Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist

	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.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>

, (new)

TERF cards

Nina Paley has been working on an absolutely bonkers set of anti-trans playing cards. Paley's depiction of her ideological opponents and bad trans people is predictably awful. What's surprising is how unflattering and tasteless many of her depictions of people on her side are. It's also remarkable how the deck lionizes the extreme right. Matt Walsh is depicted as a heroic knight riding an elephant. An alt-right hate site worse than 4chan is depicted as a pair of cuddly animal mascots. Paley releases her art under a Creative Commons license, so it seems we'd be free to use these as examples of transphobic brainrot. Nope Rocket (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm so curious what the Ace of Spades will be. Fun fact, it's the most powerful card in a traditional 52 card deck when it comes to breaking ties in games like poker. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just trying her hand at artistic caricature; doesn't need to be flattering. Paley as a TERF was one of the surprises I discovered somewhat recently. Her most well known work is probably this from over ten years ago, a centristy "isn't conflict and death just so terrible?" take on Israel/Palestine. The longer version of the movie has some weird shit in it I didn't really get, that in between faildaughter dialogue with her dad who was represented as God for some reason (and her as a goat which I thought was cute), was apparently trying to argue that Abrahamic religion evolved out of fertility goddess worship. Chillpilled (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Uh

Why was the category fascism on this article? Rational Dude (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See the last paragraph on the lead section. Still was not really justified to keep it nor a few others I had removed myself. Chillpilled (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Bizarre bedfellows"

This phrase and other very similar ones (describing an "unholy alliance" between radical feminists and conservatives) is so cliché in media discussions of TERFs (and radfems/conservatives on several other topics, for that matter). Such that, I'm beginning to think: firstly, it may not be so "bizarre", "unholy", or whatever after all (or maybe I'm being contrarian after seeing it repeated so often), and secondly, that it warrants some comment in this page — about the framing itself. Chillpilled (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

On reflection to this, currently I view it like a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship. Similar to a parliamentary coalition, where a junior partner (radical feminists) offer a boost to the larger party (conservatives) and get something in return (radical feminists receive audience via conservative media infrastructure; in some cases they even receive direct funding for research, which in turn supports some aspects of conservative public policy). It could be well argued that this alliance, while yielding some gains on some fronts for the junior party, hurts the more "core" issues to a feminist cause (domestic violence, abortion, poverty) at the end of the day, making it indeed somewhat bizarre. Chillpilled (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think someone who knows the history of this phrase and the feminist movement need to comment. Wikipedia says some things about conflict over trans inclusion among 1970s feminists. My suspicion is that "TERF" originally referred to holdovers from this era; people with some radical feminist leaning with certain views on trans women, but then when discussion of trans issues became more widespread the term got appropriated to refer to centrist types who have issues with trans women. The introduction section of the Wikipedia article suggests this. In that case, this article should make it clearer that the term refers to two rather different types of people. At this point actual radical feminism doesn't seem to be very big (as far as I can tell). --LiamM32 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

They are frequently still at least influenced by radical feminism or radical feminists. TERFs and TEFs consider each other similar enough to team up with each other to the point of practically merging, so... yeah. By the way I was unamused by the fact many of Wikipedia's articles on these subjects clearly have some TERFs themselves as regular editors (that's not just preliminary assertion — I'm a little familiar). Chillpilled (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not genocide: try bigotry

O E D: genocide, the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. Let's not be hystericalUncleKrampus (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Argumentum ad dictionarium. Read the bloody note. By this standard Aktion T4 wouldn't be considered genocide since it wasn't the systemic murder of a nation or ethnic group. Residental schools also wouldn't be considered genocide since they didn't involve the deliberate systemic killing of First Nations people, just tearing families apart, destroying indigenous culture and communities, and consigning children to death through abuse and neglect. Transgender genocide isn't a snarl word someone made up to win arguments against TERFs. It's a legitimate concept with a fair amount of currency among both academics and activists. Noodles (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

