Talk:Radical feminism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Radical feminism is essentially feminism-as-female-supremacy[edit]

What The Fuck?

Seriously, did anyone even bother to like, look this up in a dictionary or something? Perhaps a few on the extreme fringe are like that, but that's not the definition of RadFem at all. Even a quick look at Wikipedia gives the definition as a branch of feminism that's concerned with patriarchal power structures and holds that gender equality cannot be obtained without bringing down those structures that maintain an unequal system. Here is a very good short working definition that can be drawn from. Seriously, that entire first paragraph comes not from feminists, but from the right-wing ideologues it criticizes later on.

So the question is, do we want to rewrite this from the ground up, or do we scrap it and refer people to Wikipedia? Thoughts? --Kels 18:35, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"that entire first paragraph comes not from feminists, but from the right-wing ideologues it criticizes later on" - there's a good chance it did. Our feminism article was in even worse disarray when I bumped into it some time last year. Let's try to improov it (replacing is easy enough, there not a lot to delete) if we can? ħuman

18:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't mind, except I'm eating supper right now. Give me a bit, and I'll piece together a suitable brief definition. Honestly, I don't necessarily disagree that Dworkin and her sort are extreme, and end up as poster children for the right-wing version of the term. But we should let people know that there's another definition that's a lot more accurate. --Kels 18:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

That's much better. Especially the "root" part... since that is what "radical" actually means... moar? ħuman

20:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm wondering if it makes sense to capitalize Feminism, since that's the name for the overall movement, so Radical Feminism would be a proper name for that part of the movement. Also, RadFem is a common abbreviation of the name, although it's not important if it's left out. --Kels 20:32, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, should I add the actual root words for the name, or is that more academic than we're really after here? --Kels 20:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The capping is tough. The article on the types, for instance, doesn't capitalize feminism. I don't think movements usually get capitalized anyway - Marx founded communism, his followers are sometimes called Marxists (derived from proper noun)... feel free to mention the abbr., I just thought using it out of the blue was saving keystrokes, good for talk pages, discussions, etc., but not so much for an essay-like article such as we write here? And the actual roots would be fine, we do smaht here as well as silly ;) ħuman

20:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll sleep on it, and if it feels important tomorrow I'll go ahead with it. Otherwise, uh, I won't. --Kels 21:00, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Somehow, I feel like "you won't remember me in the morning" hahahahahahahahaah! ħuman

22:02, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

And just who was it off playing with his Penis just now? --Kels 22:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Not me, I only fantasize about talking to you on the telephone. ;) ħuman

22:15, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Am i a Radical Feminist?[edit]

I believe that gender is largely a social construct, and that we should move into a post-gender society; i think we should change language to be less sexist, such as using gender-neutral pronouns and finding a different word for 'man' (maybe 'moman' or something). On the other hand, i'm not obsessed with 'patriarchy' and i have no problem with transgendered people. Am i a radical feminist? F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say you're a feminist, and not radical. Though, I'm thinking that if a change in language (or rather, a change in discourse) needs to occur, it's to highlight the ignorance of people who would argue against something reasonable. It's not that you're a feminist or I'm a feminist, it's that people who don't agree with gender equality are misogynists or chauvinists. Similar to the whole "atheist-vs.-athorist" concept. It's not that I'm not an atheist, it's the theists who are the ones who are foolish. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat ironic that you're effectively talking about moving beyond labels (in this case gender labels) owing to the fact that they're arbitrary, but then wonder about whether you count as under the label "feminist" or "radical feminist"! Simply ignore the label and state what you believe honestly. Don't lose any sleep on whether you're a feminist or not, because in the end that is far more of a "social construct" than gender is.

^postate 17:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not losing any sleep over it, i'm just curious as to whether i would count as a radical feminist under this definition. I realize that it doesn't really matter at all if i am or not.F_litzer ^{talk to me :D} 17:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "I believe that gender is largely a social construct" leaves me somewhat confused. Isn't gender determined biologically? I fully understand that intersex conditions occur and that some people may have ambiguous or alternative sexual attractions but the idea that gender itself is "socially constructed" seems a bit hard to support. At the end of the day, and in general, some individuals have eggs and others have sperm.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confusing sex with gender.

