Talk:TERF glossary/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 July 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Clownfish

It seems to be a reference to the TERF conspiracy theory that the trans-rights movement wants to "erase women."

I don’t see the connection. Either this is wrong and needs to be removed, or there’s some link I’m missing that needs to be spelled out more explicitly. Christopher (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Clownfish reproductive biology involves a dominant male replacing a dominant female by becoming a fertile female himself. This is related to the TERF idea that accepting trans women as women will, as J. K. Rowling puts it, "erode 'woman' as a political and biological class." To put it more bluntly: TERFs think men are becoming women and pushing "real" women out of women's spaces and public life. Some of the tinhattier TERFs think that trans women could actually replace cis women through artificial wombs and uterine transplants. Splainer (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

And, no, it's not supposed to "make sense." It's a batshit conspiracy theory. Splainer (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

[EC]“Clownfish reproduction has a superficial resemblance to male to female transition meaning TERFs sometimes compare the two, TERFs believe male to female transition is erasing women”. Is that really all it is? They both relate to trans women? Most TERF terms relate to trans women.

I was saying the clownfish->erasing women connection the article claims exists makes no sense. I just don’t see it. Christopher (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a metaphor used to illustrate an insane conspiracy theory (males are replacing females), while also simultaneously being a slur against trans women (humans can't change sex). I don't know how more explicitly this could be spelled out in the article without importing TERF hate speech. At this point it really just seems like you're JAQing off. Splainer (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I just don’t see how it’s a metaphor for men replacing women, the two seem completely unrelated. It makes perfect sense to you because you’ve seen TERFs saying this stuff, but the article needs to be understandable for someone who hasn’t “waded into TERF bizzaro world”. Christopher (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s sometimes hard to describe the thought process of an insane person without sounding insane yourself, it seems that’s what’s happening here. Minor rephrasing and a bit more context is needed, that’s all. Christopher (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Actually Splainer, when documenting really wacky stuff, consider using example source links or even quotes if not too disgusting to add. I think the best quotes are self-refuting (to sensible readers) while making the wacky position clear. But I have no experience with this particular wacky area, and it becomes more delicate when potential material is more hateful. But if you know of suitable material, the ideal quote would be one so bad it's actually funny (to the sane, not to those who agree with the quote). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(replying to Christopher)

TERFs see trans women as men. They believe that accepting trans women as women will render the word "woman" meaningless. This will allow "men" (that is, trans women) to push their way into women's sports, women's shelters, women's writing award shortlists, etc., elbowing "real" (that is, cis) women out of the way by pretending to be them, as the dominant clownfish male supplants the dominant female by functionally becoming her. The battier TERFs fear that "men" (i.e., trans women) may actually replace cis women by getting uterus tranplants or inventing artificial wombs. And then, IDK, committing mass genocide against cis women, and afterward selectively aborting every XX fetus that's conceived? It's a conspiracy theory and it's full of holes.

(replying to ApooftGnegiol)

I feel there's a fine line to be walked in trying to explain the "logic" of TERFs. I can't speak for every contributor to this article, but I don't like platforming hate speech unless necessary, which is why I haven't cited every single statement of TERF belief. It's mentally corrosive slogging through this shit, and some of the tweets/posts that would've made for great quotes have since disappeared into the ether because TERFs are often (rightly) banned from Twitter, and r/GenderCritical got nuked last year. I've only recently started saving Archive.is links. I've also consciously tried to avoid using the word "men" in relation to trans women, even when it's clearly framed as a statement of TERF belief, because of how triggering this association may be to trans readers. I try to write around the problem wherever I can. Splainer (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The risk of inadvertently distressing readers is probably less now that the TERF glossary has been decoupled from the trans glossary. Splainer (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m aware of the TERF belief that trans women are erasing “real” women, I’m specifically referring to the one sentence in this article that links this belief to clownfish. That’s the only thing in the article I’m taking issue with here. If the only reason we had this disagreement is because you misunderstood me I’ll remove the sentence. Christopher (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just stop it, okay. You are edit-warring over something that is clearly out of your depth. Just because the connection isn't obvious/familiar to you doesn't mean TERFs don't actually think like that. I've got a list of transphobia-related articles I'd like to create and having to divert energy/time away to deal with your too-lazy-to-Google-it act is keeping from getting to them. Splainer (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If I still need to google it after reading the article, then it hasn’t done its job. If you actually do believe there is a clownfish/erasing women connection in TERF circles you’re probably right, I’m not trying to argue with you, I just think the article does a terrible job of explaining it. Is it really that hard to add a sentence explaining it better? How important is it that this one sentence is in the article?