A few things. First, I don't understand why you mention Abbott and DeSantis in your note; it seems implausible that these people are radical feminists of any kind. For that reason, while their relevance to transphobia is obvious, their relevance to TERFs, in particular, is unclear. Second, the placement within the article makes little sense. A sentence accusing TERFs of being genocidal is followed by statements about dogwhistling and claiming to be the next wave of feminism; this is an extraordinarily weak follow-up that undermines the claim, insofar as it reads as though this is the reason why they are supposed to be genocidal. The rest of the paragraph should instead do more work to substantiate the claim that TERFs, either generally or in some cases, advocate genocide. Third, the serious bodily or mental harm criterion has been used in the past to apply genocide to cases of mass rape, enslavement, and physical and sexual assault, and I take this to be the bar that needs to be cleared to apply the term properly. In particular, it needs to be established that this bar is cleared by TERFs, not by transphobes more broadly, and the scope of the claim needs to be made precise (e.g. whether it is all or only some TERFs who are genocidal). (Personally, I think it is implausible that all TERFs would clear this bar, but some might (Joyce?).)

Separately, to avoid making a new talkpage section for a little thing, your source for FART itself cites a now-deleted Tweet (or maybe I just can't access Twitter anymore, I can't tell). Another supplementary reference showcasing the usage would be appropriate. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In general it's better to use an archiving platform than Twitter directly, given the ephemeral nature of Tweets these days. Carthage (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I almost removed the FART thing the second I saw it because it's just a childish joke that has no actual adoption outside meta-discussions about TERFs. But I saw it had some academic citation, which was unsettling but enough to stave me off. Plus I have many issues with the state of this article and no desire to really dig into it yet. Chillpilled (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The academic source doesn't use the term; it uses TERFs and FERTs, and notes in a footnote that "FARTs" is used on social media. I don't think there's a problem noting that it's used sardonically; I previously removed it from the article because this wasn't clear from the way it was being used in the article.

I agree that the article is in rough shape. I think two major problems are the quality and quantity of sources, and the article's vacillation between attacking TERFs collectively and attacking particular TERFs, without clearly distinguishing between the two. This suggests at various times that the positions of individuals are essential or definitive characteristics of TERFism in general, which is misleading. I also think that the tone would make the article unpersuasive to an audience that was not already sympathetic to it, which I think diminishes its value. I have edited it before to try to tone it down, but the recent edits appear to be geared, in substantial part, to the reversion of these changes (happily, with a clear effort to better substantiate the tone). I'd get more involved myself, but I don't have time to do much more here than critique what's already in the article. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"The tone would make the article unpersuasive to an audience that was not already sympathetic to it" is probably about half my entire issue with it if not more, although I feel there's a general messiness as well. Not necessarily messy in actual text (maybe in some places though), but just in I guess you could say "narrative". I do have intentions to edit this article a lot, but I kind of want to edit more core articles to trans people in general, such as transgender and gender transition first (I actually made a rough list prioritizing the order), as to my mind that would be a precursor to editing this article, as I'd have then already gathered sources on the basis for trans people existing, history of trans people, basis for the medical care, etc. Example: I want to gather sources on how gender transition, including "mere" hormone replacement, effectively changes sex characteristics in some more ways than people may realize, such as in gene expression. This would perhaps support my later efforts to revamp here. But I have to research these things first. As for editing this article, I would the same way want to research even though I might already know a thing or two. Chillpilled (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach, and one that would help resolve the problems with referencing, too. I do think it's best to get a broad view of a topic in advance, for a variety of reasons. Best of luck! 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

well aktion t4 was not genocide but it was still horrifically evil so was the destruction of indigenous people. and yes trans genocide is a snarl term made up by anti science radicals ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:152:A80:4D30:69E5:23F0:49DF:D7FD / talk / contribs}

