Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Magdalen Berns[edit]

I think we should add the videos of Magdalen Berns to this page. — Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:f042:5b36:8834:456b:6636:1d11 / talk Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Found some TERF bullshit this wiki might be interested in[edit]

Cambridge "study" Y'all might wanna take a look at this since it provides an example of transphobia within academia. Vee (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ought to put "Cambridge" in quotation marks too. The publisher, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, has this warning on the bottom of their website that they're not affiliated with the University of Cambridge or Cambridge University Press. Not terribly unlike Cambridge Theological Seminary and the other fundie schools who try to pass themselves off as legitimate by apeing the names of respectable institutions. Doesn't look like it's peer-reviewed either, which is certainly worrying given they've also published (other) medical related stuff. (The covers also look awful!) DietMondrian (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
oh boy pseudo-academic publications that include such notable scholars as “gender-critical Dad”. Not only is the title a red flag, but you can see the true comprehension on display with the use of terms like “transgenderism”. I hope my sarcasm here is obvious, but it’s as if the people who produce this kind of content don’t even try to come off as neutral on the subject anymore. They don’t even let a mask slip, they don’t even bother to put it on. It may be interesting to have section on pseudo-academic works though. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
One of the editors (Heather Bruskell-Evans) is a founding member of Women's Declaration InternationalWikipedia. This is the TERF group that has infamously called for the "elimination" of the "practice of transgenderism." As a self-described "philosopher and Foucault scholar," she is, like most academic TERFs, well outside of her wheelhouse. But that's not gonna stop her crusade against the supposed "erosion" of women's rights by "identity politics, queer theory, and Big Parma." (What the cheese industry did to women is anyone's guess.) Nope Rocket (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I created entries for Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce but RW really needs to improve its coverage of prominent transphobia merchants. Nope Rocket (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A certain conflation that appears with bewildering frequency on this wiki…[edit]

“TERFs will oftentimes repeat Islamophobic comments and oftentimes engage in racist behavior”.

Is Islam a race now? Since when? Says who? I reserve the right to secularly criticize the tenets of any religion, especially any Abrahamic religion, irrespective of the skin color of the preponderance of folks who practice such Abrahamic religion. This goes for Christianity, Judaism or Islam, and the degree to which their predominant adherents have been historically persecuted is not relevant to such secular criticism.

