Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 17 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Need some sources

You can look up my claims in TERFs and misandry and TERFs and the far-right using Google as most of them are justified. I don't have time to add sources now.

Hawaiianred (talk)

Sorry, I have to take issue with "Trans men, on the other hand, have reported as a certain level of respect from TERFs" - Trans men, on the whole, hate TERFs, because TERFs at best mis-characterise them as women / lost lesbian sisters, or straught up pretend they don't exist. https://www.huckmag.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/why-are-trans-men-always-left-out-of-the-conversation/ They also call trans men TIFs. I refuse to link to R/Gender Critical but if you want to wade into that cesspit, they use it there all the time. Scribbinus (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

AIBU to point out TERFs on Mumsnet?

There's a whole lotta TERF going down at Mumsnet, normally an uncontroversial parenting forum but somehow there's a bunch of trans haters there who now think, apparently, that the NSPCC (Britain' main child protection charity) is allowing trans people to groom children. They've gone completely off the deep end. 92.5.141.137 (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Mumsnet is a notorious TERF snake pit. Supposedly they've started to crack down on it, but clearly it isn't going very far as of yet. EVDebs (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a link, but I recall the founder/CEO is onside with TERFiness and defended it publicly - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

TERF people are their own worst enemy

Rhetoric spewed by this arena drives people away from TERF's. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, it's as if they don't quite grasp how much more abhorrent their transphobia sounds to most people now than it did in the 1960s. --Yisfidri (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

People are increasingly noticing that it's literally the arguments used against gays in the 1980s, with the target changed - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes you wonder why so many of the most vocal people speaking out against transactivists are female homosexuals. ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.145.234.97 / talk}

Really? every TERF I've met IRL has been a straight white woman, usually middle class and femme presenting. Scribbinus (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Really: http://news.trust.org/item/20190412100802-6md1q/ 86.160.160.164 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A single blog post by the founder of an anti-trans group is not evidence. I can easily counter by mentioning LwiththeT, a counter protest group formed against the group you cited. (Plus BwiththeT, which includes bisexual women https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/xw9537/why-i-cofounded-lwiththet Scribbinus (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you countering; I didn't claim the group I cited don't attract counter-protest?--86.144.239.222 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You were citing it as proof that the majority of TERFs are gay. Given that there are thousands of lesbians who disagree with that single group, it is not proof. Scribbinus (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No - merely that a vocal group of them is - but I can see how I wasn't clear. Apologies.--86.186.74.204 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Peak Trans" suggests otherwise than rhetoric spewed by this arena drives people away from TERF's.--86.144.239.196 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Interacting with TERFs turned me into a trans activist, whereas before I'd felt much more ambiguous and neutral about it. *shrug* Scribbinus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I am by no means a terf and consider myself a trans ally, but the trans rights movement has become a monster of its own making, when I am seeing biological men making death threats to women who do not want their ""girl-dick"" or saying that lesbians who don't want to sleep with them deserve "getting their uterus cut out with a chainsaw" or having anything geneder critical scrubbed from the internet or supporting J Yanniv's insanity or publicly hounding people for implying humans are a sexually dimorphic species I rapidly want to either claw my eyes out or go live in the woods in Montana. I don't think terfs are their own worst enemy I think they are a natural reaction to some of the extremes of gender Identity politics. 2A02:C7D:C35:5100:8C7B:53DB:BF27:8968 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're an idiot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

^^^ Trans arguments in a nutshell. ^{— Unsigned, by: 91.110.239.143 / talk}

^^^^ Transphobic arguments in a nutshell after they run out of talking points. Also, why would you assume I'm trans? That isn't very rational. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Trans arguments in a nutshell, yes. We don't waste time with "gender critical" folks aka bigots. It's just a more direct way of telling people that have mastered middle school biology that they don't have appropriate knowledge to talk about transgender stuff. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Are we really that busy though? I suspect there is a general paucity of "appropriate knowledge." One cannot explain that which one does not truly understand. Personally, I take no satisfaction in my own ignorance.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's probably because a) you and the TERFs who say they get those threats are lying, (and no, the crappy website full of unverified screenshots you guys always cite isn't evidence) plus I've seen far worse from TERFs towards both trans people and cis women who support them (don't dish it if you can't take it) b) gender critical is a shoddy euphemism for transphobia c) an individual trans person is not indicative of a whole community d) you sure sound like a TERF to me. Scribbinus (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"TERFs (and SWERFs) are a tiny subset of feminism"

