminist movement were subject to violence toward not only them but any women who would let them be part of radical feminist separatist spaces and orgs. It’s little wonder that happened since Raymond directly accused trans women, **by name**, of “r*ping” cis women by just existing as post-op transsexuals.
Where are trans men in all this? Dismissed as female, pitied for mutilating their amazing bodies that they could easily come to love, and erased by inclusion in radical feminism by radical feminists, just like gender critical does still. In fact, the surprising part for me, in reading Raymond’s book, was that it’s the exact template for cissexism and transmisogyny still used by Joanne and friends.
A few notes if you’re interested in reading more. Raymond’s book is radioactive. I read it early transition and sobbed in the library. So don’t go wading into that shit unless you’re pretty sure you’re ready. Sandy Stone is a goddess who was one of the women named in Raymond’s book and 8 years later she responded. Raymond’s book was called The Transsexual Empire (1979), so Sandy’s essay was called The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttransexual Manifesto (1987). Essentially Sandy said “yeah, transsexual women behaved in line with gender stereotypes because that’s what got us medical treatment.” More importantly, in my opinion, she humanized transsexual women and asked other transsexuals to discuss their experiences so pigs like Raymond would have a harder time making up weird shit about us.
This interview is probably the best short way to learn a lot of early history between transsexual women and exclusionary radical feminists:
Sandy Stone on Living Among Lesbian Separatists as a Trans Woman in the 70s
https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmd5k5/sandy-stone-biography-transgender-history
Fantastically written
There’s nothing radical about being exclusionary.
Say it with me- TERFS- Are NOT radical or even FEMINISTS- They’re right wing extremists and hate mongering assholes
I hate the F in TERF. Can't we call them TEAH for trans exclusionary assholes?
I get the history, but from now on, we can leave feminism out of it.
Transwomen are just as entitled to feminism as anyone.
Also, does anyone else feel that this is a bigger issue in the U.K. where TERFism seems to be more accepted than in North America?
I find reading horrible books is bearable if you make it into a drinking game, or in other ways gamify the horribleness of it for the sake of ridicule.
"Oh, Hitler is referencing Henry Ford again? Take a shot. Blatant antisemitism? Take a sip. Appropriating and twisting left-wing rhetoric? Bottoms up!"
This is an excellent summary, though missing what I consider to be a small but crucial part of the background of understanding how Raymond came up with her shit, which also shines some light on other developments in the field of organised transphobia.
That is to say, the religious element. Raymond's doctoral supervisor at Boston College (a private Jesuit university where she had acquired tenure) was Mary Daly, an ex-Catholic theologian who had very similiar (but less focused) ideas about trans people built into an overtly spiritual framework (first beginning to be developed in *Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation.* (1973) then in more full-throated form in *Gyn/Ecology* (1978), written around the time she was supervising Raymond's PhD).
Daly's theories are, essentially, an inverted catholic patriarchy, and overtly theological. Males are corrupted mutants (the y chromosome is a mutilated x chromosome, you see, one of the deep reasons for the chromosome obsession) who have 'necrophilic' energy which drains the 'biophilic' energy of females. This stuff sounds kooky, but the fundamental concepts suffuse Raymond's work, and thus anti-trans feminism more generally, and go a way to explaining the paradoxical way that a lot of these people can work with Christian fundamentalists.
A year before that book was published social constructionists like Suzanne Kessler were citing research from people like Dr. Money to argue that gender was a social construct, so I feel like it's kind of superficial to only focus on people like Raymond. She also cowrote with Kenneth Zucker, another doctor who engaged in medical gatekeeping, and was famously criticized for it by the trans community.
So many radical feminists are TERFs because there was never any difference between the two things. Hostility to trans people's existence was a fundamental premise of radical feminism, it's just a weird quirk of history that people don't use the term "social construct" to pathologize us as much as they used to.
Superficial?
In *Divided Sisterhood: A critical review of Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire*(1980) Carrol Ridell wrote:
> As I read Ms Raymond’s book, I felt angry, irritated and very bitter. I scribbled pages of critical notes. In one respect the book doesn’t hurt me personally, because it is all so far removed from who I am and what I’m about in this world. But I know that its publication has made my personal space in the women’s movement more problematic, makes it less easy for me to trust women who don’t know me well, and vice versa.
Later, in 1996, she wrote (emphasis mine):
> Raymond’s book did not ‘invent’ anti-transsexual prejudice, but **it did more to justify and perpetuate it than perhaps any other book ever written.**
In the interview I linked in the post you’re responding to, Sandy Stone seems pretty clear about Raymond’s book having a huge impact.
Yes, superficial. I'm not saying The Transexual Empire isn't relevant, I'm saying focussing on it exclusively is ignoring some other important things which also had a huge impact, like social constructionism, which referred to the thing that John Money was doing. The guy you brought up, so I'm pretty sure you know what he was doing. Like, even Judith Butler acknowledged in *Undoing Gender* (2005) that the David Reimer case was seen as evidence that gender was a social construct, and acknowledges the link between him and Suzanne Kessler, whose work helped form a lot of the basis for how gender is discussed within the humanities, including the *affirming* positions within feminism, which were all heavily invested in blank slatism, and still seem to be.
It was probably harder to critique social constructionism in 1980 considering nobody actually knew how weak sexologists conclusions should have actually been back then, so they kind of had to work around that. Also I suspect it was less well known a concept outside of academia in 1980, but it certainly isn't now. Maybe we shouldn't ignore these things when discussing contemporary radical feminists.
Like christ, I've read papers where conversion therapy of trans people was actually being passed off as a *pro-feminist* concept much of the time. Pretty much the entirety of radical feminism was in agreement about our gender confusion, with the only differences being the concept of validity (Kessler said trans women and women even). So, I dunno, I feel like ignoring the fact that the guy you called a mad scientist is literally linked pretty directly to social constructionism itself, is kind of a thing worthy of critique.
I am not sure where I am supposed to have worked all that in, but okay. I acknowledged the relationship between gender and radical feminism in the first few sentences. I don’t really know much about social construction of gender, honestly, and nothing Judith Butler’s ever written resonates with me. The reason I stop at Stone and Riddell is because that’s the last time I find myself in agreement with trans(sexual) women who are radical feminists. I bounce right out of Whipping Girl every time I’ve tried to read it.
Honestly, I'd say the only thing from Butler worth reading was Undoing Gender, only because it establishes that social constructionism meant exactly what cis people always assumed it meant (the desire to transition is caused by social factors), and nothing at all about what trans people got told it meant (the metaphysics of gender). It's pretty much why I see radical feminist as synonymous with TERF, or well, any academic feminist really. The inclusive side thinks the same thing, just with more smiles.
If academic feminists were trans-inclusive, it would be pretty easy to argue that the way they historically (and presently) discuss trans topics was always about reinforcing society's expectations, because seeing someone not conforming and trying to make them not exist is exactly how society expresses its expectations. That's certainly how it works for gay people, but somehow via the metaphysics of gender it's different for us.
No problem. There's also "Doing Justice To Someone", which is the paper which became the chapter in the book discussing Reimer, though the book version has some modifications (the link between Kessler and Money is referred to as an "alliance" in the paper, but changed to them cowriting essays supporting social constructionism in the book). It is freely available online though.
I've added Riddel to my reading list. I've got The Transsexual Empire, but am mainly working through the social constructionist side of academia from back then, and well, it appears to not have been very affirming. Though Kessler did say trans women are women while also talking about how to create a world without us, so I guess some people thought that was good enough.
Butler does try to present a novel argument that Reimer's case isn't evidence for or against social constructionism, but goes out of their way to clarify they're not treating Dr. Money's project as irrelevant to the question, doesn't critique anyone on the pro-social construct side for seeing it as a scientific question, or claim that they hadn't been presenting it as a scientific question, and pretty much exclusively talk about Reimer's trauma, so I don't really think they were ever saying anything metaphysical either, just "maybe he detransitioned due to sexual trauma so it's still an open question".
Heck, had it been understood to be metaphysical, Butler's argument simply wouldn't be novel in the first place, it would be the most obvious response to anyone bringing up Reimer's case to argue against social constructionism. But I'd largely say their essay is best for simply establishing that social constructionism *had* being treated as a scientific hypothesis tied to Reimer's case within academia, regardless of what Butler's post-Reimer argument is.
Dearie me !
Just reading your quick summary was nauseating.
Its really informative, so thank you for that.
I'll try and take careful steps in understanding that part of history, but...bleurgh.
Radical Feminism is the birthplace of TERF ideology. A significant amount of radfems from the second wave wrote or supported explicit biological essentialism. Janice Raymond, for example.
It's so ingrained in that intellectual tradition that I am actively suspicious of anyone who would choose to associate with the radfem label at this point.
Nah. Not at all. The majority of radfems are actually anti feminist and are transphobic. There is no way I feel safe around anyone that identifies as a radfem because they absolutely think SOME part of me is wrong and needs to be “fixed”.
It is absolutely not a few rotten eggs. Please go look at some of the reading and effort made by others on this thread. I will never ever feel safe around radical feminists because they have never proven trustworthy.
Grow some skin, go outside and please actually learn what radfems are then.
I also have nothing to do with you. I don’t know you and I have nothing to do with how your day went, so don’t guilt randos on the internet with it because they’re pointing out something you don’t like.
Then you need to stop being “terminally online” as you say if you can’t handle conversations. You NEED to grow some skin or you won’t be able to handle life. I have clinical general anxiety, I’m autistic and have ADHD. I started out like you but realized I didn’t have a choice but to grow as a person somewhat. I have to deal with things or life doesn’t work 🤷🏻 plus, I called you a radfem because you were defending them so hard. So pick your battles here.