Certainly certain psychological traits are more common in one sex than the other, but there's the key phrase: 'more common'. I think it's a cycle here: males and females evolved a different set of behavioral patterns to optimize birth and the survival of children; then, with our heuristic-loving brains, we saw the common traits and attributed them to inherent differences and called it gender. Social expectations about gender then further developed average differences between the two sexes, and still we attributed them to inherent differences. Or something like that.

I think that once we get rid of gender expectations and roles and whatnot, then we'll effectively get rid of gender. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 18:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms of child-bearing, and looking at the great majority of the population - what is the biological difference between sex and gender?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex is physiological, gender is psychological. The two are often conflated. F_idgeter ^{talk to me :D} 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So sex is a real difference between the genders and gender is a psychosocial difference between the genders? Is that right? Or am I confused?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: sex is penis vs. vagina, gender is shopping for shoes vs. drinking beer and watching football. F_idgeter ^{talk to me :D} 18:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I think you have a personal definition of the word "gender". I'd say that the words and "sex" and "gender" simply belong to two different registers. You are trying to impose a personal meaning on one word to make a point.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, (1) all word definitions are subjective, and (2) what definition of gender would you use then? F_lucked ^{talk to me :D} 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's a matter of register. For all practical purpose "gender" and "sex" are synonymous when used in the same situation - though one is more formal than the other. You seem to be suggesting they are different in that one is biological and the other social - but I'm not buying it. You can define them that way if you like though - it's a question of whether others agree with you.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The sex/gender distinction Fallacy is making is commonly used in social science research. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd say that it's a specialised usage by a particular technical community. One would not say, "What gender is your child?" as it's too formal. We do however speak about "gender equality" in a formal setting. The words - in popular usage - are synonyms, and differ largely in their formality.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to make here. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: I believe that gender is largely a social construct. As "gender" is indistinguishable from "sex" in most common usages - and as "sex" is a biological distinction - I disagree with you.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's a pretty common distinction made between the two, at least among English-speaking people. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're just being a semantic asshole, though. You know what definition I'm using. F_arter ^{talk to me :D} 19:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Again I disagree. But if your best defence is personal abuse then I'll leave you with it.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with what? And 'personal abuse'? This is RationalWiki -- saying something like 'semantic asshole' is par for the course. F_lucked ^{talk to me :D} 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I "disagree" with your evaluation of my comments. Secondly, it's sad that we now regard personal attacks as normal here. Thanks for the debate but I have no interest in exchanging insults. Good luck with your thread. :-) --Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Bob's issue is with the wording of the OP. A different way to phrase it is "the social characteristics associated with femaleness and maleness are not intrinsically determined by biological sex." To most social scientists and queer theorists this is not a controversial statement. Blue (pester) 20:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'd have no problem with that.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I said you were being a semantic asshole -- which, by the way, isn't intended as an attack. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I had promised myself that I wouldn't respond to any more of this. But how on earth would you you expect someone to interpret the description "asshole" - semantic or otherwise? Wouldn't you regard it to be an silly unwarranted insult in the middle of a relatively serious conversation about a difference of opinion? And then you go ahead and repeat it. Do you realy think this is an appropriate way to convince people of the justice of your point of view?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this site is for you if you interpret expletives as attacks. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At least that's funny!--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most people understand the distinction between gender and sex, they just believe them to be so linked together that they can be used synonymously in most casual contexts. And besides, what word you would use to define the set of psychological traits that are associated with a sex? F_arter ^{talk to me :D} 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ultimately an artificial distinction as well, though. The difference is that, any talk of biology in pop culture implies biological determinism where the arrow of causality only goes from biological -> social. In reality, the arrow can go in the opposite direction as well -- because of cortical plasticity, socialization can equally affect biology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Someday I want to be able to toss around terms like "cortical plasticity." Blue (is useful) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

EC Here's a radical position that you could hold if you believe in equal opportunity for women: all elected offices,all tenured positions in all faculty, medical, legal and other professional licenses, trade licences, college and grad school admissions, all corporate board positions and CEO positions should be allocated on the basis of the gendered division of the relevant population, as of right now. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hell, just make it all positions. Why just restrict it to those liberal intellectual positions mentioned?