I see the note, and it's more of gussied up reference. But I followed the link and it's to a blog post showing a graph made by the author. I'm not sure what this graph really means aside as a way to organize schools of feminist thought, but I don't think it's an graph that accurately (or is intending to) quantifies how "big" or "small" (aka how many members subscribe to it) an ideology is. This note or source (whatever it is, I'm confused by it) isn't even talking about TERFs, it's a post on an opinion on "white feminism" and how exclusionary "mainstream" feminism is and maybe in support of cultural relativism? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to LGM's comment I will add that I agree, the reference does nothing to validate the claim. I don't imagine that Black feminists are distinguished from White feminists in how they regard trans issues. Or are they?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to say what percentage of Feminists are TERFS. It may be tiny. But SWERFs? The number of feminists who think sex work is not OK is tiny? Convince me.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Does that source even go into that subset of feminism? Again, it doesn't even talk about TERFs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Shall we remove that statement then? Scribbinus (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I tried, and got my edit reverted, and got a lecture from someone saying I’d “edited other people’s comments on a talk page”. As far as I know I have not and have no idea what they are talking about.Scribbinus (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica You may present your reasons for reverting Scribbinbus' edit here.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I admit I erred. I misread the title and thought the edit was on the talk.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, please remove your lecture from my talk page. I don't appreciate being spoken to in that way, especially for things I have not done. Scribbinus (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

why do you hate the global poor?

"Meghan Murphy...[opposed]...free-trade agreements." You say that like this is a good thing. I would expect this place to support evidence based policy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:5E9B:8679:D10E:283E:891A:661 / talk}

It certainly needs more context and information. Maybe she opposed bad provisions in agreements and sought to make them better, maybe she opposed the entire concept of free trade, it's not clear. And it's not simple to say whether free trade agreements are good or bad in general: there's no guarantee they'll help the global poor. --Annanoon (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"TERFs and the far-right" section

This could perhaps be renamed or divided into "TERFs and the right", documenting links with American conservatives (of which there are a lot) and organisations like the DUP. TERFs have teamed up with various strongly religious conservatives who perhaps shouldn't be described as "far right", but are definitely on the right of mainstream conservatism. Links with clear far-right/alt-right people could go in a separate section? Part of the reasoning is that it's not very well sourced, and partly because we shouldn't accuse people of being far-right if they're merely just traditionalist conservatives. --Annanoon (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

they literally hang out on gab - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

TERFs literally advocate for conversion therapy and forcible sterilisation. Meghan Murphy spoke out against human rights for trans people and Elizabeth Hungerford wrote to the UN to try to remove human rights from trans people. They're far right all on their own. Scribbinus (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Conversion therapy and forced sterilisation" - nope that's literally what transgender surgery is, and why your critics are so angry. Smug and self righteous ideologues, with inordinate faith in medical technology, are grooming children and then doing sick experiments on them. Where is the critical thinking on this so-called science based site. Humans are embodied creatures, and trans surgery is a fundamental rejection of material reality. This article is one sided and fails to honestly portray the GC perspective. ^{— Unsigned, by: 122.60.62.224 / talk}

Critics of trans allies are angry because they hate trans people. The GC 'perspective' is transphobia, and I think we portray it pretty accurately, with links to primary sources and statements made my TERFS. Also, the difference between *choosing* to take medication that *may* cause sterility vs forcibly sterilising someone is rather large. It's a bit like how women fight for the right to choose abortion, and be free of abortions imposed against their will. Scribbinus (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So... That kids is called fractal wrongness. Literally every part of that argument is wrong, and given the Dunning-Kruger effect at play, debate is pointless. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Religion and TERFs