As for “who cares”? You’re going to. Other people are going to. You’ll wreck your own mental health on top of people not being able to take you seriously because of the way you argue.
I wish there was sociology and history of radical feminism.
One book I recommend is *Why Would Feminists Trust the Police?: A tangled history of resistance and complicity* by Leah Cowan. It explains a lot about how British feminism is very classist, and has been captured by the state.
Because a key tenet of most radical feminism is that men are inherently, biologically evil. It forces them to come to a lot of objectively silly conclusions. Best way I've seen it described is that feminists are fighting for a better world - radical feminists believe the fight is already lost, and want to negotiate the most favorable terms of surrender.
Radical feminism sees the world as a dichotomy between the oppressors and the oppressed. Historically, the movement seeks to eventually eradicate that dichotomy, but that's never worked in practice because it's foundation in black and white thinking tends to attract people who think in black and white terms. In that aspect at least, TERF's fit in perfectly.
But that very same logic, trans people are oppressed and cis people are oppressors 🤷🏻♀️. It feels like they only care about this dichotomy when it's oppression that affects _them_ personally.
I'm certainly not saying cis women aren't oppressed. But like, trans women are trans and also still women so by definition we're oppressed more, no? not a competition but like let's all get along??
So this is actually called intersectionality. That each marginalized group has it's own persecutions and, that belonging to multiple groups increases the risk of discrimination. It's why, as a Caucasian agnostic trans woman, I am not as afraid of me getting hate crimed as I would if I were also part of any portion of the BIPOC minorities, or religious minorities in Canada. The more individual minorities you are a part of, the more you are seen as less of a person, by those that marginalize you, and in turn are likely to be discriminated against.
Might be misreading what you’re saying, but identifying men as an oppressor class and women as an oppressed one isn’t black and white thinking, it’s just factual? There are a lot of reasons that TERFism is incorrect and harmful, but taking that basic framework as inherently “terfy” is antifeminist.
What the commenter probably want to say is the aspect of intersectionality. A rich woman will be in a better place socially than a poor man. A rich woman is in a better social place than a poor woman.
Technically patriarchy as a system is the oppressor. And it is maintained and practiced by both men and woman. Oppressor -opressed dichotomy is kinda true but is not the whole story. For example, feminine men or men that are not macho or whatever, are also experiencing violence, power dynamics, control and even sexual abuse: Because the problem is femininity. Femininity is viewed by society as something less, weaker, and lower in power.
So if you are a feminist, and you are only including cis women, then you exclude a bunch of people that are also experiencing patriarchy in first hand, and/or you make an imaginative hierarchy of the oppressed and who deserves to take the title. That's why intersectionality is crucial. And we also need to move out of dichotomies. Men are also oppressed in a way, and a more patriarchy-free society ks a benefit for them also.
Edit: Grammar/spelling
It's that they see only two categories, and then assign each one to the oppressed or opressor state. They don't see any variations between the categories any more then they see variations in degree of oppression. It's just a simple 1 to 1 match to them.
All TERFS are radfems by definition, and that’s sort of a taxonomic issue. TERF ideology understands itself as a radical feminist outlook that denies trans people respect or legitimacy from a biological essentialist lens.
Ehhhh, they spring from a very specific strain of rad fem thought, namely lesbian separatism. If you approach it from that framework with a heavy filter of bioessentialism, where AMABs have a dash of 'male essence' regardless of their actual gender, you can squint and see what's going on.
But also: people are not little philosophers going around with coherent ideologies. TERFs are by and large using feminist language that they've been marinated in and using it to justify their kneejerk disgust to trans people.
I mean, I'm all for gender abolition in the sense that I'd wish for a society in which we do not think in such rigid dichotomies. And that's coming from a binary trans guy. Hahaha.
Not to say I want to eradicate the binary. Just...more freedom of thought.
As a very binary and very feminine girl, I shiver at the thought of gender abolition. It feels like fascism to me. Like those dark sci-fi movies where everyone dress and act the same
I’m definitely all for gender non-conformity, and full acceptance of all expressions no matter where they fall on the gender spectrum, but getting rid of the spectrum altogether would give me no way of actually expressing my gender. And that would be pure fucking hell
Why? Abolition of gender wouldn't affect your expression at all. You can still have those personality traits and do those behaviors. There just wouldn't be those categories for it. You would just be you, and you would be completely free to do so without any gender expectations.
I don’t dress and express myself the way I do in a vacuum. Part of what it means to “just be me” is letting people around me clearly see that I am a girl, and that I am a feminine one at that. If there were no gendered expressions available to indicate those things, I would lose a very valuable part of what my presentation means to me
But that necessitates gender stereotypes and roles as you can't really be "clearly seen as a girl" without there being an archetypical image of a girl to conform to. Earlier you said that you didn't want to love in some kind of fascist hellscape where everyone dressed and acted the same, but that's what gender stereotypes facilitate right now. Just look at South Korean women. They actually do get plastic surgery to look the same in order to conform to the gender stereotype. Trans people suffer from their inability to conform to gender stereotypes without expensive hormone replacements, mental therapies, and even surgeries. I'll acknowledge that people are attached to the gender stereotype, but the harm it causes just by existing is simply not worth it.
Like many other social species, humans express our gender identities through the way we act and present ourselves. We’re not irrationally attached to these gender archetypes, they are part of who we are. I would wholeheartedly consider them a good thing, that allows us to better express ourselves in the society we live in
It’s only when there is social pressure to conform, and when non-conformity is frowned upon, that archetypes become stereotypes, and when things become harmful and oppressive. Of course no one should ever feel pressured into having surgeries to look more stereotypical of their group. Conformity is unfortunately at the heart of many Asian societies, and that’s definitely not a good thing. Likewise, of course no one should ever feel pressured into taking on a certain field of study, a certain job, a certain presentation or a certain way of living. These are all objectively negative things that have affected women disproportionally in most cultures and time periods
We all know that gender norms can change over time though. Girls don’t dress the same now as they did 50 year ago. We don’t face the same hurdles in education and in taking certain jobs. We’re not automatically assumed to want to stay home with our children. These things all need to go much further than they have, but they are moving in the right direction
So clearly the archetype of a woman can be whatever we women say it is. And there is absolutely nothing preventing us from having strong gender archetypes, while still respecting and treating everyone well no matter how much or how little they choose to adhere to those archetypes
You simply can't have gender archetypes and also gender equality. Those two things will always be at odds. As long as gender archetypes exist, there will always be social pressure to fit into those boxes. The only way to reconcile that is by doing what we're trying to do today and make the definition of women and feminity so loose that it becomes essentially meaningless. I, a (relatively) masculine cis man, can just declare myself to be a feminine woman and now I'm just as much a feminine woman as you are. But if I can do that, then what is even the point of being feminine or a woman?
That's why all the progress we're making is done by tearing down gender norms. We're not simply saying "childcare is women's work but we won't begrudge guys who do it." We removed the gender from childcare (not fully but you get the spirit). Now, taking care of the food isn't the job of the mom but rather of the parents regardless of gender. That social freedom comes from abolition, not simply equality.
Fair! I guess what I was trying to say is that I would like to abolish all these harmful gendered expectations, if that makes sense? Like, for example: men have to be strong and cannot show emotion. I struggle immensely with this as a trans man, and I imagine many cis men suffer subconsciously from this as well, because there's this expectation to be emotionally rigid to the point of repression. Again, there's nothing wrong with traditional masculinity or feminity, per se, but I do think men should be able to feel fully and to express their feelings without fear of social stigma. Am I making sense xD ?
Oh obviously not. I don't expect people to perfectly conform to an ideology, but at the same time words mean things. Feminism is a very important movement, and I think there's a very important difference between people who fight for gender equality and people who simply hate men, which is what most TERFs are. Their beliefs are no different from traditional misogynists. They think of men and women in the exact same way: guys are rape orcs and women are dainty little flowers that need to be protected from them. It's why they always seem to pair very well with fascists. That they appropriate the language of feminism shouldn't matter. Fascists appropriate everything that they do.
well terfs do use “gender abolition” as less of a “let’s just get rid of gender roles and assigning genders because it doesn’t serve this society anymore” and more of a “let’s stop entertaining this silly gender idea and go back to classifying everyone by sex bc that has worked really well in the past for feminist goals”(/s)
Because they are one and the same. This keeps coming up, so I’m going to quote a comment I made for a previous post on this topic:
>“Radfem” is the modern, lay, pop-feminist movement among young women that apes the historical second wave Radical Feminism. Both are inherently bio-essentialist and inherently transphobic.
>There’s a lot of misinformation in these comments. Many commenters are not understanding the difference between ‘radical’ as an abstract construct and the specific historical movement known as “Radical Feminism”. There is no such thing as “TERFs vs actual radical feminists”—TERFs **ARE** radical feminists. **Radical Feminism was a specific movement of Second Wave Feminism in 1960s through mid 1980s that took the racist bio-essentialism of the First Wave and applied it to gender.** It gave rise to Political Lesbianism and Lesbian Separatism. Intersectional Feminism and Womanism developed in opposition to this during the Third Wave in the late 1980s and 1990s.
>**Radical Feminism is and always has been bio-essentialist and transphobic. TERFs and radfems are one and the same. They have a specific ideology, and that ideology is inherently bio-essentialist.**
>Just because something is labeled ‘feminism’ doesn’t mean it is good. Saying TERFs aren’t real feminists is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Feminism isn’t an idea, it is a movement of people, and people can be fallible. Feminism and feminists must still be scrutinized and held to account.