^theist 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's the world I live in, but I did mention the trades, fwiw. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit point[edit]

In the system in which most of us live, wanting and expecting men and women to enjoy equal rights and opportunities and freedoms is a pretty radical position, given how far we are from such a world and the incredible amount of societal change you're asking for. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, then most of my political and social positions are pretty radical then. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's an issue of equality and not supremacy, it's probably not radical, IMO. It's just a "since women aren't 'physically' stronger than men and have to hold a baby inside her for nine months, you can't do things you want to do" thing. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, i think radical feminists are people who want 1) fully and total equality for every woman in teh world NOW, and 2) want a perfect world. ;-) I think radical feminist is a term for someone who isn't willing to wait, so does things to create equality by instilling what looks like *inequality* the other way. I would only hire women in high positions, for example - well, have one token man to make sure I'm covering my ass legally - though sexual discrimination is very hard to prove. I would insist that no one uses sexist terms in teh conversation, so "woMEN" is out, policeMAN is out, etc. I think the radical part has more to do with just not taking "it" anymore. I personally think it would be very hard for a male to be a radical feminist. And while you think we should "move beyond lables", i find people who say such things, tend to be people who have been labled something they dislike. Women are not men. there is a reason we are different, even if it's only subtle things like having children. Teh fact that I can get pregenat means teh laws of teh land NEED and MUST address me differently from you. I need a right to time off to give birth... i need a right to particular baby related health care that is different from those who cannot get pregnant. I need legal access to rights for adoption that men who do not produce babies do not need, etc. you can say you want to be "post gender", but you can never get to a point where you are "post biological sex". (edit con) ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Well, I want both of those things, but I don't think reverse-sexism would work. I do agree with removing sexist language. I'm a male. I haven't really been labeled something I don't like (I'm a white straight guy, and even though I philosophically don't like to think of myself as having a gender, I think and refer to myself as a male).

Obviously wymmin and men are different, and the only way we'd reach a post-biosex society would be through transhumanism. Nitpick: i think men should get paternity leave, just like wymmin get maternity leave. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot fully express how annoying it is to see you spell "women" as "wymmin."

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because you're a tool of the Patriarchy. F_ucker ^{talk to me :D} 21:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm I hope? Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a tool of the Patriarchy. F_lucked ^{talk to me :D} 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I assume it is, but I'll give a serious answer anyways:

@Fallacy: And you're a tool of people who think throwing in a "y" in any way helps things.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It helps things a bit. A better solution would be to use another word for man (like 'moman' or something) so the two words are equal, but I figure that that'd annoy you even more. F_idgeter ^{talk to me :D} 21:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I reject it because it's the product of the kind of feminism that puts philosophical abstractions over human problems. Which, incidentally, is exactly how feminist transphobia was birthed (What do you mean, they're actual human beings that suffer like the rest of us? They must be tools of the Patriarchy, according to the harsh, inflexible heuristic I've crafted!). If your moral philosophy doesn't start and end with a thorough grounding in humanity, then it should be rejected without further consideration.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that relates to removing sexism from language. F_lint ^{talk to me :D} 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think sexism (as in being unfair to one sex) in language is intentional (at least anymore). Yeah calling cops "policemen" highlights the male gender, but we don't do it to be unfair to women. I think most reasonable people, including reasonable feminists, don't have any qualm with it. If we were to invent the English language now, we wouldn't highlight a gender like that, but people don't use language like that to put down women so I don't think alternate "gender inclusive" words are necessary. (and to avoid restarting an above debate, I'm using "gender" as a synonym of "sex"). Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's 'intended'. This article makes a great point -- language affects how we think. Replacing 'man' and equivalent with 'white' would obviously create a bias towards Caucasians, and make a lot of non-whites feel excluded -- most people would agree, I assume, so why do many think that treating men as the default, the generic, the prototypical doesn't? While changing the language obviously wouldn't get rid of sexism, it would stop the subtle, constant subconscious reinforcement of it. F_litzer ^{talk to me :D} 00:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But when someone says "policemen," does anyone even subconsciously think 'there are people being excluded here.'? In today's day and age I doubt people give that kind of thing even a subconscious thought. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They absolutly do. Study after study shows that in departments where firefighters are called firefighters and not firemen, the time it takes for women to assimilate is much less. When little girls are told about firemen, policemen and teachers, and they pick their future job, they choose teacher at a higher rate. But when different girls are exposed to the job firefighter, police officer and teacher, they are much more likely to chose firefighter or police officer than they were. (teacher always wins...but the point is that the word does matter).

GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(Stop edit conflicting me!) Changing words like chairman to say chairperson or chairwomen is important because it reinforces inclusivity—that it isn't just men who can hold those roles. Switching out vowels in "women" does not help inclusivity or diversity—"women" is not one of those words that reinforce any biases. You can make a better case that the phrase "gold standard" is subconsciously discriminating against platinum than you can that the word "women" is somehow damaging.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. I'm don't really care one way or the other with changing stuff like "chairman" to "chairperson" but stuff like "wymmin" (or however it's spelled) is kinda silly. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note, do you know that just 2 years ago, in a replication of a 1980s study on how teachers respond to male and female students, there has been virtually no change. Boys are called on first and more often by a statistically significant margin. When boys provide a wrong answer, the teacher (by the way, this works equally for male or female teachers) prompt them to try again, and help them "work it out". When a girl is called on, she is praised for trying, regardless of her answer, and if she gets it wrong, is rewarded for the effort then skipped for the next student,or told the correct answer. Further, in teh 1980s study, they studied teachers before and after learning about their habits (like 2 months or a year later) and found it was so subconscious, it didn't change even though they knew they had done it. Women and men aren't equal cause subconsciously, we don't know how to treat them as equal.

GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC) (edot con)

Guess we really dug ourselves ourselves into a deep hole all those several thousand years ago, huh. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

@WaitingforGodot: I felt the impending smackdown from you the moment I saw Socal mention discrimination and the subconscious : )

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(2EC) It's not about exclusion, it's about the bias of 'normality'. Like i said above, our language treats and reinforces men as generic and prototypical, and the ones that do all the important stuff, like fighting fires and arresting criminals.

I think this has the greatest impact on children, with their young, impressionable brains. They grow up being taught, if not through the content of the words, the words themselves, to be biased towards males, and view females as 'others'.

Also, I'm not sure, but I'd wager that even the word 'women' promotes the subconscious sexism, albeit probably less so. Men are the default; women are secondary, an addition, not equal. F_arter ^{talk to me :D} 01:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the etymology of "woman." Could it be "womb" + "man"? Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"[Old English] used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man." "Wifman" eventually became "woman." [1]

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. But changing "women" to "wymyn" (whichever variation of women-with-a-y you prefer) does nothing to help that. That's like arguing that changing "nigger" to "nyggyr" counts as a meaningful change—heads up, it's not.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have a point there. I was just trying to find middle ground so I wouldn't piss people off too much with my liberal feminist atheist evolutionist bestiality professorial values political correctness -- plus, y's are way cooler than i's; but if I'm going to do this, I should go all the way -- so I propose that we formulate a new word for man: 'moman', or something similar, and make 'man' once again gender irrelevant. F_arter ^{talk to me :D} 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought there should be a prefix for a bachelor, i.e. a masculine Miss. Blue (is useful) 02:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Kinda old fashioned, but isn't it "master"? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Master" was the counterpart of "Mistress," so I don't think there's a good correspondence between "Master" and "Miss" today. Blue (is useful) 02:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

┌<span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; width:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ":".em;">────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Radical feminism, like most Marxism-derivatives, is a pile of codswallop whose adherents pontificate about heaven but will deliver hell if anyone is ever stupid enough to give them the chance. The reason for this is that people who document a "power structure" to that level of obsessiveness have put their thinking completely in a box, which means that if all their documentation is correct, they would not have the mindset to think outside the "power structure" in order to dismantle it.