The clownfish section as it stands only makes sense to someone like you, who’s already familiar with TERF rhetoric and doesn’t need this article. Christopher (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the "Erasing women" section I added, now conveniently linked to from the "Clownfish" section? It explains the "logic" behind TERF narratives of women erasure. Splainer (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I have, and I was already aware of most of it. I am only taking issue with the idea that TERFs connect clownfish to the erasing women narrative, not that TERFs believe in the erasing women narrative. I am referring to one specific sentence, the sentence I keep removing in the clownfish section, and nothing more. I don’t know how I can make myself any clearer. Christopher (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Then revise the wording of the sentence for greater clarity and/or dive into the sewers of TERF Twitter, TERF Tumblr, or Ovarit to find an example of this specific meme being used in the wild. I have seen it in the wild, probably in r/GenderCritical discussions in early June of last year, around the time J. K. Rowling released her TERF manifesto and shortly before r/GC was banned. (Rowling references both clownfish and the "erasing women" narrative in her screed, though she doesn't connect the dots herself). That's roughly around the time I added the "Clownfish" section to Transgender glossary. I spent time today putting together the "Erasing women" section in the hope it would clarify the reference to this conspiracy under the "Clownfish" section and address your concerns. But I'm not allocating any more spoons to this. Your only contributions to this article to date have been to slap a badge of shame on it and edit war over a sentence you don't get because you are evidently unfamiliar with the topic. If you're going to constantly follow me around to every article I edit and undo my contributions and drag me into petty, time-wasting arguments, well, I'm done. Do not post on my talk page. Splainer (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I can’t revise the sentence for greater clarity, I’m the person who needs more clarification. If you’re not able to better phrase it yourself it will remain a confusing non-sequitur unless someone removes it. If Rowling didn’t connect the dots and it was just something some rando said, is it even worth mentioning? I had no idea you were the person who added the section, this isn’t personal, and this isn’t your talk page. Christopher (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Splainer, references are required. Whilst I understand your concern about "platforming hate speech", we aren't platforming it; we are using it as a reference to show that this is what people actually believe to then explain why that belief is, in this particular case, wrong and bigoted. It's also needed to protect us from the crank legal shotgun, some cranks can be legally trigger happy and while section 230 would protect RW itself (although it would put the editor in firing range), it makes proving that any libel suits are spurious that much easier. Also, as a trans woman, if the word men on it's own is causing problems with how you interact with the world ("triggering" is the wrong term here anyway, you're saying that some trans people are literally getting PTSD attacks from that word), then I sorta question why you'd be looking at a page about a belief that is fundamentally going to at least mention what those people think, which is... yeah, I dunno that seems a bit silly to me. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw there's a fairly little-used Template:More, and used it to mark that one sentence. That leaves it in with a "more detail" to-do attached, which seems to be what the above ends up amounting to for now. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WomenWontWheesht

There’s no real explanation as to what it actually means, just that it’s a TERF thing. Not much of a glossary definition. Christopher (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

we give terfs, or more generally bigots with their own glossaries, far too much credit with these glossaries. we give to much weight to some words or phrases used fleetingly. we do not merely document these terms, we codify these term for them. we publicise them and disseminate them. we give them their own branding. when groups like thi take a commonly used term or phrase or sign and give it their own spin, like with nazis and the 'ok' sign, we roll over and give them theses things with out a fight, letting everyone know the 'new' meaning. they drive the narrative and we follow. we dance to their tune and they know it. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO we basically need a higher standard on what to include and we also need to make sure that what we're including isn't insane. I understand why we need at least the Alt-Right Glossary; a good chunk of the terminology of the alt-right is reused chan culture, which needs to be explained and introduced, that's important to cover. The TERF glossary began as a subsection of the transgender glossary before it kinda grew out of control and was moved to it's own glossary page. Techpriest (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Cats? Really?

Er... IP Editor 208.113.128.91, do you have more concrete evidence that cats are a TERF red flag? Frankly, everyone and their uncle posts cute/funny/meme-y cat pictures online. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Rolled it back. Not everything is a dogwhistle. People Sit On Chairs after all. Techpriest (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

*adds that TVTropes link to my list of bookmarks* ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

'Cats' and 'dogwhistle' are not natural bedfellows. Anna Livia (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

TRA

I made the below edit to the TRA section of this page. It was deleted but I don’t know why. Support for these propositions are universal among Trans rights activists. In fact, you can’t be said to be for trans rights if you oppose them. So, what gives?

Trans rights activists support the following propositions:

1) Transwomen are women. Transmen are men.

2) Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman.

3) Anyone who identifies as a man is a man.

4) Insisting on more than simple self-identification is transphobic.

