Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/Archive1
[edit] Wing/moon?
Would this fall under extreme moonbattery or extreme wingnuttery? Or just batshit crazy? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Ate at a Chinese restaurant therefore is literally Hitler 21:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a little bit of both... well... the very worst of both... --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Crank magnetism, maybe? I know I've seen some TERFs preach altie/New Age stuff. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Some men just want to watch RW burn 01:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't heard of that term before but it seems pretty fitting from our page on it. They are a bizarre cocktail of left and right wing values --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Crank magnetism |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
I'm a survivor, keep on survivin', I'm gonna survive this, I'm gonna make it 01:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Crank magnetism |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I haven't heard of that term before but it seems pretty fitting from our page on it. They are a bizarre cocktail of left and right wing values --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Crank magnetism, maybe? I know I've seen some TERFs preach altie/New Age stuff. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
[edit] To-do list
Add section on how they horseshoe back to the far right.DONE!!! Kinda.- Add section about how they still preach outdated second wave thought such as political lesbianism, lesbian separatism and sepatist feminism.
- Add section on how they are about the only group you can unironically call misandrists - Cathy Brennan has used bullshit neurology and pseudopsychology to preach the above.
- Decide whether it's extreme wingnuttery or extreme moonabattery.
- Explain their influence on legal matters, e.g., wade through: http://genderterror.com/2014/02/12/splc-terfs/
Feel free to add to this list. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
RationalWiki, did you kill Rita? 19:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Point 3 is covered in references for neurosexism, if you need to work on that. I also added one point at the end as per David's advice. ·FemiliskSJ 13:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with phrasing and sourcing
There are a few problems I noticed while trying to clean up the references:
- "TERFs are a tiny sliver of feminism" seems to make a quantitative claim, but the given reference is actually a Venn diagram showing the overlaps between different groups and it's not intended to depict their actual proportions. When I read "see the graph", I expected to see something like the results of a survey.
- The Paul Fromm quote in the footnotes needs a source link.
- The current phrasing in the Paul Fromm sentence is clumsy and it's easy to read it as Godwinesque guilt-by-association. The use of "the practice of homosexuality" is not limited to neo-nazis or that quote.
- The NARTH quote in the footnotes needs a source link.
- "[NARTH is] an anti-LGBT hate group classified as such by the SPLC": this phrasing creates the impression that the SPLC have listed them officially as a hate group, but the linked source doesn't say so. Contrast with the Family Research Council, which is mentioned as a hate group in the same material and has a page under "Groups" in the "Intelligence Files" section.
There are also a few places where a clarifying/expanding footnotes looks like a source for a statement. I'm not sure what to do about that.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I missed one - "legislators seeking feminist input will often get an academic TERF, who will then get transphobia into law." It's unclear what exactly in the linked reference supports this claim. Something more specific?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will fix the first as it was my reference added onto David's sentence. The rest (I have no clue who Fromm is) so will require more work from me than I can cope with ATM. ·FemiliskSJ 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed the last one too, even though David's link (which I gave him) had stuff on it too, the new one is a lot more direct. ·FemiliskSJ 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fromm is a notorious Canadian white supremacist/neo-Nazi. I added the sources for the quotes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature of moral choice. 20:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fromm is a notorious Canadian white supremacist/neo-Nazi. I added the sources for the quotes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I fixed the last one too, even though David's link (which I gave him) had stuff on it too, the new one is a lot more direct. ·FemiliskSJ 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Popularity
Now one thing that always eats at me is that if these are the staw-feminists that everyone identifies as awful people, and the common folk misidentify as mainline feminists... how can we tell that their positions are actually uncommon ones? I'm not asking I'm actually worried they are. I know more than enough feminists to intuit that it's bunk, but how does one demonstrate that to a person who could actually be convinced to drop the stereotype?