Would it be off topic to discuss the religious affiliations of prominent TERFs? For example, Greer, Mary Daly and Janice Raymond were / are Catholic (Raymond is a former nun), Amy Desai is a Mormon, Stephanie Davies-Arai used to be in a Christian cult and has written for Evangelical Times. I think it could be worth documenting and investigating the fact that most supposedly 'feminist' TERFs are linked to decidedly patriarchal and often anti-women religions. Scribbinus (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The TERF essay "My Vagina Is Haunted" in Elizabeth Sandifer's Neoreaction a Basilisk digs into this a bit, good for cribs - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Scribbinus You would first have to establish it as a fact that "most supposedly 'feminist' TERFs are linked to decidedly patriarchal and often anti-women religions." There is no good reason to suppose atheists would not be terfs. It is also possible that there are many more people who would qualify as de facto terfs than actually admit to it. See here for an example. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel32459 Hi Ariel, I actually mistyped there. I meant that the majority of TERF *originators and leaders* seem to be affiliated with patriarchal religions, a fact proven by their own stated religious affiliations. In terms of your article, not wanting to date a trans person does not make a person a TERF. Have you explored TERF ideology or read any texts by them? Being a TERF involves wanting to exclude trans people from the public sphere in ways including forcible sterilisation (Minshull), forced conversion therapy (Raymond and Jeffreys), and removal of their human rights (Murphy and Hungerford). Who you want to have sex with doesn’t make you a TERF.

I am also aware that TERFs, like most bigots, think everyone secretly agrees with them and is either too brainwashed or frightened to say so. That is not the case; most people are indifferent to, or ignorant of trans people and bear them little ill will. Scribbinus (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Scribbinus Good. I'm glad you realize that religion is neither necessary nor sufficient in determining the nature of people who we call terfs. Most people have religious affiliations and most of those religions can be intolerant so, I don't see this line of discovery being insightful. I will admit to not knowing a lot about terfs. Most of the terfs I have looked at suggest the "separate but equal" variety of racism. My problem is, the "I would never date one" comes off sounding racist when applied to black people. Because of my lack of knowledge I would only edit this article for common errors, mispellings, dead links, bad grammar etc. It is a deceptively difficult subject. It may be that who one doesn't want to have sex with discloses more information than is convenient. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel32459 Of course not. I think it will be insightful because there are clear links between TERFs and the religious right in terms of how they treat and feel about trans people, in a way that is very distinct from actual feminism. As to your second point, while I agree that subconscious prejudice can certainly be revealed by our sexual 'preferences' - see the listings on gay apps with "no femmes" - but TERFs are a very specific ideology. It's not a passive disgust toward trans people, it's an active working to exclude them from everyday situations. I see it as similar to back when feminist Betty Friedan referred to lesbian women in the movement as the "lavender menace"[1] or when white suffragists allied with white Southern women who supported lynching.[2] It's just the latest iteration of socially acceptable prejudice, as practiced by rich, white, middle class women who justify their behaviour by pretending that they're 'protecting women and girls'. Scribbinus (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If that is so (re:your last sentence above), don't you think the intro to the article should express something like that? It doesn't now.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nah. While I stand by my assertion, it's an opinion and beyond citing previous examples of 'feminist' prejudice I can't prove it - how could I? Every bigoted group likes to think they're being righteous. Tommy Robinson says he's 'protecting women and girls' too. I can't prove he's lying, all I can do is point to the fact that he's far more interested in hating on Muslims than in protecting women. Scribbinus (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Anyway, anti-Islamism can be part of an ideology or pure spitefulness as can a certain fascination. It is normative to believe one is protecting women, even when that is not the case.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m comparing apples and apples, the only difference between someone like Tommy Robinson and the average TERF is target. Scribbinus (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if you have reflected on how unscientific your last statement appears to be. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Unscientific? Lol. We're talking about hate groups, not chemistry. Robinson incites hatred against Muslims under the pretext of protecting women and girls, TERFs incite hatred against trans people under the pretext of protecting women and girls. Do explain the 'scientific' difference between those two hate groups. I'm honestly agog. Scribbinus (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The humanities attempts to embark upon scientific explanations. Simply labeling two classes as hate groups does not make them alike to a social scientist. It may be all that you care about. I'll admit that.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Mention acephobia

This article is meant to inform on the "gender-critical" ideology as a whole (If you enter 'gender critical into the search bar, you are redirected here). While this ideology is certainly transphobic, it is also highly acephobic and I feel that should be mentioned in the article. I am not sure it should be mentioned in the "against the third wave" subsection or if it is worthy of its own section, but I do feel it should be addressed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Crunchingnoise1 / talk / contribs}

