Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)



Veterofemminismo[edit]

This is a nice Italian term for this reacctionary approach to feminism. The origin of the term derives from the term "veterocommunista", used by the Italian New Left against the Stalinists of the PCI. I think that veterofemminism is a good name for TERF's and SWERF's.

https://www.wikisessualita.org/wiki/Veterofemminismo

https://progettogenderqueer.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/veterofemminismo-gpa-e-persone-transgender/ — Unsigned, by: 190.174.34.35 / talk

Why does Google translate say it is Esperanto for "weather feminism?"Ariel31459 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Because Google Translate is generally unreliable? Twodots (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick Note[edit]

Ugh, edited on my phone and messed up. @Ariel - I know blank headings are bad, I started writing a section then changed my mind. For clarification, the section was supposed to be about TERFs calling trans people / activists Nazis, not the other way around. There’s been a spate of it recently. — Unsigned, by: Scribbinus / talk / contribs

Do transphobic NON-radical feminists count as TERFS?[edit]

If a non-radical feminist is transphobic, then would they technically no longer count as TERFs, because "radical" is part of the acronym? I'm thinking of J.K. Rowling, who, apart from being transphobic, seems more of a libfem than a radfem in other respects. --Vermilion (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling doesn't fit the exact name, but TERF still works as a catch-all for libfems who espouse 'gender critical' views IMO. Until someone makes a better name than TERF (I don't think Trans-Exclusionary Feminist / TEF is gonna catch on) it's the one we gotta stick to. Minish (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries. I did see a couple of (tongue in cheek) calls to make TELF a thing on twitter, complete with a "TELF is a slul" gag, but no, it doesn't look like it's going to catch on. Vermilion (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Transphobe is a valid alternative, especially for those who combine it with homophobia and other hates. But with quite a few people commonly called TERFs, it's unclear how serious their feminism is (e.g Graham Linehan). --Annanoon (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
There's actually quite a good article here by an academic at the University of Waterloo - https://theconversation.com/why-the-words-we-use-matter-when-describing-anti-trans-activists-130990 - I don't agree with all of it, but Saul objects to the term TERF on the basis that radical feminism is a very specific set of beliefs, that many radical feminists are trans inclusive, and that being anti trans automatically makes you not a feminist - in effect, that actively campaigning to worsen the situation of marginalised women should automatically exclude you from being able to identify as a feminist at all. Scribbinus (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
TBF, Linehan insists his feminism is pure and strong! Of course he also accused actual feminist Mona Eltahawy of being a coward and 'bending the knee to men'. She literally got both arms broken protesting for women's rights, and Linehan called her a coward and a bad feminist, and his cohort of TERF flying monkeys tried to dog pile her. I'm still sort of shocked.Scribbinus (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think RationalWiki should decide on how "TERF" is to be officially defined & use the term consistently. Currently this article specifically states that TERFs are radical feminists, yet I've seen other articles here apply the term to moderate feminists (like JK Rowling) and I recall one case of it being applied to a group who isn't feminist at all. I say we either clarify in this article that "Despite the acronym, the term can refer to non-radical feminists", or we stop applying the term to anyone who's not a radical feminist (which I would prefer). If we decide on the narrower true definition of "TERF", than we can make this article about "gender-critical feminism", while mentioning TERFs as a subset. Alternatively, we can just label those people/groups as "transphobic". Perhaps we can settle this with a poll. --LiamM32 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we call them "radical" because of their persecution complex and extreme transphobia/transmisogyny. With all due respects, if that's not radical then I don't know what is. Also, Rowling's considered a TERF because she has often showed her support for tweets by frothing transphobes. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningPrototype lab 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Transphobia may be ignorant & bothersome, but it isn't radical. Transgenderism is a rather new & alien concept to many older adults (50+) that I know, so for them, it would be a conservative position. And within feminism, trans-exclusion is a rather old-guard position[1]. Many second wave feminists thought that allowing people to 'choose' their gender would reinforce gender stereotypes. This "gender critical" faction became less dominant in the third & fourth wave, perhaps due to growing psychological evidence that gender isn't just a social construct. So no it's not radical. But anyway, the "radical" in "radical feminism" just means that their approach to solving women's issues is radical. Also note that trans-exclusion doesn't necessarily mean outright hostility to trans people, just that they don't take trans gender identities seriously enough to warrant inclusion of trans-women in their causes (read this), or that they don't think trans-women are in need of their causes. --LiamM32 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We could call them "TEFs", but it's not nearly as catchy. Twodots (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki probably isn't the place to coin new feminist acronyms, so I think we'd better just call it "Trans-exclusionary feminism". --LiamM32 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Just like how I've been encouraging people here to call bigotry against Muslims "Muslimophobia", while still having a category and pages calling it "Islamophobia" because we can't be arsed to fire up the bots just to change it. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningPrototype lab 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The other WikiWikipedia states that the meaning of "TERF" has evolved to a more broad term concerning people with trans-exclusionary views, regardless of being feminist or radical or not. This fits my anecdotal observation. Now, as far as I know, the term was originally coined in the late 2000s to describe people like Cathy Brennan who indeed identified as "radical feminist", so the term fit better then. (SWERF, or sex worker exclusionary radical feminist, was coined around the same time, but hasn't been quite as popular.) The meaning evolved without the acronym changing, unfortunately. Maybe someone can "retcon" the acronym with something new that fits better, eventually. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I still prefer Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. Avida Dollarsher again 19:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
LMAO I like it; TEFs triggered in 3... 2... 1... --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningPrototype lab 23:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a desire among our activists to make more out of words than they are capable of bearing. Some say TERF could not be a slur because it is accurate, and then one might say, unable to restrain the desire to blend together two incompatible terms: "well you know TERFS are also antisemites and Islamophobes." I suppose the Jewish TERFs are likely Islamophobes, and the Muslim TERFS are likely antisemites. I am hoping not to have to draw a Venn Diagram to fully illustrate my point. There is a frequent use of the nominal fallacy almost everywhere in this type of material. "Trans intolerance" is the most general term I can think of that is also self explanatory.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The acronym TERF has evolved beyond its original meaning, as language is wont to do. We can make a section in the article for TERFs who aren't radical feminists. Problem solved.--Hastur! (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I would add that my personal understanding of the term encompasses feminists and presumed allies who are transphobic. A fundamentalist Christian is not a TERF.--Hastur! (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