Any Ideas(and if so, I'd be happy to approach that research for incorporation into the article)? Ikanreed (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- By reading mainstream feminism online, by talking to all the trans women who are feminists on this wiki, etc. Also common sense, the reason we need "TERF" is to delimit the shit from the mainstream 2nd and 3rd wavers. If you need research you can randomly sample feminist scholars' work on Google Scholar or JREF and see how often a TERF comes up as opposed to a non-transphobe... ^__^ ·FemiliskSJ 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Although a surprising number of TERFs are fallen prominent second-wavers who failed to transition (heh) to the third wave. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Good job guys. You were so busy karate fighting that you let Jesus escape. 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Although a surprising number of TERFs are fallen prominent second-wavers who failed to transition (heh) to the third wave. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- You've gotta know how well "Just read some feminist lit" flies with the salvageable MRA sympathizer type.(not very) Ikanreed (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Asking people to read never works, some people will hold to their beliefs even more strongly. I thought you were asking for yourself, when I replied above. What do you think will convince the MRAs on the fence? ·FemiliskSJ 07:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actual citable evidence with some kind of hard number. It's about impossible to find. It doesn't even have to directly prove the thesis that it's unpopular, just shade that idea with a hint of realism in the face of the media representative selection/tumblr quote cherrypicking. I have no idea how to find that class of evidence. Ikanreed (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Impossible to find indeed. I am one of those people who is on the fence about Tumblr. If I bother to look for it I can find both stupid people and reasonable people there, apparently. How do I know which one is more prevalent? My solution is to care less about it, since I can't verify either way without spending a great deal of time immersing myself in the platform. Nullahnung (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actual citable evidence with some kind of hard number. It's about impossible to find. It doesn't even have to directly prove the thesis that it's unpopular, just shade that idea with a hint of realism in the face of the media representative selection/tumblr quote cherrypicking. I have no idea how to find that class of evidence. Ikanreed (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Asking people to read never works, some people will hold to their beliefs even more strongly. I thought you were asking for yourself, when I replied above. What do you think will convince the MRAs on the fence? ·FemiliskSJ 07:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- They're really a very tiny group. Unfortunately, they have also been quite influential: legislative bodies who want a feminist viewpoint will often get a TERF and transphobia will end up in law - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, I think have made edits that I hope will make you happy with respect to Feminism vs TERFism and mild-pre-MRAcists. ·FemiliskSJ 11:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Also
God damn, I wish there were cheaper options for reading papers for us lay folks. I really don't want to shell out $20 to find out if an insufficiently specific abstract actually represents what I'm guessing it does. It's really frustrating. Ikanreed (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anything you want, email me. ·FemiliskSJ 16:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I could just post the most likely candidate here. I don't have a shortage of money, if I actually wanted the article, so don't go buying this on my sake, if that's your plan. I'm just risk-averse. this looks promising. Ikanreed (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Some of us have free access to these articles, so there is no risk involved. Nullahnung (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I could just post the most likely candidate here. I don't have a shortage of money, if I actually wanted the article, so don't go buying this on my sake, if that's your plan. I'm just risk-averse. this looks promising. Ikanreed (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Leaving this here
http://www.transadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/transphobia_mistake.jpg ·FemiliskSJ 12:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Some men just want to watch RW burn 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's something about the horseshoe theory (as stated) which I kind of disagree with. I'll elaborate later on though. In general, though, yes, I was aware of it, and yes, agreed. ·FemiliskSJ 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Horseshoe theory" always annoys the shit out of me; anything claimed as an example seems trivially fallacious and cherrypicked ("look, there's any similarity!") to me - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave this too: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DV2eLPFDemY/UsoUWIInYkI/AAAAAAAACq4/TQU5GyL_M68/s1600/ninjacates_guide_to_white_feminism_FINAL_A-01.png ·FemiliskSJ 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory isn't at all unreasonable, because extreme positions share the natural opposition to the status quo. The common elements of fringe theories tend to share the revolutionary elements. They don't actually draw closer to each other in any other way. But that one way is more than enough to appear starkly similar. Ikanreed (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] An argument I see often in TERF places
So I have done a little browse of the TERF clogs and seen the shit logic they post. The main crux they support is vagina/XX = woman, penis ≠ woman, which I think we debunk to a great extent in various places: transmisogyny, transphobia, gender binary, gender, etc. However, I keep noticing some TERFs have another slightly different, but equally hateful line of arguing:
- "Trans theory is not radical or progressive. While there is no doubt that transgender people face hatred and discrimination, this hatred is rooted in homophobia and sexism, and trans theory is theoretically in line with the values of patriarchy. I suspect that there are few feminists who become accepting of transgenderism through feminism; rather, it is more likely that they were accepting of brain sex and innate gender long before they even knew what feminism was. Feminism has always struggled to develop without influence from patriarchy, but perhaps by virtue of the free-for-all nature of the internet and the more general social justice movement, third (fourth?) wave feminism is a more liberal, individualistic, choice-defined form of feminism only loosely based on its the-personal-is-political predecessor. Without a strong theoretical foundation, it’s been watered down enough to get the patriarchy stamp of approval." - http://womenofthepatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/trans-criticism-is-not-transphobia/
It would be nice, although also not very pleasant, if somebody with more spoons than me took some time to rebuff more of this line of arguing. I will have a go too, but for now I cannot. ·FemiliskSJ 20:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS: This is already used as reference [12], which I just added. ·FemiliskSJ 20:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- The stuff that makes this woo is its denialism about "brain sex and innate gender"; they really believe in the blank slate, and think all of this is learned and can be changed by political argument. This is something that several of our articles seem to struggle with. The weird language, with its ultimate insistence that reality is socially constructed, needs to be pointed out somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you perhaps slightly confounding gender (which is a social construct, but is nonetheless very real, think of it like the legal system) with biological things like chromosomes, private parts, hormones, etc.? ·FemiliskSJ 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just one of SmoTlö's usual hobby horses. Have you read his Essay:The Scandal of the Activist Mind? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do tend to split things differently; it seems clear that various social roles have large innate inputs from biology. Babies are born with large parts of their personalities preformed. To the extent that people are born with traits that draw them towards certain roles, which as a consequence tend to sort themselves by male and female, I'd say that's sex rather than gender.
- Now, my understanding is that trans people are born aware that their mental sex differs from their physical sex. I don't see how that could be considered learned behavior, or socially constructed; nobody seems to have intended this, and I gather it is awkward for the 1 in 30,000 it happens to. In short, part of the problem is that the existence of trans people is evidence that much about human sexuality is innate and unlearned, which does in fact falsify the stronger forms of the "gender" ideology. (FWIW, the essay you want is Essay:Thoughts on human evolution, sex, and the inevitability of religion) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say I completely disagree. But I'm also not that interested in debating it, as I have had this debate too many times. ·FemiliskSJ 16:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just one of SmoTlö's usual hobby horses. Have you read his Essay:The Scandal of the Activist Mind? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you perhaps slightly confounding gender (which is a social construct, but is nonetheless very real, think of it like the legal system) with biological things like chromosomes, private parts, hormones, etc.? ·FemiliskSJ 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- The stuff that makes this woo is its denialism about "brain sex and innate gender"; they really believe in the blank slate, and think all of this is learned and can be changed by political argument. This is something that several of our articles seem to struggle with. The weird language, with its ultimate insistence that reality is socially constructed, needs to be pointed out somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] History of transphobia in the USA
"It was only after the NCHCT pushed Raymond’s bigotry in 1980 that the US government reversed course in 1981 and took up Raymond’s views and rhetoric. Raymond’s hate became the government’s stance. Raymond – a seminary-trained ethicist, not a clinician – was the architect of the anti-trans stance the US government adopted in the 1980s. This official anti-trans stance soon spread to private insurers and the American trans population soon found itself without access to medically necessary health care.
There’s a reason many trans people lay the death and suffering of untold numbers of trans people at the feet of Janice Raymond, PhD.
In a time when employment discrimination against trans people became legal, Raymond helped dismantle the trans community’s ability to access trans health care through public and private insurance. Raymond heralded in the era in which trans people (many to most of whom were unemployed, depending upon the study) had to pay out of pocket or go without. In essence, Raymond helped ensure the future of a medical system that was unresponsive to the needs of the trans community at every level." - http://theterfs.com/terfs-trans-healthcare/
This needs to be added. ·FemiliskSJ 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Spoiler alert much of the TERFs and wingnuts sections was shamelessly ripped off from the site because I am an asshole|₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 22:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- We do need a section called "History of transphobia in the USA" or some such similar thing. ·FemiliskSJ 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- As in, transphobia in general or transphobia by TERFs? Because the former should be in the main transphobia article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Bokura nazeka tashikameau / Sekai ja sore wo ai to yobun da ze 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you follow this link from above, you will see they are highly overlapping, and hence could be in the main transmisogyny and/or transphobia articles with a link back to here. ·FemiliskSJ 14:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- As in, transphobia in general or transphobia by TERFs? Because the former should be in the main transphobia article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- We do need a section called "History of transphobia in the USA" or some such similar thing. ·FemiliskSJ 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Trans-exclusionary is a term devised by trans theory proponents - not radical feminists themselves
The fundamental issue is whether biological sex is mutable - or not. Gender critical feminists refer to themselves as gender critical - NOT "trans exclusionary." So the descriptor being used was devised by those who do not believe their THEORY should be criticized at all - unlike other scientific theories which do indeed undergo heavy scrutiny.