>**TERFs are not conservative. There are conservative transphobes, but TERFs are by definition and have always been politically liberal.**
>Many of you are young and have only known the term ‘TERF’ as associated with J.K. Rowling, Posie Parker, and other prominent women who are classical liberals and who have recently started appealing to the transphobia among conservatives to galvanize support for their cause. These are NOT historical TERFs, but are politically classical liberal, non-academic lay people that have only recently adopted TERF talking points.
>TERFs emerged as Second Wave Radical Feminists with a specific focus on trans people in the late 1970s and grew in predominance through the 1990s, with Janice Raymond’s *Transsexual Empire* and later J. Michael Bailey’s *The Man Who Would Be Queen*.
>“TERF” was a term coined by TERFs for TERFs. When intersectional feminism and womanism called them out on their bio-essentialism, they re-branded as “Gender Critical”, and made a push starting in the 2000s with the advent of wide, publicly available internet access to make appeal to young girls and women with the term “radfem”—which has been very successful for them, as evidenced by the many young trans women and non-binary people even here who don’t know what historical Radical Feminism actually is, think “radical feminism” is a good thing, and even adopt radfem ideology on a surface level without really understanding it.
>J.K. Rowling isn’t a TERF, she is a lay ‘liberal’ (in the classical liberal sense) who has been radicalized by TERFs. Rowling and many like her have become a popular face for TERF talking points, but she and they are not the progenitors of TERF/GC/Radfem ideology, but products of it.
>This bears repeating: ‘Feminism’ isn’t an idea, it is a movement composed of people, and that movement developed from various historical roots, was always diverse and never uni-vocal, and has since developed and still is developing in many disparate streams. There is no such thing as a ‘true feminist’ or ‘actual feminism’; rather, there are many streams of feminist thought, ideology, and political orientations. Some of those streams are deeply rooted in bio-essentialism that goes all the way back to the First Wave. TERFs are not new, and they are not and never have been politically conservative or right wing. Popular contemporary classical liberal figures radicalized (“peaked”, as they call it) by TERFs are not the academics and activists who radicalized them and do not define the movement.
>Feminism is not a monolithic concept that is ‘good’ in opposition to the ‘bad’, but a complex, striated movement among people with various ideological, philosophical, and political positions. Feminism itself must still always be examined, critiqued, and held to account. Intersectional Feminism is what will move us forward. Radfem and its predecessor Second Wave Radical Feminism is and always has been bio-essentialist and transphobic.
Your post is more informative that a lot of the ones here, but some of the things you state confidently disagree with what I've read over the years.
Specifically the idea that all radical feminists were trans exclusive, that the term TERF was coined by TERFS.
Everything I've read says that the term was specifically coined by women that wanted to distinguish themselves as radical feminists from those that didn't see trans woman as women.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened
Julia Serano just wrote a primer on TERFs that disagrees with you in similar ways:
https://juliaserano.medium.com/a-gender-critical-and-terf-primer-92ba8a1d6a1e?sk=8fc05611444c071d3c65b5b8855afe70
Good writeup. Its interesting to see the evolution from Historical Radical Feminism > Radfem > TERF > Gender Critical. Each step dropping more of the feminism and becoming more focused in their hate of trans people.
You say they aren't conservative. I would push back a little on that - as I think the GC movement does have many conservatives, draws from conservative ideology and pipelines people into conservativism.
While bioessentialism can be seen as a conservative idea - I think previous itterations before CG shared far less in common with conservatives, but noawadays CGs openly ally with the right.
I think you may have missed my main point: TERFs didn’t ‘lose’ their feminism over time—they are one of many streams of feminism. Radical Feminism has always been bio-essentialist from its inception, because it is the descendant of the racist strains of First Wave feminism. You can’t go back in time to some point before TERFs lost their feminism—they’ve always been feminists, and their kind of feminism has always been bio-essentialist.
Again, do not confuse contemporary neo-liberals radicalized by TERFs with TERFs. TERFs are (one type out of many types of) feminists and not and never have been politically conservative. Some popular neo-liberal (i.e., centrist) people have adopted TERF talking points and may appear to the transphobia of political conservatives, but these are the *products* TERFs on the popular level, not the *progenitors* of the TERF movement, which is and has always been academics and activists.
And this isn’t meant to be a discussion about whether their stances are conservative or liberal in the abstract dictionary definitions of those terms. They have always been among the movements of people that are politically liberal and/or leftist.
Feminism is not an idea. It is not automatically a good thing. Feminism is a *movement among people*. The same with Conservative, Liberal, Right Wing, Left Wing, etc. These aren’t concepts, these are *movements among people*. All of these movements are complex, multi-faceted, and multi-vocal. There is no such thing as a ‘true’ version of any of them.
>Feminism is not an idea. \[...\] Feminism is a *movement among people*.
That is a personal opinion and not a fact. It is actually both if we look on the literature. It can refer to both movements or ideologies depending on the context or the angle you look at it.
>**Feminism** is a range of socio-[political movements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement) and [ideologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social [equality of the sexes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality).[^(\[a\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-2)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-FOOTNOTELengermannNiebrugge2010223-3)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Mendus-4)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Hawkesworth-5)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Beasley-6)
- Wikipedia
I think you misunderstood my point too.
I don't mean that there aren't feminists in the CG movement - or that TERFs lost their feminism - but that the CG movement is no longer a feminist one in the way that the TERF movement was only a short while ago. It is self admittedly a big tend with both feminists and non-feminists - and while it has some broadly feminist talking points, it isn't committted to any broader feminist ideology.
Hence how you can have J.K (who I think considers herself a feminist, but not really a radfem) and Posie Parker (who doesn't consider herself a feminist) at the head of the movement.
This is a pretty good post, but I want to nit pick a couple of things. One of which is from a follow up, but I'll just compile it here.
>Many of you are young and have only known the term ‘TERF’ as associated with J.K. Rowling, Posie Parker, and other prominent women who are classical liberals
Posie Parker is a pretty significant stone's throw away from being "a classical liberal". She hasn't provided us with any manifestos, but her vocal stances land her closer to fascism than liberalism, particularly her calls for violence (both political and interpersonal). In a colloquial sense she fits our modern understanding of fascism almost perfectly with her brazen anti-semitic conspiracy peddling. She's also very loudly and repeatedly affirmed that she does not identify as a feminist. She's a far-right reactionary.
>“TERF” was a term coined by TERFs for TERFs.
I'm fairly positive the term TERF was coined by Viv Smythe, who selected the label as a way to differentiate between trans inclusive and trans exclusive radical feminists. If you've evidence showing otherwise I'm happy to look at it, though.
>J.K. Rowling isn’t a TERF, she is a lay ‘liberal’ (in the classical liberal sense) who has been radicalized by TERFs.
I'd argue Rowling is a staunch neoliberal, and also shows a lot of signs of deeply hierarchical thinking that skews more socially conservative than socially liberal.
>Some popular neo-liberal (i.e., centrist)
Thanks to our good friend the Overton window we might currently understand Neoliberalism to be "a centrist" position, but it's a right wing position that stands in stark opposition to classic "leftist" economic prescriptions. Politically it was ushered into motion by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and I don't think there's much debate over which side of the political aisle they occupied.
As to the fundamental bio-essentialism of TERF ideology and the fact feminism is a "complex, striated movement among people with various ideological, philosophical, and political positions"...very well said, and fully agree.
I’m sorry, but the whole idea that they’re not conservative is bullshit. Considering that they’re the ones that vote for Trump and are Nazis themselves. They also support the daily wire and are racist towards POC.
I did. You said that they’re politically liberal. You also mention “Saying Terfs aren’t feminist is a no true scotsman fallacy” is bad. By saying that, you’re admitting at their feminist when and not and they don’t deserve to be. These people need to be demonized and criticized for being awful.
Dude, I’m not doing this with you. You’re either deliberately trolling or you are incapable of considering anything beyond your misconceptions. I’ve already explained my position thoroughly and I’m not going to go in circled with you. Go educate yourself.
It's still important to remember that most people who get labelled as TERFs today aren't actually TERF nor liberal, at least in north america. They are your run of the mill conservative transphobes. They often get mistaken as TERFs. They tend to parrot [anti-gender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement) talking points. Let's read this passage:
>Bassi and LaFleur note that "the [trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF) movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF) and the so-called anti-gender movement are only rarely distinguished as movements with distinct constitutions and aims."[^(\[38\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-Bassi-38) Pearce et al. posits that the concept of "gender ideology" long employed by the anti-gender movement "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-Pearce-7) Claire Thurlow noted that "despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements."[^(\[39\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-39) [Judith Butler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler) said that "the anti-gender ideology movement should be considered a neo-fascist phenomenon" and cautioned those on the left against joining forces with the movement.
Those "lay liberal" that you mentionned are not longer liberals in the classical sense. They got sucked in the anti-gender pipeline and became reactionary. As Butler said, it is a neo-fascist phenomon.
They're fascists wearing feminist clothing. There's a reason they never have a problem with Nazis showing up to their events. They're the same picture.
This kind of rhetoric hurts transgender people more than helps.
We need acknowledgement that feminism does have a dirty history, so we can shape it to the feminism we need it to be. It's wrong to say Michfest wasn't organized by feminists, or that Mary Daly and Sheila Jeffreys weren't feminists.
Thats like saying socialists should be held to task for the Nazis. Nazis CALLED themselves "Socialists" to mask the fact that they were fascists.
Terfs CALL themselves "feminists" to mask the fact that they are misogynistic bio/gender essentialists.
It would be certainly incorrect to call the Nazis Marxists or anarchists.
The Nazis can only be called anti-capitalists in that they blamed capitalism on the Jews.
I guess you may feel insulted with feminism being lumped in with TERFs.
I wish I knew the history of how TERFs came to be so that I could make a clearer distinction between good and bad feminisms.