How is this not alternative medicine?[edit]

I tried to add this to the "alternative medicine" and "alternative medicine promoters" categories, but it was immediately reverted with no explanation. How is transgender denialism not alternative medicine? --2001:999:70:B159:F934:744D:F98:499C (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that at times TERFs can descend into pseuodoscience but it is not alternative medicine, TERFs are not attempting to practice any sort of medicine--Hastur! (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing "left" about TERFs[edit]

They actively court the right wing and promote Islamophobic, transphobic, and antisemitic narratives: [2] Oxyaena Harass 00:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how feminist transphobia is connected to Islamophobia and antisemitism. Since terfs are usually viewed here as a feminist deformity, I think you are asking more than the term "terfs" can bear.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Watch the video. Oxyaena Harass 15:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
No thanks. I'm not watching a 2 hour video only to discover it doesn't do what you want it to do. There may be some orthodox Jews who don't question that transwomen are women, but if you plan to go looking for one, I advise you to bring a lunch. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Death to endless lists of examples[edit]

Looks much better, doesn't it?-Hastur! (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's much more clean and concise. I approve. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Might as well nor even have lists at all if you are going to remove all the examples without pages. It's far more pointless to list ones with pages as their pages have all the information anyway. Furthermore, many of the people removed are more notable than the ones who remain, Abigail Shrier for instance wrote one of the bestselling books of last year that was completely transphobic. Plus, it's important that we list somewhere that these are all TERF organizations as many can be mistaken for legitimate feminist institutions and it's important that we can explain that they are not. 2600:1002:B01C:8B20:0:1E:236F:1401 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd go through the extra trouble of creating a page for them. Understandable that it's an effort though. I think some notable entries should be there, even if they lack a RW page but how do we choose? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
But the benefit of a list is that you don't have to create a ton of articles that basically say the same thing. You can write a couple sentences-a paragraph about them and move on. Plus it's considerably easier to keep it up-to-date as new TERF organizations arise.2600:1002:B01C:8B20:0:1E:236F:1401 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can't you use subpages like Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/Notable TERFs? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not really a thing here from what I've seen. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The article on Neo-Nazism does not have long list of people, so perhaps the solution would be to remove that. Being consistent across writings on a wiki would not be a bad thing either, the article already has far enough information on TERFs that any example list would be sort of pointless. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Disadvantage of a list, on the other hand, could open up to article bloat. I think a list should be illustrative and to the point. Articles can be created to fill a coverage gap. Terfs that you feel aren't covered probably need to end up in our growing and piling to-do list, which I admit does feel discouraging. We do have list based articles though but I think it's better to create full articles on particularly egregious TERFs and then add them to the list or let wiki categories take care of them (which I figure is for Neo Nazis, who are also more documented than Terfs. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And it does not appear to illustrate the point here either. The list just clogs up the article in the middle of it. Your idea is not so bad, however, I have created a page on my wiki specifically for very small and unknown individuals where their name and a short summary are used, those individuals would likely never be relevant enough for an article. I would suggest drafting "Petty TERFs" or some other title along those lines. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Article was bloated and illegible before. If we must exhaustively label each and every transphobe, best to shuffle it off to a subpage-Hastur! (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, that was my original suggestion. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would seem one undertakes an impossible task when the idea is to expose all persons alleged, or proven, to be TERFs. If TERFdom were a well-defined set, small enough to be captured in a registry of some kind, that would be doable. It is my assumption cis people are likely to be transphobic in the same sense that white people are likely to be have racist tendencies. I have to wonder how specialized the TERFs are among all transphobes. Our article says: "Broadly speaking, there are two major points on which TERFs and feminists vehemently disagree — on the question of gender, and on the nature of the third wave of feminism." On searching for the latter term one finds this: "It is almost impossible to talk with any clarity about the third wave because few people agree on exactly what the third wave is, when it started, or if it’s still going on."(Vox). So, one comes away with the impression that TERFS are within the intersection of feminist transphobes (an indefinitely large set) and the complement of a set for which there are no definite criteria. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I say we approach this similar to any YouTuber or media pundit. They need to have a bit of an influence. A lot of British TERFs fit. JK Rowling is a shoo-in. Same for Cathy Brennan and the smug cartoon man Lineham or whatever. I'm sure all TERFs on that list have a reason to be on the list and should be condemned and people need awareness for condemnation, but we can't be listing them all. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that TERF and transphobe, while often used interchangeably, aren't the same. This is our article on TERFs, not our article on Transphobia.-Hastur! (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, dear fellow, the point was the article in no sense makes the difference clear. This is most likely because there is no analytic difference beyond context: a common foible of standpoint theory: you just know, or you don't. DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)