I personally think it would be very hard for a male to be a radical feminist. John Stoltenberg seems to be doing a fairly good job of it, even if he did commit the mortal sin of getting married.

I don't think there's a good correspondence... In the old British style, if I remember correctly, young boys' title was "Master," but adolescent boys had no title, becoming "Mr." when they reached the age of majority. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're like a Marxism boomerang: no matter how hard someone throws the conversation, you come right back to Communism : )

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You consider Marxism irrelevant to a discussion of a philosophy that is a direct derivative of it? Why, then, did you bring up idealism, its far more remote philosophical ancestor?

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All movements sprout radical offshoots, ListenerX. Radical feminism was the inevitable evolution of "normal" feminism, just like Black supremacy was an inevitable offshoot of the Civil Rights movement. Asserting, "It's all the Marxists' fault," only belittles the complex history of society and the people who struggle to reconcile with it—and that belittling is exactly why people dismiss you as a Red-baiter.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but where did I say "It's all the Marxists' fault?" Yes, they have a lot to answer for, but that is not my chief concern, since throwing blame and crying over spilled milk is not helpful in the least. Learning from past experience, now, that can be helpful.

Also, you might want to read this article more closely; the "radical" in "radical feminism" does not mean political radicalism. But even in the political sense of the word, radical feminism's rise chiefly consisted not so much of feminists "radicalizing" as of people who were already radicals (viz., the kind of people who would later accuse Gloria Steinem of being a CIA operative) deciding that women needed to take center-stage instead of the non-military-industrial-complex crowd in general.

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with LX on this one -- Marxist theory is directly relevant. It easily explains the Manichean elements of radfem literature: Either you're with us or you're with The Patriarchy. And thus everyone could be shoehorned into two simple categories and trans people and kinksters became tools of the patriarchy. And let's not forget about the recovered memory debacle in which feminist women who actually knew what they were talking about were pilloried. Marxism and its offshoots, when taken to the extreme, tend to result in the mirror image of whatever it is it allegedly stands in opposition to. At its worst, it reminds me of teen "rebels" who think they're sticking it to The Man by purchasing a Che Guevara t-shirt from Hot Topic. On a side note: Shouldn't this be moved to a forum page? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All this discussion...[edit]

...is this in regards to the Macy's employee fired for refusing to let a TG woman use the women's dressing room? Interestingly, Macy's Facebook page is getting lots of comments from HRC-loyalists and bigots alike, but they are refusing to comment on "personnel" matters, only saying they are committed to promoting a safe and equal environment for employees and customers alike.

The dumbest argument by far: "What's the point of having separate dressing rooms if you're going to let men into the women's rooms?" I would love for the reverse to be true (pervert!), but even more to the point: some clothing stores, such as Old Navy, have unisex dressing rooms; and many many more stores that only sell women's clothes have one area, so where would TG women (or male crossdressers, or freaky straight guys, or whatever) go to try on clothes? The lobby? The restroom? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

unlike men who often have urinals, the women's room have these little private cubes. what is the problem? man or woman?--

GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 00:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Complaints of this nature always remind me of straight men complaining about gay men coming into their restrooms. I suppose the fear is that the gay man will yank your pants down at the urinal and give you some unwelcome attention. It's paranoid and unfounded. People aren't civil in changing rooms and bathrooms because we put cute little men and women diagrams on the signs outside. It's because of the social contract. A person genuinely interested in sexually harassing you isn't going to be deterred by stalls or signs. --24.107.7.208 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat biased?[edit]

The whole "ALL RADICAL FEMINISTS HATE TRANS LET THEM BE WHO THEY WANT" thing, I think, is somewhat inaccurate. Andrea Dworkin and lunatics of that mold believe transgendered people are tools of the gender binary. *I* believe that gender is a social construct, but if someone wants to get a sex change then more power to you. I just feel like saying all radical feminists are hostile to transgender issues is incorrect and wrong.99.115.101.221 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's true, however a good number of influential radfems have been and still are rather vocal against trans* individuals, which is the same attitude that underlies large events like MWMF, which has traditionally been hostile. So while it's right to say not all radfems are transphobic, it's also right to say there's a strong undercurrent of transphobia among radfems. --Kels (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