5) Anyone who identifies as a woman ought to be allowed to use spaces traditionally reserved for cisgender women (bathrooms, locker rooms, rape crisis centres, prisons etc...). Similarly, anyone who identifies as a man should be allowed to use spaces traditionally reserved for men. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.110.65.22 / talk}

Miles Davis purportedly once said about jazz, "It's not just the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play." So what notes aren't you playing? By vastly oversimplifying these points (at best), phrasing them this way, and lining them up in this order, what is the implication that you are making?

GTFO, transphobe. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But this is the thing I'm confused about. I'm not oversimplifying. Do you actually know any transpeople? Because I do, and this is a perfectly fair and accurate summary of what they believe. 'Transwomen are women' is probably the most common refrain among people who campaign for trans rights. If you actually ask any transperson why they think 'Adult Human Female' is transphobic they will tell you it's transphobic because they believe a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Here's one (of many, many, many examples):

https://www.youthlead.org/funding/amplify-change-opportunity-grant

Obviously, the same goes for transmen. Points 1, 2, and 3 are utterly uncontroversial. Point 4 gets into the truscum/tucutes debate, and in this day and age the 'truscum' position is very much the minority position among transpeople themselves. Finally, point 5 follows on directly from points 1-4. I've not oversimplified anything, and there's nothing - quite literally nothing - in the trans rights platform to soften or negate the implications of those beliefs. So why shouldn't people be told what they are? ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.110.65.22 / talk}

The only thing I see wrong with that edit is that you should have sourced in the mainspace (public) page like you did here. I'd in fact encourage you to create an account and provide sources and enrich articles since you live in the midst of it. I for one don't disagree with you; one love of mine became who they were meant to be. Kntai (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me walk that back with plenty of apologies to everyone involved: this is an article critical of TERFs. You, 88.110.65.22, thought you were contributing to a trans-friendly article in good faith as I read it. What this article would have wanted with your contribution would have needed to have been superseded with some form of "but the TERF glossary is wrong" (as it is!)

To reiterate, this particular article is about collecting all the nasty shit, jargon, neologisms, and other down-right muck TERFs will call their opponents. Kntai (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@88.110.65.22 The edit is irrelevant to the section it was added to, and in my opinion should be reverted should anyone add it back. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible addition to the article?

I heard of the term "Loony Troons" on sites like 4chan and Kiwi Farms. Now, what is it? - It is a corruption of the words "Looney Tunes", a children's cartoon show on TV. The definition of the terminology denotes transpeople as both lunatics and thugs.

This is not strictly a Terf slur as trolls and alt-righties are more adamant in its usage than Terfs. As I said earlier, I found the term on Kiwi Farms, instead of either Spinster.xyz or Gender Critical. If this isn't added here, it might belong to the alt-right glossary. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TERF glossary vs transphobes glossary

Is there any difference? Maybe we should rename this article. I've seen other transphobes using these words too, not only TERFs. GeeJayK (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A rename is probably a good idea. TERF is slowly becoming a synonym for transphobe, which is not good since it furthers the idea that trans people are somehow trying to erase women. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 16:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, rereading makes me want to keep the TERF glossary but make a separate transphobe glossary article. A lot of these terms are TERF-specific, and that would be useful to keep, but many of them are not, so I would be in favor of making 2 articles. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's also a solution. Problem is, how do deal with the huge overlap of words used by TERFs and alt-right trolls? GeeJayK (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of would to be adding a rider to the top saying to go to a different page for specifically transphobic terms. Not exactly the best option, but repeating lots of terms would be undesirable. If we kept this one article, splitting it into sections is the only thing I can think of. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

mildly outdated information

t's also based on a pathologization of transfeminine bottom surgery. TERFs are morbidly fixated on a form of vaginoplasty sometimes used in gender-confirmation surgery. This procedure involves colon tissue grafts, as this allows the vagina to be self-lubricating

this is mildly outdated. new techniques involving peritoneal tissue that self lubricate and have less odor have been developed Deargodwhy (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Genderfree

Have 'A new euphemism (April 2019)' - is the 'new' necessary? Anna Livia (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent revision to lesbophobia

I 'm not a lesbian so I can't speak to this but, I don't know about that last change, just lopping out information. I'm going to revert it. --PhoxyDude (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Dogs are TERFs

This is an interesting one, as I distinctly remember around the turn of the century, a bunch of trans people commented how dogs can tell you'd switched hormones before other people can, likely because they can smell your BO changing before any of the visible changes are prominent enough to notice. This seems like another instance of transphobes boldly claiming the exact opposite of the truth, instead of just ignoring it. ZoeB (talk)

I've also seen claims from trans women that dogs who are wary of men were fine with them even pre-hormones. I wonder if it's often demeanor or personality more than gender. Chillpilled (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)