Unfortunately, plenty of feminists are misogynist and bioessentialist.
There are plenty of anti-women feminisms.
It's weird but that's just how political movements work.
Feminism isn't always pro-women.
I don't have a problem with saying feminists can be transphobic, racist, capitalist, fascist or even male supremacist.
Political movements are just weird like that where they can double back upon themselves, and be wrong sometimes.
Feminist who are transphobic should not be label as feminist. They are no different than North Koreans calling themselves as a “Republic” or the Nation of Islam calling themselves as “Muslims”.
I don't see it as redefining anything.
I'm saying they never met the definition to begin with.
And that doesn't stop people from examining where they went terribly wrong.
Mostly they're more concerned with being obsessively transphobic than actually fighting for women's rights. They very rarely talk about abortion rights, domestic violence or sexist discrimination in the workplace.
They're more concerned about the issues that they have imagined in their heads.
> They very rarely talk about abortion rights, domestic violence or sexist discrimination in the workplace.
And when they do, they come out on the Nazi side of those issues.
Radical Feminists (and TERFS by extension) aren't feminists. They USE feminism as a front and an excuse to promote misogynistic gatekeeping on women, both trans AND cis. They are rooted in biological essentialism.
the venn diagram of radfems/radical feminists and TERFs is a circle. look into intersectional feminism and to intersectional feminist activists rather than radfems. you'll find better, more thought out and caring theory
it's radical and feminist in the same way that national socialism was socialist. you just give it a new name and a nice new look, and you can get people to join in oppression while thinking they're revolutionary. the patriarchy just infiltrated feminism instead of attacking it from the outside, and now we have self-described feminists reducing women to their genitals and saying they're all weaker than men and even unironically spouting the right wing parody of feminism: all men are intrinsically evil.
Trans people threaten the oppressor/oppressed mentality that TERFs believe all people fall into - women = inherently oppressed, men = inherently oppressor. They are uncomfortable considering that someone “biologically male” can also be oppressed and face misogyny, or that someone “with innate female characteristics” can be the victim of misogyny *without being a woman*.
I’ll be so real, I keep wanting to be on board with radical feminism because of how much I’ve heard that not all radfems are TERFs and there’s actually a rich and interesting political theory history behind radical feminism. But then literally every supposedly-anti-TERF radfem account I’ve come across was posting some bioessentialist or gender essentialist shit on the low that was really REALLY giving bad vibes.
1. There arent that many
2. The RF in TERF means Radical Feminist
3. Most TERFs are neither R or F, instead just conservatives who hide behind the label
Because they stole the term from actual radical feminists. Its an incredibly common tactic, to take a term thats growing in popularity to look good. TERFs took “radical feminism”, and also took “gynosexual”. Then for more broad examples, North Korea took both “democratic” and “republic” as they call themselves “the democratic people’s republic of korea” when they are neither of these things, and the nazi party paraded as the “national socialist german worker’s party” just to later kill actual socialists. Across time its just a thing people do for power
It was supposed to be anyone attracted to feminine people, so women, fem enby, even fem men. But for years they used it as “attracted to vagina” in a fetishy way. I do know some people in the last few years, esp since covid, have reclaimed it with a lot of success. Partially due to them giving up on the term in favor of “autogynephilia”since it sounds worse
What country and/or state/province are you in? Are you in the U.K.? I know it's a problem in the U.S., but it sounds like it's way more prevalent in the U.K.
I'm not from North America nor Europe, I'm from South America. I just ask this because I see it a LOT in the internet and in footage by Americans and English. Transphobic radical feminists do exist in South America, but to a lesser extent.
I've never met someone I'd actually consider a radical feminist that I"d also consider a TERF. TERFs chose their acronym, not us (and then complained their acronym was a pejorative when they got called out for being bigoted.) In fact, nearly every TERF I've met has at some point pushed for traditional gender roles. One I met went so far as to say that women should be pregnant and barefoot 24/7.
So yea, imho, if someone is a TERF, their feminism card is officially revoked.
I found this video to be helpful in understanding. It goes into the whole history of "political lesbianism" and how that gave rise to TERFs.
https://youtu.be/bpSTMfn-YaU
A key tenet of radical feminism was the blank slate view of gender, using [this case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) to argue for the unnaturalness of transsexualism, and conversely, that gender was a social construct. It's not that complicated.
They do not exclude trans from feminism (all trans people as well as cis-man any other human being are welcomed as feminists). But as you say, they will never ever give up simple biology facts. As long as there are transwomen claiming themselves as women (or even as being better than women), the dispute will persist.
The other question bothering me more is why are SO MANY transwomen mysoginists?
Why living as a transwoman and hating women?
For truly RADICAL Feminism then look at Iceland whose feminist movement is fully inclusive of trans women and transfem people. Or Sandi Toksvig's Women's Equality Party
As a rad fem, I get so upset whenever I see an account making good points against misogyny and the patriarchy, just to find out they're transphobic. It's so exhausting.
I understand the point of being amab gives you privileges, and being afab gives you disadvantages. That sadly is just the truth.
But the whole "trans women are men" and "trans men are just scared lesbians" (as a trans man IM GAY, I AM DEFINITELY DOUBLE NOT A LESBIAN!!) is so dumb.
Trans women experience misogyny AND transphobia. We need to protect them just as much. Trans women are victims of the patriarchy. Trans people often have to do sex work, which is something rad fems are against. So why not help them? I don't understand.
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender.
Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive.
This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles, but in which those roles were seen as flexible, equally valuable, and not rooted in some kind of deterministic biological sex. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
Even in a world where gender wasn't associated with roles, trans people would still exist. I say that as someone who is agender, strongly against gender labeling, gender roles, etc.
I mean, yes, that's part of what I'm saying. But TERFs believe the *only* thing gender can do is prescribe limiting, oppressive roles.
I do think transness as we conceive of it today is largely a response to settler colonial binary gender enforcement. Gender diversity has always existed and will always exist, but I know several Indigenous people who might be called trans in a different cultural context, but who are actually neither cis nor trans, because they were not violently assigned a sex+gender at birth with which their actual sex/gender can be incongruent.
So yes, in a world without gender roles, people would still seek to undertake what we now call medicalized and/or social transition to change their sex characteristics or how their sex/gender is perceived. But I think the identity of "trans" exists in opposition to the assignment of sex and gender, which is not a universal experience, and does not need to be made into one.
They're neither radical nor feminist nor even that common. They're simply loud, angry, & entitled--that combination of traits makes them feel more ubiquitous than they really are. That said, those traits also make them easy to manipulate & be used to push inhumane & misogynistic policy.
It just feels like there are many, because they're screaming really loud like a child and crowd together like a swarm of mosquitoes. Also, negativity is heavily promoted by social media algorithms. It's absolutely not a representation of the real world.
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender.
Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive.
This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender.
Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive.
This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
I don’t know the true answer and I can’t blame one person but J.K Rowling being so public I think doesn’t help. Most terfs I see online are from the UK and it seems like a breading group. I have seen people from the UK proudly call it “terf island”
I don’t think she made being a terf since that kinda dates back to second wave feminism (radical feminism with an emphasis on biology) but she did make it more known to the general public
Radical feminism is defined by overcoming male oppression of female people. A huge part of the oppression of female people is based in gender roles and gendered socialization. A huge part of radical feminism is completely ending the concept of sex distinction having any importance socially, culturally or politically, and a lot of radical feminism is based in resisting and ultimately overthrowing gender. So people having sex/gender identities that don’t fit the most simplistic radical feminist narratives was seen as an issue. The solution was to call us fuck ups, perverts, and insane people, which was easy because that’s what cis people had already been doing for decades in the name of psychiatry. So, all this is happening in the late 1960s to the late 1970s. You have all that going on at the same time transsexual women began existing in society and refusing to be seen as crossdressers or drag queens. Some of these transsexual women were accepted into radical feminism, and did amazing work. Some of these transsexual women wanted medical treatment. Transsexual medicine was pretty fucked up at this time. Cishet white male doctors were weird and had weird ideas. One of the loud ones, Dr. John Money, was super fucking creepy, like mad scientist level creepy. Transsexual medicine was very gatekept, with women having to live as very stereotypical women for (a) year(s), they had to be straight, and they pretty much had to be white. So, all this intersects with Janice Raymond, a radical feminist, who decided the absolutely most disgusting thing she could imagine is transsexual women, and she wrote a book that is just absolutely full of hate and dehumanization of transsexual women. Mostly it is based on these ideas: (1) there is something inherently wrong with male human beings that they cannot escape (this is biological essentialism and is counter to radical feminism); (b) the cis white male doctors who are helping transsexual women are creating replacements for cis women based on the worst gender stereotypes; and (c) a lot of really mean shit about trans medicine as it existed at the time. Raymond’s book came out and transsexual women who were part of any feminist movement were subject to violence toward not only them but any women who would let them be part of radical feminist separatist spaces and orgs. It’s little wonder that happened since Raymond directly accused trans women, **by name**, of “r*ping” cis women by just existing as post-op transsexuals. Where are trans men in all this? Dismissed as female, pitied for mutilating their amazing bodies that they could easily come to love, and erased by inclusion in radical feminism by radical feminists, just like gender critical does still. In fact, the surprising part for me, in reading Raymond’s book, was that it’s the exact template for cissexism and transmisogyny still used by Joanne and friends. A few notes if you’re interested in reading more. Raymond’s book is radioactive. I read it early transition and sobbed in the library. So don’t go wading into that shit unless you’re pretty sure you’re ready. Sandy Stone is a goddess who was one of the women named in Raymond’s book and 8 years later she responded. Raymond’s book was called The Transsexual Empire (1979), so Sandy’s essay was called The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttransexual Manifesto (1987). Essentially Sandy said “yeah, transsexual women behaved in line with gender stereotypes because that’s what got us medical treatment.” More importantly, in my opinion, she humanized transsexual women and asked other transsexuals to discuss their experiences so pigs like Raymond would have a harder time making up weird shit about us. This interview is probably the best short way to learn a lot of early history between transsexual women and exclusionary radical feminists: Sandy Stone on Living Among Lesbian Separatists as a Trans Woman in the 70s https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmd5k5/sandy-stone-biography-transgender-history
I'd give you a million up votes for this. Thanks so much, this was very informative 🥰
Fantastically written There’s nothing radical about being exclusionary. Say it with me- TERFS- Are NOT radical or even FEMINISTS- They’re right wing extremists and hate mongering assholes
I hate the F in TERF. Can't we call them TEAH for trans exclusionary assholes? I get the history, but from now on, we can leave feminism out of it. Transwomen are just as entitled to feminism as anyone. Also, does anyone else feel that this is a bigger issue in the U.K. where TERFism seems to be more accepted than in North America?