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't this be more appropriate towards homophobia? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be another solution. I originally suggested the "third-wave" section since the acephobic rhetoric is related to their unwillingness to accept third-wave feminism's views on intersectionality, but it is also related to third-wave feminist's views on sexual liberation. Acephobia isn't really encouraged by the religious right the same way that homophobia is, so the underlying causes of each form of bigotry are, in my opinion, different enough that they warrant being in separate sections.Crunchingnoise1 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Acephobia and homophobia do share the idea that being "different" in your sexual preferences leads to disdain, disgust, and bigotry, however. I think aces even in the religious right aren't tolerated. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Monastic types are very well tolerated. I think the part of the religious right that is actually religious would be more respectful.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong, either way would probably work.Crunchingnoise1 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You might consider connecting with our article on Asexuality. Acephobia is not treated there, so it might be a good place to start.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Asexual exclusionism article covers a particular aspect of acephobia (i.e. the drive to kick asexuals out of the LGBT+ community). --Yisfidri (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jess Phillips

What's our evidence for Jess Phillips being a TERF? Given that she helped write the reforms to the GRA?Scribbinus (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Our citation (currently #83) covers it, she affirmatively supports the literally trans exclusionary policies of Woman’s Place UK. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Relitigating Whether TERF is a Slur

The article states that "Many TERFs claim that "TERF" is a slur." This is accurate but is only half the case. Most transgender advocates think so as well, other wise there would be no special requirement for a special nomenclature. The only thing all so-called trans-phobic people have in common is that they disagree on some point of a transgender ideology (I assume that there are several such ideologies). The names we give to our opponents are typically used to show disdain. If you are anxious to expand the term TERF to others who diverge from your personal views on transgender issues, it is likely that you believe that it has a negative connotation and functions as a slur. Words mean what we make em mean. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Most transgender advocates think so as well" / "so called transphobic people"??? Mask finally off @Ariel31459? Scribbinus (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Most transgender advocates think [TERF is a slur]." What the fuck? this is patently false. And this discussion is because we think transphobes (not "so-called trans-phobes", jackass) who are trans-exclusionary feminists are not always radical feminists, not because we secretly think TERF is a slur. Minish (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And what the fuck is "transgender ideology"??? Minish (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we not call it "transgender ideology"? It's used by transphobes to tie negative connotation to the idea that transgender is "just" a belief system, an opinion, something you are convinced in and can be persuaded to go out. Also. I just noticed the statement "The only thing all so-called trans-phobic people have in common is that they disagree on some point of a transgender ideology." They.... "disagree" on "transgender ideology"? You do realize that's the same kind of dog-whistling bigots use? It's the same fucken thing as being "gender critical"????? I always thought you acted a little sympathetic to TERFs such as in my talk page on libraries, (see statement: "When I hear nazi hate speech and compare that to women paranoid about trans-women in their safe spaces, I have a bit of sympathy for the latter because their concern does not seem based in hatred.") but this isn't making me feel any less suspicious. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Um... No, that's not how that works... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am always trying to understand how it works GC.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario What do you mean "just a belief system?" Everything we think we know about is a belief system. An ideology is a shared belief system. It's a primitive concept. Any theory of gender has ideological connotations as gender is a cultural construct. The idea that groups of people are really the same in some way because of a shared characteristic is also a construct. Is "hypothesis" a better word for you than ideology? It has the distinction of being scientific.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Minish The hostility in your reproach is evidence that, in your case, TERF is a slur. I don't regard it as a slur, myself. They are just feminists who don't regard trans-women to be women. I am not a supporter of radical feminism, and I am perfectly happy for TWs to be allowed into women's spaces. As you are a person in the habit of using slurs, I call attention to your inconsistency in this matter. This is a talk page, after all.