" however a good number of influential radfems have been and still are rather vocal against trans* individuals..." To the point of conducting a viscous campaign of online harassment against one of our own. This is an issue I find really interesting. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

But saying gender is entirely a social construct is empirically threatened by the existence of anyone who is trans, and says they feel like they're in the wrong body. If it was entirely this magical social construct with no other factors, you wouldn't really expect such a thing to happen. So you can clearly see a threat forming, and some of them are incredibly twuntickish about it.

^theist 00:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems exactly wrong to me. "It's a social construct, and I fall somewhere into the gaps and flaws inherent in many types of construct" is a perfectly reasonable stance. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Die cis scum"[edit]

"They take especial offense to the (admittedly somewhat clumsily phrased) motto "die cis scum", based on the assumption that it implies all cis people are scum, rather than the stated intent of the phrase to refer strictly to scum (i.e. transphobes) who happen to be cis."

If I saw someone holding up a sign that said "DIE JEW SCUM," and then they explained that they "aren't talking about all Jews, only the scummy ones," I'd punch them in the face. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that bit in the article and thought it was a pretty weak defense.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a pretty weak defence, and the sign is ultimately a stupid and alienating political strategy. But We-bok's comment overlooks the difference between a group that is historically marginalized and persecuted, and a group that has historically held all the cards. Kind of like why someone with a "Black Power" t-shirt isn't saying the same thing as a guy wearing a "White Power" t-shirt, or why a "Straight Pride" parade isn't anything like a "Gay Pride" parade. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.

20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not a perfect analogy in that someone who says "die cis scum" could hardly mean all cis people (that'd be beyond strange), whereas someone who says "die jew scum" could very well mean all jews, as has happened a lot in history. So that implies 1. that people who use that motto really do actually mean a more specific group and 2. that the people who take offense at the motto in aforementioned way are pretty out of touch with actual relations. Nullahnung (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

People who say "die white scum!" can't mean all white people, right? That'd be beyond strange, so of course they're only talking about the scummy whites, and you're naïve if you take offense to that. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's also not a perfect analogy. 'White' refers to a very apparent skin colour often associated with oppressors and hateful people (colonialism, slave trade, KKK, etc.) in not so distant times. Nullahnung (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

When is any analogy perfect? The point is it's an incredibly stupid and hateful slogan and it's just going to drive people away from the transsexual cause. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 21:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. It's a terrible slogan. Nullahnung (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, the transsexual cause was supposed to be a secret. Now it'll probably go the same way as the gay agenda. Nice work Nihilist. Blue (pester) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, the plan for the government to take away white, patriotic conservatives' guns and give them to black thugs is still secret. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 03:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is TERF a slur?[edit]

The chaps over at /r/GenderCritical (a new subreddit formed for “feminists who disagree with the Trans agenda”—in other words, it's TERF turf) seem to think so.

Is it bigotry to call out bigotry? Or am I just overreacting to a handful of fringe loons? —ShadowFan-X ♦ 02:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that you, by asking the question, are overreacting, but they're wrong. I mean, they are self-identified radical feminists and they exclude trans people. All we did was abbreviate. If they don't like it, maybe they should stop being so exclusive. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