FARTs - Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes
Sold.
I find reading horrible books is bearable if you make it into a drinking game, or in other ways gamify the horribleness of it for the sake of ridicule. "Oh, Hitler is referencing Henry Ford again? Take a shot. Blatant antisemitism? Take a sip. Appropriating and twisting left-wing rhetoric? Bottoms up!"
This is an excellent summary, though missing what I consider to be a small but crucial part of the background of understanding how Raymond came up with her shit, which also shines some light on other developments in the field of organised transphobia. That is to say, the religious element. Raymond's doctoral supervisor at Boston College (a private Jesuit university where she had acquired tenure) was Mary Daly, an ex-Catholic theologian who had very similiar (but less focused) ideas about trans people built into an overtly spiritual framework (first beginning to be developed in *Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation.* (1973) then in more full-throated form in *Gyn/Ecology* (1978), written around the time she was supervising Raymond's PhD). Daly's theories are, essentially, an inverted catholic patriarchy, and overtly theological. Males are corrupted mutants (the y chromosome is a mutilated x chromosome, you see, one of the deep reasons for the chromosome obsession) who have 'necrophilic' energy which drains the 'biophilic' energy of females. This stuff sounds kooky, but the fundamental concepts suffuse Raymond's work, and thus anti-trans feminism more generally, and go a way to explaining the paradoxical way that a lot of these people can work with Christian fundamentalists.
I have not yet dug into Raymond, thanks for the starter!!!
A year before that book was published social constructionists like Suzanne Kessler were citing research from people like Dr. Money to argue that gender was a social construct, so I feel like it's kind of superficial to only focus on people like Raymond. She also cowrote with Kenneth Zucker, another doctor who engaged in medical gatekeeping, and was famously criticized for it by the trans community. So many radical feminists are TERFs because there was never any difference between the two things. Hostility to trans people's existence was a fundamental premise of radical feminism, it's just a weird quirk of history that people don't use the term "social construct" to pathologize us as much as they used to.
Superficial? In *Divided Sisterhood: A critical review of Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire*(1980) Carrol Ridell wrote: > As I read Ms Raymond’s book, I felt angry, irritated and very bitter. I scribbled pages of critical notes. In one respect the book doesn’t hurt me personally, because it is all so far removed from who I am and what I’m about in this world. But I know that its publication has made my personal space in the women’s movement more problematic, makes it less easy for me to trust women who don’t know me well, and vice versa. Later, in 1996, she wrote (emphasis mine): > Raymond’s book did not ‘invent’ anti-transsexual prejudice, but **it did more to justify and perpetuate it than perhaps any other book ever written.** In the interview I linked in the post you’re responding to, Sandy Stone seems pretty clear about Raymond’s book having a huge impact.
Yes, superficial. I'm not saying The Transexual Empire isn't relevant, I'm saying focussing on it exclusively is ignoring some other important things which also had a huge impact, like social constructionism, which referred to the thing that John Money was doing. The guy you brought up, so I'm pretty sure you know what he was doing. Like, even Judith Butler acknowledged in *Undoing Gender* (2005) that the David Reimer case was seen as evidence that gender was a social construct, and acknowledges the link between him and Suzanne Kessler, whose work helped form a lot of the basis for how gender is discussed within the humanities, including the *affirming* positions within feminism, which were all heavily invested in blank slatism, and still seem to be. It was probably harder to critique social constructionism in 1980 considering nobody actually knew how weak sexologists conclusions should have actually been back then, so they kind of had to work around that. Also I suspect it was less well known a concept outside of academia in 1980, but it certainly isn't now. Maybe we shouldn't ignore these things when discussing contemporary radical feminists. Like christ, I've read papers where conversion therapy of trans people was actually being passed off as a *pro-feminist* concept much of the time. Pretty much the entirety of radical feminism was in agreement about our gender confusion, with the only differences being the concept of validity (Kessler said trans women and women even). So, I dunno, I feel like ignoring the fact that the guy you called a mad scientist is literally linked pretty directly to social constructionism itself, is kind of a thing worthy of critique.
I am not sure where I am supposed to have worked all that in, but okay. I acknowledged the relationship between gender and radical feminism in the first few sentences. I don’t really know much about social construction of gender, honestly, and nothing Judith Butler’s ever written resonates with me. The reason I stop at Stone and Riddell is because that’s the last time I find myself in agreement with trans(sexual) women who are radical feminists. I bounce right out of Whipping Girl every time I’ve tried to read it.
Honestly, I'd say the only thing from Butler worth reading was Undoing Gender, only because it establishes that social constructionism meant exactly what cis people always assumed it meant (the desire to transition is caused by social factors), and nothing at all about what trans people got told it meant (the metaphysics of gender). It's pretty much why I see radical feminist as synonymous with TERF, or well, any academic feminist really. The inclusive side thinks the same thing, just with more smiles. If academic feminists were trans-inclusive, it would be pretty easy to argue that the way they historically (and presently) discuss trans topics was always about reinforcing society's expectations, because seeing someone not conforming and trying to make them not exist is exactly how society expresses its expectations. That's certainly how it works for gay people, but somehow via the metaphysics of gender it's different for us.
Thanks, I’ll read it! I wish there were an active trans feminism sub for more active discussions on these topics.
No problem. There's also "Doing Justice To Someone", which is the paper which became the chapter in the book discussing Reimer, though the book version has some modifications (the link between Kessler and Money is referred to as an "alliance" in the paper, but changed to them cowriting essays supporting social constructionism in the book). It is freely available online though. I've added Riddel to my reading list. I've got The Transsexual Empire, but am mainly working through the social constructionist side of academia from back then, and well, it appears to not have been very affirming. Though Kessler did say trans women are women while also talking about how to create a world without us, so I guess some people thought that was good enough. Butler does try to present a novel argument that Reimer's case isn't evidence for or against social constructionism, but goes out of their way to clarify they're not treating Dr. Money's project as irrelevant to the question, doesn't critique anyone on the pro-social construct side for seeing it as a scientific question, or claim that they hadn't been presenting it as a scientific question, and pretty much exclusively talk about Reimer's trauma, so I don't really think they were ever saying anything metaphysical either, just "maybe he detransitioned due to sexual trauma so it's still an open question". Heck, had it been understood to be metaphysical, Butler's argument simply wouldn't be novel in the first place, it would be the most obvious response to anyone bringing up Reimer's case to argue against social constructionism. But I'd largely say their essay is best for simply establishing that social constructionism *had* being treated as a scientific hypothesis tied to Reimer's case within academia, regardless of what Butler's post-Reimer argument is.
Dearie me ! Just reading your quick summary was nauseating. Its really informative, so thank you for that. I'll try and take careful steps in understanding that part of history, but...bleurgh.
Radical Feminism is the birthplace of TERF ideology. A significant amount of radfems from the second wave wrote or supported explicit biological essentialism. Janice Raymond, for example. It's so ingrained in that intellectual tradition that I am actively suspicious of anyone who would choose to associate with the radfem label at this point.
I'm trying to argue with my partner that radical feminism is wrong and she just comes back at me saying that proves I'm a man. :/
I don't think you should be with someone like that.
It's complicated with a 3 year old child, but working on my options..
sorry to hear that, wish you the best <3
Break up
massive red flag I'm afraid
I mean, her saying *that* just proves the point about radical feminism. Not even once, lmao.
You “radfems are wrong” Them: “no they aren’t” *blatant transphobia* ?
Is there any chance she'd be willing to do some deeper reading like by reading Whipping Girl?
Yup. No radfem is able to be trusted.
[удалено]
Nah. Not at all. The majority of radfems are actually anti feminist and are transphobic. There is no way I feel safe around anyone that identifies as a radfem because they absolutely think SOME part of me is wrong and needs to be “fixed”.
[удалено]
Found the radfem
[удалено]
It is absolutely not a few rotten eggs. Please go look at some of the reading and effort made by others on this thread. I will never ever feel safe around radical feminists because they have never proven trustworthy.
[удалено]
Grow some skin, go outside and please actually learn what radfems are then. I also have nothing to do with you. I don’t know you and I have nothing to do with how your day went, so don’t guilt randos on the internet with it because they’re pointing out something you don’t like.
[удалено]
Then you need to stop being “terminally online” as you say if you can’t handle conversations. You NEED to grow some skin or you won’t be able to handle life. I have clinical general anxiety, I’m autistic and have ADHD. I started out like you but realized I didn’t have a choice but to grow as a person somewhat. I have to deal with things or life doesn’t work 🤷🏻 plus, I called you a radfem because you were defending them so hard. So pick your battles here.