This article is a bit of a hodgepodge because it's seemingly been built piecemeal over 10 years by various editors adding whatever they deemed important rather than a unified effort to write something cohesive. I don't think it's this article's job to be persuasive to an unsympathetic audience. Gentle handling and evidence will not sway the majority of hardened bigots. That's the trap that tone-policing "FART" falls into. "FART" is a deliberate reaction to claims that "TERF" is a misogynistic slur. Around 2018, some trans-rights advocates made of point of adopting "gender critical", TERFs' preferred term/description for themselves. The goal was presumably to shift discussions away from semantics to policy proposals and initiatives to improve trans people's lives. But linguistic olive branches are rarely extended both ways. Anti-abortionists will shriek "baby murderer" even if you make a point of calling them "pro-life." Anti-LGBT bigots will shriek "groomer" if you make a point of calling them "parents-rights advocates." Many TERFs are steadfastly unwilling to meet their opponents in the middle and engage in the perfectly civil discourse they claim they want. They'll tar someone as a woman-hater whether they're tweeting "TERFs please DIAF already" or "gender-critical people need to start listening more." They'll freely misgender and mock trans people while trans people and allies contort themselves over what descriptor to apply to them and their movement. They are, in other words, not willing to play by their own rules. It's understandable that some trans-rights supporters have stopped playing nice. Noodles (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For comparison (and, well, you're making the genocide comparison aren't you, so) take a look at Holocaust denial, which is a gold-marked article. That page most certainly is designed such that it contains arguments and evidence meant to unsettle Holocaust deniers' beliefs (though honestly it could use even more — I've added a bit myself). Though, it could be that most of the people who such a tactic impacts aren't people who have been steeped in an ideology for a while but rather, people who are just getting into it and are looking for alternative narratives to the crankery they read online.

Assuming truth in what you've said about it being a response to the slur argument (which I agree, is bullshit and it's not a slur), this is still not of such importance that it needs to be in the first paragraph, but rather should be somewhere lower in the article. It robs the rest of the article of value when your first foot forward is (literally pretty nearly) on par with "they're poopy doodooheads". Chillpilled (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't "snarky POV" a thing here? This isn't even using the term. It's simply mentioning its existence. There wouldn't need to be five references and a note if you hadn't made a stink. It's in the first paragraph because it's technically a synonym. It's pretty common to list synonyms in the lede of wiki articles. "Gender critical" should probably be mentioned in the first paragraph too. Noodles (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How much of a synonym is it really when it's only used in meta-discussions? I've been pretty plugged in to discussions around TERFs and have maybe seen it outside that context literally once or twice, ever. This renders it more like a meta-joke than an actual synonym. Snarky POV is a thing, but it has to be... "funny, and not just stupid." Chillpilled (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's had a fair amount of currency on Twitter and Tumblr since around 2019. The Mary Sue and Pajiba have written articles about it. Here is Eli Erlick using it in a 2021 Instagram post. Maybe we're just moving in different circles. In any case, whether it's "stupid" or not is a matter of personal taste. Personally, I find it clever and just the right degree of irreverent. But I'd be fine with moving the sentence mentioning it to the paragraph discussing "gender critical." It fits there (as a dysphemism, the opposite of a euphemism) and it's probably a simpler solution than trying to move the mention of "gender critical." Noodles (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the IJERPH, this journal article actually uses the term "FART," rather than mentioning it, which was a (frankly arbitrary) sticking point for Serene above. Noodles (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving it down next to the GC mention is at least better than leaving it where it is. I'm surprised there are outlets writing about this acronym in the year of our lord 2023, but at least you're presenting sources. We can't be running in too different circles, since I've corresponded with Erlick myself (about trans history, which is her big focus). About IJERPH, it was actually delisted from Web of Science, partly for posting a lot of articles outside its scope. There was an Oxford University Press research article that showed IJERPH was one of MDPI's worst offenders in self-citation and possibly some more signals of predatory publishing. I also unearthed a concern about the journal's discrimination against researchers in poorer countries. Chillpilled (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth having an article on the IJERPH or MDPI. I wasn't aware of this history, and I imagine others aren't. Noodles (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a page on pseudojournals, with a section on predatory journals. Frontiers Media and MDPI are often considered the two big "edge cases" between predatory and acceptable scholarly publishing (with MDPI probably being worse than Frontiers). Chillpilled (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Catharine A. MacKinnon

One of the more pro-trans radical feminists. Actually had a background of collaborating with Dworkin. She put out this semi recently (I don't see a date, but it's from this year) on the topic, which I have not yet read.