TERF is a slur like "cis" is a slur. In other words, not at all; it's just a descriptor. Their problem is that they want exclusive claim over the term "feminist", and frankly their views don't even represent all radfems, much lest most feminists. (In fact, it reminds me of various Christian groups who use the term "Christian" as a synonym for themselves. I know the JWs do it, and I'm sure many other churches do too.) To hell with them. If they want to be bigoted against transpeople, they give up the right to define themselves on their own terms. They're just small-minded, authoritarian fundies. EVDebs (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What they want to be called is "Feminist" and have all other self-identified Feminists join them. What they should be called is "Fake Feminists". We can call "TERF" a compromise.-- Token Conservative^{Feminist Thought Police} 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Except I don't think they're fake feminists. They're bad feminists, to be sure, but as one of our listed Internet Kooks complained when he dropped by for a visit, they are respected thinkers in many respects. They're just, you know, authoritarian assholes when it comes to anything that doesn't fit their concept of feminism. They're sort of like James Watson or Michael Shermer -- they're good when they're good, but mindbogglingly awful when they aren't. (This does not apply to Cathy Brennan, who is a tinfoil hatter with an absolutely rotten soul on a par with Sandy Hook truthers.) EVDebs (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that transphobia, homophobia, heterophobia, and sexism inherently disqualify you from being able to call yourself a Feminist. Pre-2000ish I can understand transphobia and pre-1970 I can understand homophobia, but today, they have no excuse.-- Token Conservative^{Feminist Thought Police} 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr[edit]

Well, since Roseanne has recently come out as a flag-waving TERF, Cathy Brennan-boosting, bathroom panic and all, is it reasonable to put something about her in the article? She's not a major voice within that community, to be sure, but she's a very recognizable name in the public sphere outside of TERF-land with a pretty big pulpit to get her views out. --Kels (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe include some commentary about well known TERFs?-- Token Conservative^{Feminist Thought Police} 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

TERF Not Equal Radical Feminism[edit]

When you edit TERF it brings up Radical_feminism. This is severely broken. TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) are a subset of radical feminism and do not represent the majority of this brand of feminism. They are a specific group within the movement who's main agenda is to exclude, specifically, trans women from being included in feminism as well as women's spaces. Not all radical feminists share their philosophy. In fact, most do not. TERF should have it's own page and not point to Radical Feminism. --Angrywoman (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Most RadFems may not agree with TERFs, but it's the logical outcome of their ideology.-- Token Conservative^{Feminist Thought Police} 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TERF is a redirect - to edit it, you need to click on the link in the "(Redirected from TERF)" text that appears under the article title. Or just directly here: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&redirect=no

The redirect was probably created because TERFs are covered in the "Transphobia" and "The TERF wars" sections of the article. If you think that you have enough material for a separate article, feel free to expand the redirect to a full page.

In the meantime, I've modified the redirect to point to the section of this article that actually defines TERFs.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Two problematic edits that might still be salvaged[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&oldid=1287661 http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&oldid=1287660

My contention in reverting these is not that they're wrong, per se, but that they represent a rather oversimplified view of the issues at hand. Specifically, I don't think anyone in feminism really disagrees with the idea that violence in porn is an issue, but that doesn't mean that the arguments against BDSM are always sound, especially when practitioners have very different opinions. Also, the quibble over the meaning of "voluntary" seems to be a bit hairsplitting. Thoughts? EVDebs (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow. When you say "they represent an oversimplified view of the issues at hand", are you referring to the pieces of text I removed or my reasons for removing them? Obviously not all arguments against BDSM are sound, but they're not all without merit either, & handwaving them away as the concerns of some feminazis with quack theories who conflate one thing with another is ignorant at best, if not disingenuous. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A little of both. Might be worth going into depth on the point, although honestly I suspect it might be better covered on the BDSM page itself. EVDebs (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

None of that has happened, so I've taken that bit back out again. Please don't revert unless you're going to make some attempt at improving what is obviously a flimsy strawman. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Raymond and Helms[edit]

There's an interview with Janice Raymond on Counterpunch that mentions RW in one of the questions. Raymond denies any collaboration with Jesse Helms. Anyone willing to clarify that? And clarification in one direction or another would be nice to be included in the Janice Raymond article itself.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

She has written about some of the criticisms about here here: http://janiceraymond.com/fictions-and-facts-about-the-transsexual-empire/ it includes her mention of Rationalwiki and the Jesse Helms thing. Maybe someone in the know could fisk it real good, like we do for some of the arguments written by creationists. Dowdicus (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/queer

[2] Sourour, Teresa K., (1991) Report of Coroner's Investigation (PDF). Retrieved on December 28, 2006

[3] Malette, L. and Chalouh, M. The Montreal Massacre, Gynergy Books, 1991

[1]

[1]

[2]