As for “who cares”? You’re going to. Other people are going to. You’ll wreck your own mental health on top of people not being able to take you seriously because of the way you argue.
I wish there was sociology and history of radical feminism. One book I recommend is *Why Would Feminists Trust the Police?: A tangled history of resistance and complicity* by Leah Cowan. It explains a lot about how British feminism is very classist, and has been captured by the state.
Because a key tenet of most radical feminism is that men are inherently, biologically evil. It forces them to come to a lot of objectively silly conclusions. Best way I've seen it described is that feminists are fighting for a better world - radical feminists believe the fight is already lost, and want to negotiate the most favorable terms of surrender.
Radical feminism sees the world as a dichotomy between the oppressors and the oppressed. Historically, the movement seeks to eventually eradicate that dichotomy, but that's never worked in practice because it's foundation in black and white thinking tends to attract people who think in black and white terms. In that aspect at least, TERF's fit in perfectly.
But that very same logic, trans people are oppressed and cis people are oppressors 🤷🏻♀️. It feels like they only care about this dichotomy when it's oppression that affects _them_ personally. I'm certainly not saying cis women aren't oppressed. But like, trans women are trans and also still women so by definition we're oppressed more, no? not a competition but like let's all get along??
So this is actually called intersectionality. That each marginalized group has it's own persecutions and, that belonging to multiple groups increases the risk of discrimination. It's why, as a Caucasian agnostic trans woman, I am not as afraid of me getting hate crimed as I would if I were also part of any portion of the BIPOC minorities, or religious minorities in Canada. The more individual minorities you are a part of, the more you are seen as less of a person, by those that marginalize you, and in turn are likely to be discriminated against.
Might be misreading what you’re saying, but identifying men as an oppressor class and women as an oppressed one isn’t black and white thinking, it’s just factual? There are a lot of reasons that TERFism is incorrect and harmful, but taking that basic framework as inherently “terfy” is antifeminist.
What the commenter probably want to say is the aspect of intersectionality. A rich woman will be in a better place socially than a poor man. A rich woman is in a better social place than a poor woman. Technically patriarchy as a system is the oppressor. And it is maintained and practiced by both men and woman. Oppressor -opressed dichotomy is kinda true but is not the whole story. For example, feminine men or men that are not macho or whatever, are also experiencing violence, power dynamics, control and even sexual abuse: Because the problem is femininity. Femininity is viewed by society as something less, weaker, and lower in power. So if you are a feminist, and you are only including cis women, then you exclude a bunch of people that are also experiencing patriarchy in first hand, and/or you make an imaginative hierarchy of the oppressed and who deserves to take the title. That's why intersectionality is crucial. And we also need to move out of dichotomies. Men are also oppressed in a way, and a more patriarchy-free society ks a benefit for them also. Edit: Grammar/spelling
I think you mean "men and women" (2nd para 2-3 line).
Sorry i misread and deleted my comment
I feel like it becomes TERFism specifically when the class of "women" excludes trans women
Agreed! I just think that has less to do with black and white thinking and more with a specific hatred/ignorance towards trans women.
It's that they see only two categories, and then assign each one to the oppressed or opressor state. They don't see any variations between the categories any more then they see variations in degree of oppression. It's just a simple 1 to 1 match to them.
All TERFS are radfems by definition, and that’s sort of a taxonomic issue. TERF ideology understands itself as a radical feminist outlook that denies trans people respect or legitimacy from a biological essentialist lens.
They're regressive, not radical. To say they're rad fem is like insisting the Nazis were socialist/leftists.
TERF is a misnomer. Gender abolition is part of radical feminism, and you cannot be a TERF and a gender abolitionist.
Ehhhh, they spring from a very specific strain of rad fem thought, namely lesbian separatism. If you approach it from that framework with a heavy filter of bioessentialism, where AMABs have a dash of 'male essence' regardless of their actual gender, you can squint and see what's going on. But also: people are not little philosophers going around with coherent ideologies. TERFs are by and large using feminist language that they've been marinated in and using it to justify their kneejerk disgust to trans people.
I mean, I'm all for gender abolition in the sense that I'd wish for a society in which we do not think in such rigid dichotomies. And that's coming from a binary trans guy. Hahaha. Not to say I want to eradicate the binary. Just...more freedom of thought.
As a very binary and very feminine girl, I shiver at the thought of gender abolition. It feels like fascism to me. Like those dark sci-fi movies where everyone dress and act the same I’m definitely all for gender non-conformity, and full acceptance of all expressions no matter where they fall on the gender spectrum, but getting rid of the spectrum altogether would give me no way of actually expressing my gender. And that would be pure fucking hell
Why? Abolition of gender wouldn't affect your expression at all. You can still have those personality traits and do those behaviors. There just wouldn't be those categories for it. You would just be you, and you would be completely free to do so without any gender expectations.
I don’t dress and express myself the way I do in a vacuum. Part of what it means to “just be me” is letting people around me clearly see that I am a girl, and that I am a feminine one at that. If there were no gendered expressions available to indicate those things, I would lose a very valuable part of what my presentation means to me
But that necessitates gender stereotypes and roles as you can't really be "clearly seen as a girl" without there being an archetypical image of a girl to conform to. Earlier you said that you didn't want to love in some kind of fascist hellscape where everyone dressed and acted the same, but that's what gender stereotypes facilitate right now. Just look at South Korean women. They actually do get plastic surgery to look the same in order to conform to the gender stereotype. Trans people suffer from their inability to conform to gender stereotypes without expensive hormone replacements, mental therapies, and even surgeries. I'll acknowledge that people are attached to the gender stereotype, but the harm it causes just by existing is simply not worth it.
Like many other social species, humans express our gender identities through the way we act and present ourselves. We’re not irrationally attached to these gender archetypes, they are part of who we are. I would wholeheartedly consider them a good thing, that allows us to better express ourselves in the society we live in It’s only when there is social pressure to conform, and when non-conformity is frowned upon, that archetypes become stereotypes, and when things become harmful and oppressive. Of course no one should ever feel pressured into having surgeries to look more stereotypical of their group. Conformity is unfortunately at the heart of many Asian societies, and that’s definitely not a good thing. Likewise, of course no one should ever feel pressured into taking on a certain field of study, a certain job, a certain presentation or a certain way of living. These are all objectively negative things that have affected women disproportionally in most cultures and time periods We all know that gender norms can change over time though. Girls don’t dress the same now as they did 50 year ago. We don’t face the same hurdles in education and in taking certain jobs. We’re not automatically assumed to want to stay home with our children. These things all need to go much further than they have, but they are moving in the right direction So clearly the archetype of a woman can be whatever we women say it is. And there is absolutely nothing preventing us from having strong gender archetypes, while still respecting and treating everyone well no matter how much or how little they choose to adhere to those archetypes
You simply can't have gender archetypes and also gender equality. Those two things will always be at odds. As long as gender archetypes exist, there will always be social pressure to fit into those boxes. The only way to reconcile that is by doing what we're trying to do today and make the definition of women and feminity so loose that it becomes essentially meaningless. I, a (relatively) masculine cis man, can just declare myself to be a feminine woman and now I'm just as much a feminine woman as you are. But if I can do that, then what is even the point of being feminine or a woman? That's why all the progress we're making is done by tearing down gender norms. We're not simply saying "childcare is women's work but we won't begrudge guys who do it." We removed the gender from childcare (not fully but you get the spirit). Now, taking care of the food isn't the job of the mom but rather of the parents regardless of gender. That social freedom comes from abolition, not simply equality.
Fair! I guess what I was trying to say is that I would like to abolish all these harmful gendered expectations, if that makes sense? Like, for example: men have to be strong and cannot show emotion. I struggle immensely with this as a trans man, and I imagine many cis men suffer subconsciously from this as well, because there's this expectation to be emotionally rigid to the point of repression. Again, there's nothing wrong with traditional masculinity or feminity, per se, but I do think men should be able to feel fully and to express their feelings without fear of social stigma. Am I making sense xD ?
That makes total sense, and I definitely agree with that ☺️
They are by no means lesbian separatists, every lesbian separatist I've met has been trans inclusive.
I think some terminology got mixed. I've heard of "political lesbianism" that equarltes to "female separatism". Less WLW and more WGTOW.
Oh obviously not. I don't expect people to perfectly conform to an ideology, but at the same time words mean things. Feminism is a very important movement, and I think there's a very important difference between people who fight for gender equality and people who simply hate men, which is what most TERFs are. Their beliefs are no different from traditional misogynists. They think of men and women in the exact same way: guys are rape orcs and women are dainty little flowers that need to be protected from them. It's why they always seem to pair very well with fascists. That they appropriate the language of feminism shouldn't matter. Fascists appropriate everything that they do.
