Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist

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

This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

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

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!(Mod) 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!(Mod) 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!(Mod) 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)

Shit terfs say[edit]

There’s a Facebook page that posts terfs content and makes fun of it called shit terfs say that I think should be linked in this article. Here’s the link. — Unsigned, by: Ceilingcrasher / talk / contribs

There's a link for their blog on wordpress too. I think it's a better source than a Facebook page. What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that works. Facebook usually is not easy to browse from my experience. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's see is someone else disagree. If nobody else says anything I'll remove the Facebook link and add the Wordpress link. Is that ok? GeeJayK (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Facebook I more set up than the Wordpress. And it’s updated more frequently.— Unsigned, by: 2601:1c0:5202:6ec0:bc28:7fb9:b8e9:b5e4 / talk

The Facebook page is very disorganized representation of what I guess is transactivism. It seems to be focused on the thoughts of one person. Kind of comical really, as if transphobes were a small minority when, a la critical race theory, most people would qualify as transphobic. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? — Unsigned, by: 2601:1C0:5202:6EC0:BC28:7FB9:B8E9:B5E4 / talk
About the Facebook page, obviously.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
What’s your problem??Ceilingcrasher (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m sure there are lots of similar Facebook pages, I don’t see the point in linking this one. Same goes for the subreddit, Twitter account and tumblr blog already linked. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
actually there aren’t a lot of similar Facebook pages. That’s the only one that’s dedicated to combating terfs that’s still active. The few others have been abandoned. The point of those links are to show examples of terf rhetoric and its harm.Ceilingcrasher (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


This article needs more of it. I don't want to spam it with fact tags, though. There are a number of paragraphs that have no citations, and many more that make claims about matters of fact without adequate referencing. I would consider promoting from bronze until this is resolved. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To add a more minor issue without creating a new section, why are there commented-out sources in the UK section? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


Are we sure these are feminists? It seems more like plain transphobia, inappropriately rationalized under a guise of feminism. A more sincere term might be Feminism-Appropriating Radical Transphobe, abbreviated FART. Immiscible (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation 3[edit]

This reads “Even Feminist Current thinks TERFs are a cult” - However, the article that’s cited is very obviously clearly written as a tongue-in-cheek piss take off the idea that TERFs are a cult. You’ve basically called TERFs a cult and substantiated the claim with an article that finds about fifty different comedic ways to say “TERFs are not a cult”. It literally says the exact, diametric opposite of what you tell readers it says. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yah the article is just sarcastic garbage, it's not a self-introspective revelation. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

a mom on trans issues[edit] — Unsigned, by: Sqrt-1 / talk / contribs

Anything to glean from this? I know this movement is especially nasty but I don't really follow Twitter. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

New edits reverted without explanation[edit]

I'm trying to expand this pages contents to provide balance to the contents but changes are being reverted without explanation. Is there some way to work out what the issues with the changes actually are so I can make sure they are acceptable in the future? Maurice (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice There is indeed a way to resolve this issue. Stop injecting faux "balance". There, problem solved. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I was under the impression this wiki was about rational views and considered viewpoints based upon facts. I realise now it's captured by gender ideologists and not worth the input. — Unsigned, by: Maurice / talk / contribs
@Maurice Yeah well, truth isn't built on balance, it's built on evaluating the facts of the matter. And you've put forward fuck all to support the idea that TERFs should even be given the most basic of consideration. Would you have us be "balanced" towards creationists? What about flat earthers? Racialists? Demanding accomendation for pseudoscience that can't even be bothered to put forward a serious case is absurd. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


I like "Trans-exclusionary reactionary feminist" much more than "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" because reactionaries shaped radical feminism into a fascist, anti-sex work, transphobic, biphobic, Lesbian exclusionist, anti-Polyamorous astroturf movement. Conceptually, radical feminism is not wrong. Damned reactionaries turned it into such a hateful ideology.-April Chat? 04:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)