I am capable of acknowledging and condemning the racist atrocities committed against “ethnic” Jews or Muslims in the past, while also pointing out the irrational, persecutory, misogynist and homophobic tenets codified in these organized religions’ sacred texts and common dogma without contradiction. This admixture of religion and race in the service of identity politics and “advocacy” is disingenuous, incorrect, and counterproductive to any semblance of rational thought or social progress; to assign protected status to Muslims or Jews under the guise of racism is decidedly illiberal, disrespectful to those who have been harmed or persecuted by these theocratic ideologies, and remains a wrongheaded and hypocritical trend amongst certain “liberal” bastions—and as a victim of the homophobic principles of all Abrahamic organized religions I resentfully reject this. When I see it I’m calling it out, and if this site aims to be congruent in its ideals and objectives I suggest we knock this nonsense off. If Christianity is going to remain a free-for-all for all manner of derision and mockery (which I believe it deserves), then Judaism and Islam should be equally fair game without the risk of being called out as “racist”. Enough already. Srkbear (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "and". Christopher (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
No I don’t think that’s the case, and I think you know as well as I do that the two terms were intentionally parsed together. I think the terms “Islamophobia” and “Racism” are as intentionally conjoined here as they are in many other circumstances on this site, and amongst many of my fellow progressives elsewhere, with absolute intent. No one is wringing their hands on here over how purveyors of alternative medicine, homeopathy, or pseudoscience may be marginalized, vilified or discriminated against on here (all of whom are appropriately condemned), and their tenets are no more odious, harmful or dogmatic than those promoted by Abrahamic religions. No one is concerned about offending Christians on this site either, yet there’s all sorts of pussyfooting around and walking on eggshells to avoid offense among Muslims or Jews—the articles on Muhammad, the Q’uran and Hadith are all benignly restrained and soft-pedaling on the worst and most historically vile aspects of these topics. Yet there is an entire article on the hall of shame of Biblical passages and nary an uncritical, approbatory word contained within. And I see no other explanation for this bias other than the skin color of the majority of adherents to the latter “faith” over the former two. Can you? Such broad conflations of those complicit with a set of dangerous ideas with groups who genuinely deserve protected status are in my view quite dangerous.
All Abrahamic texts and their associated religions are equally violent, intolerant, persecutory and downright criminal towards queer people, cisgender women and people of other faiths. And there are exponentially more Muslims who still believe that those principles are just and valid living today than there are Christians, worldwide. The Westernized Muslims we are surrounded with here in the US and in European countries are a tiny minority of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, and they in no way represent the collective consciousness of the religion as it is currently practiced as a whole. I am in no way advocating for the persecution or harassment of these peaceful practitioners of Islam who have adopted more progressive and inclusive approaches to human rights, but I’m sure as hell not going to hold back from openly criticizing their silly superstitions and their complicity with one of the most regressive ideologies continuing to flourish (and becoming increasingly more totalitarian and intolerant in Muslim-led countries in much of the Middle East and Africa) in modern times. I see hypocrisy in the tolerance towards the articles on here lampooning the idiocies of Christianity and their tone of smug schadenfreude at the expense of its practitioners, while paradoxically enforcing safe spaces for Jews or Muslims.
I recognize that this is a contentious debate amongst the Left, and that my views are not de rigueur. I don’t think it’s necessarily valid to speculate on the reason for this, but all the infuriating events I’ve witnessed as a lifelong liberal/socialist 53 year old gay man in Texas who has been providing free LGBTQIA healthcare to the most disenfranchised and marginalized of folks for three decades might have something to do with it.
All the perilous battles I’ve had to fight for the agency and dignity of queer people and cisgender women through the years may have left me traumatized—at minimum by having to witness the dozens of Muslim women I’ve treated for HIV who were infected by their oppressive husbands, who still have the gall to deny her their wives the right to see me for a visit without their being in the room, literally disallowing them the right to speak on their own behalves. Or the terrorized fear I’ve seen in the eyes of all the African women LWHIV I’ve cared for, who fled their Islamic societies and husbands who continue to threaten them with death should they ever return to Africa. The unwarranted, borrowed shame these women carry on their shoulders through no fault of their own, based on their dehumanization by the religious orders they had the misfortune of being born into makes these issues as in-your-face and far from abstraction or ideology as they could be for me personally. And this doesn’t even begin to account for all the queer people I’ve treated who have been exiled or fled to this country out of threat of death—either from untreated HIV or downright murder.
I wish I could say these were cherry-picked examples, but they’re the reality of my colleagues all over the US, and although this may not be how many Muslims practice their faith in the West, it is demonstrably how it is practiced by the majority of Muslim countries worldwide. And I am not ashamed to be Hitchensesque in my views about it. It must be ok to express peaceful outrage about this without being called an Islamophobe, and by misassociation, racist. Srkbear (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an obvious distinction between criticizing the tenets of Islam itself and expressing an active prejudice, hostility, and open discrimination against muslim people. The allegation of racism comes from how heavily racialized the prejudice expresses itself in the west. I know Sikh people who have been subject to islamaphobic comments simply because they have brown skin and wear a turban. The average islamaphobe I am willing to bet does not actually know what the “tenets” of Islam actually are. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Black Feminists like bell hooks has pointed out that there is a tendency in the west for white feminists to openly advocate foreign intervention in muslim-majority countries to “liberate” the women within them. This is an open call for colonialist violence which cannot be disentangled from the intersections of chauvinism, racism, and cultural imperialism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Also what Christopher said, the sentence quoted makes an explicit distinction. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Srkbear: Frankly, and no offense, but this comes off as really ranty and ultimately on a tangent on a simple sentence. The criticism seems more suitable for the Islam page. Some claims you make need serious support like "The Westernized Muslims we are surrounded with here in the US and in European countries are a tiny minority of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, and they in no way represent the collective consciousness of the religion as it is currently practiced as a whole." and you make fundamental errors characterizing "Africa" as if it's a country; not even the Middle East is a homogenous block of religious practices. When you bring up Africa be sure to always narrow it down to a country or at least a general geographic region. These two claims I take most issue and you run the risk (if not outright doing) seriously stereotyping these groups. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure of what you hope to accomplish on this talk page. I am impressed by your personal experience, and as well by your ability to speak extensively on these subjects. I respectfully observe that such pages as this one, exploring topics where trans people feel under siege, may be distracting to a clear discussion. Many users here on this wiki profess a trans identity and are hostile to the trans-exclusionary position whoever holds it. I do agree, if what you are saying is, associating views construed as transphobic with Islamophobia is incoherent.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This site was founded as a reaction to Conservapedia (fundamentalist Christianity) and had a touch of "New Atheism" in the early days. Also the editorship, as I see it, is heavily US-based, and then English-speaking / European / West after that. So you're going to see the articles heavily slant towards documenting fundamentalist Christianity issues due to this bias. As long as the generalizations aren't stupidly broad (a problem too often found with the New Atheism criticism of Islam) and citations are given, I don't think anyone would have a problem expanding on the issues of Islam and homophobia, as well as the more problematic passages in books like the Qu'ran. (There is already a section in Islam for instance but it is short). It is definitely an issue over there.
The main thing that transforms a criticism into a phobia is if the accusations become overly sweeping or broad, or even a caricature. (This is something I heard a lot in US based rhetoric of the past, eg. "Muslim" in populist conservative radio was often this turban-wearing Middle East terrorist stereotype. As if African and Indonesian Muslims didn't exist). I don't think there is any doubt that there is issues with many Muslim-majority countries and LGBT, for instance, but there are a few queer-accepting progressive mosques (sadly limited to a few isolated Western countries, but they exist), and even beyond that "your mileage may vary" (acknowledging though that a lot of Muslim majority countries are very regressive in their social stances, but "queer Muslims" exist regardless).
In fact, I would say the same tone-down should apply to any Christian criticism within the site, if anything is found that is too broad. There is a difference between the Assemblies of God and the UCC.BobJohnson (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
[edit: OnlySortofDumb:]I’m not sure how Bell Hooks being a black feminist imbues her with any special authority or wisdom on this matter (nor why you chose to qualify her this way), but there is a vast distinction between intervening on horrific human rights violations vs traveling to a foreign land and forcibly converting them to our will through colonialism. Hooks is an American by birth and has no concept of or experience with living as a cisgender woman (never mind a queer one!) in Saudi Arabia or Iran (although I admire her otherwise). Srkbear (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
[edit: LeftyGreenMario:] I fixed your valid, although minor quibble (although I specified “Muslim-led” countries later in my response)—I’m well aware of the geography of Africa and the Middle East and which countries therein are germane to my point. Otherwise, I stand by what I posted. I chose this article to convey my views because the Islamophobia/racist trope is pervasive throughout this forum—if I misunderstood the OP’s intent I would openly apologize and move it elsewhere (although I am not yet convinced that I did). As for it being a rant, if it qualifies as such then rants are quite popular on this wiki, and I don’t think I was ever contentious or disrespectful. Peace. Srkbear (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Dismissal of Bell Hook's arguments as "she's American so it doesn't really count as a valid criticism" strikes to me as reeking of the ad hominem fallacy. Muslim feminists in those respective countries are also equally critical of Western feminism as being a front for colonialism (it has a long history of being so), and a lot of the Western rhetoric regarding "Dear Muslimah" deny Muslim women agency (thereby justifying colonialist rhetoric, it's a neo-white man's burden schtick). Muslim feminist movements exist, and Muslim women tend to be very miffed at the insinuation that they don't exist for obvious reasons. Also Christianity in the West doesn't have the racialized element that Islam does, which is why Islamophobia intersects with racism. This isn't to say that these problems aren't a thing, as a friend of mine from the Levant would be more than happy to tell you all about how shitty Islam is, but she's also quick to point out that she lives in a society where Muslims are the dominant sociopolitical group. Muslims are a marginalized group here in the West, which is why when engaging in criticism of Islam we should make sure that our criticisms aren't Islamophobic. Vee (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I would agree that the anti-Christian rhetoric that occasionally plays out on this wiki could be toned down several degrees. I don't think it is likely because there is a tendency to associate majorities with being on the wrong side of any argument, and we in the US are by far influenced by Christian traditions. Here's the thing, if you believe in equity and equality, the part of a society with more of something seen as good, is somehow at fault for the imbalance. This sort of argument very often works to explain the creations of inequities. Like any rule of thumb, it doesn't always work, and in the end it is little more than a flawed tool applied to social technology. The use of a term like Islamophobia as a pejorative honorific, is common currency in most liberal networks. The -phobia suffix means little more than the speaker disapproves of the person or expression regarding the topic of Islam which it references. Very often the term references something very unpleasant indeed. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Srkbear (make sure new comments go in the end; if you want to reply directly to someone just address their name first). I see. I think the ship has sailed though, so I don't think it's worth moving it to the Islam talk page atm (though in the future people might remember this discussion more about Islamophobia rather than TERF viewpoints so in future reference, might be easier to just move it all there instead. No, I don't think you're contentious or disrespectul, I think you're offering criticism but the length of it as well as the tangential subject feels like you're fixing on one or two words, so again, it came off as such but it doesn't mean you are. i.e. it was an impression. If that makes any sense. I don't agree with Vee characterizing the remark as "ad hominem" is accurate but I think the general idea in the Western World is that it's difficult to separate Muslim religion with someone's appearance, especially if they appear to be from a Muslim-dominant region (Iran, Morocco; Indonesia and Malaysia, not as immediately) and people often conflate the two. I agree here: "Muslims are a marginalized group here in the West, which is why when engaging in criticism of Islam we should make sure that our criticisms aren't Islamophobic."; perhaps the tactness is because of bad-faith bigots. No major pundits are attacking Christians with white people in mind. Meanwhile people who appear like they're from well-known Muslim-majority countries had been discriminated against, had faced hate crimes, and so on. Criticism on Islam should be robust IMO but we should focus on the terrible ideas that hurt people though it can be easier said than done, can be difficult without demonizing Muslims especially nonwhite ones. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

TERF cards[edit]

Nina PaleyWikipedia 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)


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"[edit]

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)