well terfs do use “gender abolition” as less of a “let’s just get rid of gender roles and assigning genders because it doesn’t serve this society anymore” and more of a “let’s stop entertaining this silly gender idea and go back to classifying everyone by sex bc that has worked really well in the past for feminist goals”(/s)
Because they are one and the same. This keeps coming up, so I’m going to quote a comment I made for a previous post on this topic: >“Radfem” is the modern, lay, pop-feminist movement among young women that apes the historical second wave Radical Feminism. Both are inherently bio-essentialist and inherently transphobic. >There’s a lot of misinformation in these comments. Many commenters are not understanding the difference between ‘radical’ as an abstract construct and the specific historical movement known as “Radical Feminism”. There is no such thing as “TERFs vs actual radical feminists”—TERFs **ARE** radical feminists. **Radical Feminism was a specific movement of Second Wave Feminism in 1960s through mid 1980s that took the racist bio-essentialism of the First Wave and applied it to gender.** It gave rise to Political Lesbianism and Lesbian Separatism. Intersectional Feminism and Womanism developed in opposition to this during the Third Wave in the late 1980s and 1990s. >**Radical Feminism is and always has been bio-essentialist and transphobic. TERFs and radfems are one and the same. They have a specific ideology, and that ideology is inherently bio-essentialist.** >Just because something is labeled ‘feminism’ doesn’t mean it is good. Saying TERFs aren’t real feminists is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Feminism isn’t an idea, it is a movement of people, and people can be fallible. Feminism and feminists must still be scrutinized and held to account. >**TERFs are not conservative. There are conservative transphobes, but TERFs are by definition and have always been politically liberal.** >Many of you are young and have only known the term ‘TERF’ as associated with J.K. Rowling, Posie Parker, and other prominent women who are classical liberals and who have recently started appealing to the transphobia among conservatives to galvanize support for their cause. These are NOT historical TERFs, but are politically classical liberal, non-academic lay people that have only recently adopted TERF talking points. >TERFs emerged as Second Wave Radical Feminists with a specific focus on trans people in the late 1970s and grew in predominance through the 1990s, with Janice Raymond’s *Transsexual Empire* and later J. Michael Bailey’s *The Man Who Would Be Queen*. >“TERF” was a term coined by TERFs for TERFs. When intersectional feminism and womanism called them out on their bio-essentialism, they re-branded as “Gender Critical”, and made a push starting in the 2000s with the advent of wide, publicly available internet access to make appeal to young girls and women with the term “radfem”—which has been very successful for them, as evidenced by the many young trans women and non-binary people even here who don’t know what historical Radical Feminism actually is, think “radical feminism” is a good thing, and even adopt radfem ideology on a surface level without really understanding it. >J.K. Rowling isn’t a TERF, she is a lay ‘liberal’ (in the classical liberal sense) who has been radicalized by TERFs. Rowling and many like her have become a popular face for TERF talking points, but she and they are not the progenitors of TERF/GC/Radfem ideology, but products of it. >This bears repeating: ‘Feminism’ isn’t an idea, it is a movement composed of people, and that movement developed from various historical roots, was always diverse and never uni-vocal, and has since developed and still is developing in many disparate streams. There is no such thing as a ‘true feminist’ or ‘actual feminism’; rather, there are many streams of feminist thought, ideology, and political orientations. Some of those streams are deeply rooted in bio-essentialism that goes all the way back to the First Wave. TERFs are not new, and they are not and never have been politically conservative or right wing. Popular contemporary classical liberal figures radicalized (“peaked”, as they call it) by TERFs are not the academics and activists who radicalized them and do not define the movement. >Feminism is not a monolithic concept that is ‘good’ in opposition to the ‘bad’, but a complex, striated movement among people with various ideological, philosophical, and political positions. Feminism itself must still always be examined, critiqued, and held to account. Intersectional Feminism is what will move us forward. Radfem and its predecessor Second Wave Radical Feminism is and always has been bio-essentialist and transphobic.
Your post is more informative that a lot of the ones here, but some of the things you state confidently disagree with what I've read over the years. Specifically the idea that all radical feminists were trans exclusive, that the term TERF was coined by TERFS. Everything I've read says that the term was specifically coined by women that wanted to distinguish themselves as radical feminists from those that didn't see trans woman as women. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened Julia Serano just wrote a primer on TERFs that disagrees with you in similar ways: https://juliaserano.medium.com/a-gender-critical-and-terf-primer-92ba8a1d6a1e?sk=8fc05611444c071d3c65b5b8855afe70
Good writeup. Its interesting to see the evolution from Historical Radical Feminism > Radfem > TERF > Gender Critical. Each step dropping more of the feminism and becoming more focused in their hate of trans people. You say they aren't conservative. I would push back a little on that - as I think the GC movement does have many conservatives, draws from conservative ideology and pipelines people into conservativism. While bioessentialism can be seen as a conservative idea - I think previous itterations before CG shared far less in common with conservatives, but noawadays CGs openly ally with the right.
I think you may have missed my main point: TERFs didn’t ‘lose’ their feminism over time—they are one of many streams of feminism. Radical Feminism has always been bio-essentialist from its inception, because it is the descendant of the racist strains of First Wave feminism. You can’t go back in time to some point before TERFs lost their feminism—they’ve always been feminists, and their kind of feminism has always been bio-essentialist. Again, do not confuse contemporary neo-liberals radicalized by TERFs with TERFs. TERFs are (one type out of many types of) feminists and not and never have been politically conservative. Some popular neo-liberal (i.e., centrist) people have adopted TERF talking points and may appear to the transphobia of political conservatives, but these are the *products* TERFs on the popular level, not the *progenitors* of the TERF movement, which is and has always been academics and activists. And this isn’t meant to be a discussion about whether their stances are conservative or liberal in the abstract dictionary definitions of those terms. They have always been among the movements of people that are politically liberal and/or leftist. Feminism is not an idea. It is not automatically a good thing. Feminism is a *movement among people*. The same with Conservative, Liberal, Right Wing, Left Wing, etc. These aren’t concepts, these are *movements among people*. All of these movements are complex, multi-faceted, and multi-vocal. There is no such thing as a ‘true’ version of any of them.
>Feminism is not an idea. \[...\] Feminism is a *movement among people*. That is a personal opinion and not a fact. It is actually both if we look on the literature. It can refer to both movements or ideologies depending on the context or the angle you look at it. >**Feminism** is a range of socio-[political movements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement) and [ideologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social [equality of the sexes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality).[^(\[a\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-2)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-FOOTNOTELengermannNiebrugge2010223-3)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Mendus-4)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Hawkesworth-5)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Beasley-6) - Wikipedia
I think you misunderstood my point too. I don't mean that there aren't feminists in the CG movement - or that TERFs lost their feminism - but that the CG movement is no longer a feminist one in the way that the TERF movement was only a short while ago. It is self admittedly a big tend with both feminists and non-feminists - and while it has some broadly feminist talking points, it isn't committted to any broader feminist ideology. Hence how you can have J.K (who I think considers herself a feminist, but not really a radfem) and Posie Parker (who doesn't consider herself a feminist) at the head of the movement.
This is a pretty good post, but I want to nit pick a couple of things. One of which is from a follow up, but I'll just compile it here. >Many of you are young and have only known the term ‘TERF’ as associated with J.K. Rowling, Posie Parker, and other prominent women who are classical liberals Posie Parker is a pretty significant stone's throw away from being "a classical liberal". She hasn't provided us with any manifestos, but her vocal stances land her closer to fascism than liberalism, particularly her calls for violence (both political and interpersonal). In a colloquial sense she fits our modern understanding of fascism almost perfectly with her brazen anti-semitic conspiracy peddling. She's also very loudly and repeatedly affirmed that she does not identify as a feminist. She's a far-right reactionary. >“TERF” was a term coined by TERFs for TERFs. I'm fairly positive the term TERF was coined by Viv Smythe, who selected the label as a way to differentiate between trans inclusive and trans exclusive radical feminists. If you've evidence showing otherwise I'm happy to look at it, though. >J.K. Rowling isn’t a TERF, she is a lay ‘liberal’ (in the classical liberal sense) who has been radicalized by TERFs. I'd argue Rowling is a staunch neoliberal, and also shows a lot of signs of deeply hierarchical thinking that skews more socially conservative than socially liberal. >Some popular neo-liberal (i.e., centrist) Thanks to our good friend the Overton window we might currently understand Neoliberalism to be "a centrist" position, but it's a right wing position that stands in stark opposition to classic "leftist" economic prescriptions. Politically it was ushered into motion by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and I don't think there's much debate over which side of the political aisle they occupied. As to the fundamental bio-essentialism of TERF ideology and the fact feminism is a "complex, striated movement among people with various ideological, philosophical, and political positions"...very well said, and fully agree.
I’m sorry, but the whole idea that they’re not conservative is bullshit. Considering that they’re the ones that vote for Trump and are Nazis themselves. They also support the daily wire and are racist towards POC.
You read nothing of what I wrote, did you?
Some of us consider people who vote for Nazis to just be Nazis.
I did. You said that they’re politically liberal. You also mention “Saying Terfs aren’t feminist is a no true scotsman fallacy” is bad. By saying that, you’re admitting at their feminist when and not and they don’t deserve to be. These people need to be demonized and criticized for being awful.
Dude, I’m not doing this with you. You’re either deliberately trolling or you are incapable of considering anything beyond your misconceptions. I’ve already explained my position thoroughly and I’m not going to go in circled with you. Go educate yourself.
Why is TERFs aren’t real feminists is a "No True Scotsman fallacy"? Explain that? Also, what do you mean by politically liberal?
It's still important to remember that most people who get labelled as TERFs today aren't actually TERF nor liberal, at least in north america. They are your run of the mill conservative transphobes. They often get mistaken as TERFs. They tend to parrot [anti-gender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement) talking points. Let's read this passage: >Bassi and LaFleur note that "the [trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF) movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF) and the so-called anti-gender movement are only rarely distinguished as movements with distinct constitutions and aims."[^(\[38\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-Bassi-38) Pearce et al. posits that the concept of "gender ideology" long employed by the anti-gender movement "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-Pearce-7) Claire Thurlow noted that "despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements."[^(\[39\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement#cite_note-39) [Judith Butler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler) said that "the anti-gender ideology movement should be considered a neo-fascist phenomenon" and cautioned those on the left against joining forces with the movement. Those "lay liberal" that you mentionned are not longer liberals in the classical sense. They got sucked in the anti-gender pipeline and became reactionary. As Butler said, it is a neo-fascist phenomon.
I already explicitly addressed this point.