If a theory is held to be above criticism and debate - and must simply be accepted - then it becomes a faith-based system of belief. No proponent of trans theory has explained WHY their belief that biological sex is mutable is ABOVE criticism and debate.
The entire concept of "biological sex" is part of a larger intellectual construct - the theory of evolution. This theory has both reproducibility and predictive power on its side.
If indeed biological sex IS mutable in humans, via hormonal and/or surgical means - we should be able to generalize from that to other species, including butterflies, fish, other primates. Plants are a bit more complicated - if we carefully study the question of bio sex mutability - it may be determined that bio sex is mutable in some plants and some animals - but ultimately NOT in humans, and NOT via surgical and/or hormonal means.
It is poor science to extrapolate from the genuine suffering of some humans - "gender dysphoria" (although perhaps the proper term is "genital dysphoria?") to blanket claims about biological sex in general.
Gender critical feminists do not center their critique of trans THEORY on the complex social phenomenon of people claiming to be the opposite sex. Gender critical feminism's critique of trans THEORY is centered on the CLAIMS made by trans theory - and how those claims run counter to the reproducible, and powerfully predictive theory of evolution.
To create a page on RATIONAL WIKI about gender critical feminism that centers on the complex social phenomenon, rather than the underlying theoretical problems inherent to trans theory, does a disservice to both gender critical feminists AND those suffering from gender/genital dysphoria. This is especially true, now that MINORS, and even very young children, are being characterized as "trans," and caregivers and medical professionals are in a position to approve/administer hormonal and/or surgical treatment, when the individual in question is TOO YOUNG to fully grasp the lifelong implications of that treatment. Are these minors truly trans - or lesbian and gay? Data suggests that the majority of them are simply lesbian and gay, NOT trans. To put such a minor on the trans pathway is child abuse of the first order. — Unsigned, by: Lania Flint / talk / contribs 17:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice. Do you have anything to say about the continuing personal attacks and attempts to destroy the lives of trans people in public? Curious absence - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Trans-exclusionary is a term devised by trans theory proponents - not radical feminists themselves" Well no shit. What's next? "Racist is a term devised by race equality proponents - not racists themselves"? --Revolverman (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Drink! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
RationalWiki, did you kill Rita? 23:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Gender critical feminists refer to themselves as gender critical" 'I'm not racist I'm race critical". Rational story, tell it again. also #drink
12:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Odious pseudointellectual racist fuckwits refer to themselves as human biodiversity realists" - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Gender critical feminists refer to themselves as gender critical" 'I'm not racist I'm race critical". Rational story, tell it again. also #drink
- "Actually we preferred the term 'vicious stalking scum', but the Vicious Stalking Scum Anti-Defamation League threatened to sue." - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- In some small sense, I agree with you. Around here that's never a good sign.
I tend to believe that sex is largely innate, and fixed at birth, and not subject to reform by political theories. But like anything else with chromosomes, there are a lot of moving parts and wobbly bits and chances to go wrong, and people who'd know have told me that it sometimes happens that the wiring doesn't match the plumbing. I dislike the whole rhetoric of 'gender', because to me it suggests that many things are socially controlled that are in fact biological: and therefore invites grief and fruitless argument by suggesting that they can be politicized. (And for me, one of the core meanings of 'authoritarian' is "expanding the role of politics".) When people who know tell me this, and scientists tell me it's possible, I'm inclined to listen to them when they tell me what they want, and trust their discretion to act prudently.
So no, I don't let any 'theory' get in the way of people telling me who they are and what they want. That's not how I prefer to treat my neighbors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)- We really need a page on nature vs. nurture... Nullahnung (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] And back in the real world, TERFs are malicious stalkers
[1][2] The second is great for material for this article, giving a history of gratuitous trans exclusion back to the 1970s (and showing comments like the above for the idiot lying bollocks they are) - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Good articles, terrifying but interesting to read --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)