A note to the future, maybe under "TERFism versus feminism" there could be a section, "against radical feminism" adjacent to the current "against the Third Wave" one. Radical feminism as a whole seems a lot less trans friendly than any other form (I even have the personal impression that the first wave was more tolerant, honestly, based on my digging into trans history and coming across whatever brushes trans people had with the feminists of the suffragette era). But this is not always the case. Dworkin and MacKinnon are two of the more pro-trans voices in that sphere. And even many TERFs seem to like Dworkin such that they try to deny this, or are simply ignorant of it. So the Dworkin-MacKinnon connection is also worth noting. Chillpilled (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"TERFism versus feminism", further: speaking of first-wave feminism, there could be a little mention of connections between suffrage-era feminism and early pro-trans efforts. Two figures I know to have met this intersection in the early 1900s were Emma Goldman and Helene Stöcker (who were from America and Germany respectively). There could have also been an overlap in early Soviet Russia, since they sent a delegation to Magnus Hirschfeld's institute (and the institute sent one back to Russia). From the few instances I know of, it seems like the more socialist feminists were more likely in that era to support LGBT rights, which makes some sense as they both may have been perceived as radical. Goldman was an anarchist, Hirschfeld a social-democrat or socialist of some kind, the Soviets speak for themselves, and Stöcker may have been a social-democrat or socialist based on her associations with Hirschfeld. An overarching movement that seems to have encompassed both women's rights and LGBT rights around this time was called the "sexual reform movement". Chillpilled (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Another MacKinnon source of interest: an old (2015) TransAdvocate interview. Also, incidentally, I found a collection of scans online for some "transsexual feminism" journal that apparently ran through the 1990s, called "TransSisters". I ran back across this because the seventh issue contained excerpts from a Leslie Feinberg speech of some kind. Chillpilled (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This site is becoming like conservapedia

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Similar to the conservative nuts at the hate site conservapedia, this site is succuming to a dogmatic unfalsifiable ideology: gender identity theory. now i am not a transphobe and i respect the personal decisions of the people with dysphoria to transition between genders. there is a scientific basis to dysphoria. but there are some individuals who call themselves trans and admit they have no dysphoria.this site doesn't do anything to condemn these individuals. the reason why i say this site is becoming like consecapedia is not because conservapedia supports gender identity theory, they are super against it , but becalse this site is falling into a unfalsifiable dogmatism. conservapedias dogmatism is based on the holy bible but your dogmatism is based on not criticizing any trans individuals. detrans individuals need respect too. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:152:a80:4d30:b0bd:b5a9:a25f:c9bc / talk / contribs}

Detrans people deserve respect, sure. That does not entail respecting people who want all trans individuals to detrans or else.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, Conservapedia is currently in a death spiral of paranoia, insularity, and ideological inflexibility. To say that RationalWiki is anywhere near that level of derp is a grave insult. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Condeming individuals for transitioning because they don't experience dysphoria is a form of transphobia and a form of sexism. Also unfaslfiability is a poor standard for rationality, as that Popperian buillshit was debunked within the 1960's. Please familarize yourself with some philosophy of science that was published after the 1970's ya anonymous pseud. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you talk down to people in that tone with the assumption of bad faith and putting that stupid template underneath the comment, as soon as you do that you've lost the argument, you never change anyone's mind, all I ever see is a pile of people with different opinions on this issue rather than telling people what they're getting wrong. 82.35.131.165 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The arguments to change someone’s mind can only be effective provided the person being argued with is open to having their mind changed. There is no assumption of bad faith if the argument begins with what amounts to a guilt by association/faulty analogy fallacy with the intention of making editors on this wiki feel insulted. There was no precedent for good faith debate from the outset. There is no argument to lose. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)