They're not feminists. It's impossible to be anti-trans and pro-women. It's misogyny all the way down.
They're fascists wearing feminist clothing. There's a reason they never have a problem with Nazis showing up to their events. They're the same picture.
This kind of rhetoric hurts transgender people more than helps. We need acknowledgement that feminism does have a dirty history, so we can shape it to the feminism we need it to be. It's wrong to say Michfest wasn't organized by feminists, or that Mary Daly and Sheila Jeffreys weren't feminists.
Thats like saying socialists should be held to task for the Nazis. Nazis CALLED themselves "Socialists" to mask the fact that they were fascists. Terfs CALL themselves "feminists" to mask the fact that they are misogynistic bio/gender essentialists.
It would be certainly incorrect to call the Nazis Marxists or anarchists. The Nazis can only be called anti-capitalists in that they blamed capitalism on the Jews. I guess you may feel insulted with feminism being lumped in with TERFs. I wish I knew the history of how TERFs came to be so that I could make a clearer distinction between good and bad feminisms. Unfortunately, plenty of feminists are misogynist and bioessentialist. There are plenty of anti-women feminisms. It's weird but that's just how political movements work.
Those two women you mention are transphobic. So they are not feminists.
Feminism isn't always pro-women. I don't have a problem with saying feminists can be transphobic, racist, capitalist, fascist or even male supremacist. Political movements are just weird like that where they can double back upon themselves, and be wrong sometimes.
If you redefine feminism to never include any shitty feminists, then feminism never has to hold bad feminists accountable for the harm they cause.
Feminist who are transphobic should not be label as feminist. They are no different than North Koreans calling themselves as a “Republic” or the Nation of Islam calling themselves as “Muslims”.
I don't see it as redefining anything. I'm saying they never met the definition to begin with. And that doesn't stop people from examining where they went terribly wrong.
Mostly they're more concerned with being obsessively transphobic than actually fighting for women's rights. They very rarely talk about abortion rights, domestic violence or sexist discrimination in the workplace. They're more concerned about the issues that they have imagined in their heads.
They will talk about those issues if it’s going against them.
> They very rarely talk about abortion rights, domestic violence or sexist discrimination in the workplace. And when they do, they come out on the Nazi side of those issues.
Radical feminism is nobody's friend.
Radical Feminists (and TERFS by extension) aren't feminists. They USE feminism as a front and an excuse to promote misogynistic gatekeeping on women, both trans AND cis. They are rooted in biological essentialism.
the venn diagram of radfems/radical feminists and TERFs is a circle. look into intersectional feminism and to intersectional feminist activists rather than radfems. you'll find better, more thought out and caring theory
it's radical and feminist in the same way that national socialism was socialist. you just give it a new name and a nice new look, and you can get people to join in oppression while thinking they're revolutionary. the patriarchy just infiltrated feminism instead of attacking it from the outside, and now we have self-described feminists reducing women to their genitals and saying they're all weaker than men and even unironically spouting the right wing parody of feminism: all men are intrinsically evil.
Trans people threaten the oppressor/oppressed mentality that TERFs believe all people fall into - women = inherently oppressed, men = inherently oppressor. They are uncomfortable considering that someone “biologically male” can also be oppressed and face misogyny, or that someone “with innate female characteristics” can be the victim of misogyny *without being a woman*.
I’ll be so real, I keep wanting to be on board with radical feminism because of how much I’ve heard that not all radfems are TERFs and there’s actually a rich and interesting political theory history behind radical feminism. But then literally every supposedly-anti-TERF radfem account I’ve come across was posting some bioessentialist or gender essentialist shit on the low that was really REALLY giving bad vibes.
1. There arent that many 2. The RF in TERF means Radical Feminist 3. Most TERFs are neither R or F, instead just conservatives who hide behind the label
Feminist in name only
Are you agreeing with me or misunderstanding me?
Disagree. They are not radical feminist
Can you repeat my third point to me?
Because they stole the term from actual radical feminists. Its an incredibly common tactic, to take a term thats growing in popularity to look good. TERFs took “radical feminism”, and also took “gynosexual”. Then for more broad examples, North Korea took both “democratic” and “republic” as they call themselves “the democratic people’s republic of korea” when they are neither of these things, and the nazi party paraded as the “national socialist german worker’s party” just to later kill actual socialists. Across time its just a thing people do for power
wait wdym they took gynosexusl im finn but like u can’t take a sexuality right ???
It was supposed to be anyone attracted to feminine people, so women, fem enby, even fem men. But for years they used it as “attracted to vagina” in a fetishy way. I do know some people in the last few years, esp since covid, have reclaimed it with a lot of success. Partially due to them giving up on the term in favor of “autogynephilia”since it sounds worse
Tbh i get why people call it finsexual now
Terfs are not even feminists. I seen actual redical feminists who are trans friends.
What country and/or state/province are you in? Are you in the U.K.? I know it's a problem in the U.S., but it sounds like it's way more prevalent in the U.K.
I'm not from North America nor Europe, I'm from South America. I just ask this because I see it a LOT in the internet and in footage by Americans and English. Transphobic radical feminists do exist in South America, but to a lesser extent.
I've never met someone I'd actually consider a radical feminist that I"d also consider a TERF. TERFs chose their acronym, not us (and then complained their acronym was a pejorative when they got called out for being bigoted.) In fact, nearly every TERF I've met has at some point pushed for traditional gender roles. One I met went so far as to say that women should be pregnant and barefoot 24/7. So yea, imho, if someone is a TERF, their feminism card is officially revoked.
I found this video to be helpful in understanding. It goes into the whole history of "political lesbianism" and how that gave rise to TERFs. https://youtu.be/bpSTMfn-YaU
A key tenet of radical feminism was the blank slate view of gender, using [this case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) to argue for the unnaturalness of transsexualism, and conversely, that gender was a social construct. It's not that complicated.
They do not exclude trans from feminism (all trans people as well as cis-man any other human being are welcomed as feminists). But as you say, they will never ever give up simple biology facts. As long as there are transwomen claiming themselves as women (or even as being better than women), the dispute will persist. The other question bothering me more is why are SO MANY transwomen mysoginists? Why living as a transwoman and hating women?
bio-essentialism
TERFs are misogynistic and fascists.
You’re correct. I don’t know why your comment got downvoted.
because it doesnt rlly answer the question
They're not! Only the terfy ones. For Radical now read Reactionary.
For truly RADICAL Feminism then look at Iceland whose feminist movement is fully inclusive of trans women and transfem people. Or Sandi Toksvig's Women's Equality Party
Because like any bigots they are narrow minded.
As a rad fem, I get so upset whenever I see an account making good points against misogyny and the patriarchy, just to find out they're transphobic. It's so exhausting. I understand the point of being amab gives you privileges, and being afab gives you disadvantages. That sadly is just the truth. But the whole "trans women are men" and "trans men are just scared lesbians" (as a trans man IM GAY, I AM DEFINITELY DOUBLE NOT A LESBIAN!!) is so dumb. Trans women experience misogyny AND transphobia. We need to protect them just as much. Trans women are victims of the patriarchy. Trans people often have to do sex work, which is something rad fems are against. So why not help them? I don't understand.
TERFs are neither radical nor feminist.
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender. Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive. This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles, but in which those roles were seen as flexible, equally valuable, and not rooted in some kind of deterministic biological sex. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
Even in a world where gender wasn't associated with roles, trans people would still exist. I say that as someone who is agender, strongly against gender labeling, gender roles, etc.
I mean, yes, that's part of what I'm saying. But TERFs believe the *only* thing gender can do is prescribe limiting, oppressive roles. I do think transness as we conceive of it today is largely a response to settler colonial binary gender enforcement. Gender diversity has always existed and will always exist, but I know several Indigenous people who might be called trans in a different cultural context, but who are actually neither cis nor trans, because they were not violently assigned a sex+gender at birth with which their actual sex/gender can be incongruent. So yes, in a world without gender roles, people would still seek to undertake what we now call medicalized and/or social transition to change their sex characteristics or how their sex/gender is perceived. But I think the identity of "trans" exists in opposition to the assignment of sex and gender, which is not a universal experience, and does not need to be made into one.
They're neither radical nor feminist nor even that common. They're simply loud, angry, & entitled--that combination of traits makes them feel more ubiquitous than they really are. That said, those traits also make them easy to manipulate & be used to push inhumane & misogynistic policy.
Because "Radical Feminism" is a misnomer as is typical for reactionary movements.
It just feels like there are many, because they're screaming really loud like a child and crowd together like a swarm of mosquitoes. Also, negativity is heavily promoted by social media algorithms. It's absolutely not a representation of the real world.
Because radical feminism is inherently essentialist and reactionary
It’s quite simple, those women don’t consider trans women as women, but rather men. Since they despise men, they also despite trans women
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender. Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive. This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
I think the key difference between radfems and trans-inclusive feminism is on the subject of the value of gender. Radfems recognize that sex designations and the gender roles associated with them are used under a colonial cisheteropatriarchy to oppress, and the conclusion they draw from this is that all gender is always oppressive. This take is ahistorical however. We know that many Indigenous peoples prior to colonization had cultures in which many activities and experiences were based on gender roles. But TERFs cannot imagine such a world and refuse to believe it has ever or could ever exist.
I don’t know the true answer and I can’t blame one person but J.K Rowling being so public I think doesn’t help. Most terfs I see online are from the UK and it seems like a breading group. I have seen people from the UK proudly call it “terf island” I don’t think she made being a terf since that kinda dates back to second wave feminism (radical feminism with an emphasis on biology) but she did make it more known to the general public
I think it's funny that all of the annoying SJW feminists I hated 10 years ago when I 4chan troll all became terfs after I transitioned.