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 No mate, they are 'just' people are are transphobic, who advocate for forcible sterilisation, who call for forcible conversion therapy, and joke about trans people dying. I've seen TERFs call for trans people to have to wear 'special symbols', like the effing yellow star. They pal about with literal Nazis and hate trans people so much they hang around with the anti woman Heritage Foundation. I wouldn't even call them feminists. The fact that you do, and you're using words like 'trans ideology' strongly suggests you agree with their violent, disgusting beliefs. Scribbinus (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 "What do you mean "just a belief system?" Everything we think we know about is a belief system. An ideology is a shared belief system." No, no it isn't. Seriously. You're using that in the same way YECs do, stretching a definition well beyond any logical limitations to the point where its use by you is without any meaning. Seriously, this kind of preztzel logic is fucking stupid. "Any theory of gender has ideological connotations as gender is a cultural construct." Dear fucking gods... No, it isn't... Again, you're generalizing to the point of meaninglessness. "The idea that groups of people are really the same in some way because of a shared characteristic is also a construct. Is "hypothesis" a better word for you than ideology? It has the distinction of being scientific." Dear fucking gods, did you proofread any of this garbage? Did you read any of the relevant literature? Fucking A!! Trans people exist. This is a verifiable fact. This is like denying Gay people exist and quibbling over the definition of sexual attraction, all at the same time. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459Oh my fucking god. Minish (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie. My dear person, of course trans people exist. I find it strange that you would say that. Simply quoting my words back to me and saying it's garbage is next to useless. No, I have not read the literature, as you call it. What would you recomend? Besides this article, I mean.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't just quote your comments back at you, I pointed out that you were overgeneralizing. Seriously, if this was say, whether or not science is usable over faith, you'd kind of sound like a creationist. It's that same "Well everything is ultimately just made up, so it doesn't really matter what you say since I'm just going to redefine everything as I go" kind of argument. Or would you say that gravity is just a social construct? How about morality? Law? History? Ethics? Science? Words? Names? Gender? Sexism? Racism? Life? Death? Rape? Pedophilia? I mean, all of these things are "social constructs" or "ideologies" if you stretch the definition far enough. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slow down. I don't think we agree on our definitions of social construct. A behavior, such as gender expression, is learned through interaction with other people. Now, I get that there is an essentialist explanation for gender. There is also a behavioralist explanation. They are coherent with one another. There is no contradiction provided one doesn't get crazy about it.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, laws, words, and names are social constructs. "Social construct" means what it says: a thing constructed by society. Laws are things a society says you must or must not do. Words are mouth noises or scribbles that people agree to assign a meaning to. There seems to be this idea among a lot of people that "social construct" means "doesn't exist", which is wrong. It does mean that the thing is intangible and created and maintained by humans. A tree isn't going to arrest you for breaking a law. Gender is also a social construct if you adhere to the something like the WHO definition. "People expressing a male phenotype should do X and people expressing a female phenotype should do Y" is usually an idea society adopts, unless X and Y involve actual differences in phenotype (say, giving birth). "Women wear dresses and men wear pants" is an example. People aren't born wearing either, nor do they grow them on their bodies. For young children in the Western world it used to be the opposite. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How this logic transposes to others situations? Why exactly the same argument cannot be used to say "flat-earther is a slur", or "climate change denier is a slur", or even "communist is a slur" or "capitalist is a slur"? For sure the people who don't like these groups use those words in exactly the same way as the ones using TERF (i.e., with a negative opinion). But still, it would be ridiculous to say that it discredits the arguments of people using those terms. Or even if we reduce the debate to a conflict of belief (which I personally don't, both for "flat-earther" and, for the same reason, for TERF), that the word of "flat-earther" is not relevant. Or that people not agreeing with the offended people (here the TERFs) should jump through hoops to use the term that the offended guys like until they decide to change again when this term gets a bad connotation because associated with the real actions and behaviors of the offended guys. I guess on my side, my problem with "TERF is a slur" is that it is just a fallacious way of debating, and could apply in any direction (if a TERF says "TERF is a slur", just ask "who said that", they will say "X said that", and you can answer "wow, please calm yourself, X is a slur" with as much legitimacy as them). 84.64.130.74 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Bon. There is a rational answer, though I am not certain you will approve it.First of all, I never suggested, nor do I believe that word usage discredits the users arguments. The argument is not a priori. "Flat-earther" is a common term of disparagement. Likewise "communist" and "climate denier". People are usually taken to be more than one attribute. Who is X? "X is a communist", so, no need to consider X. "X is a climate denier" so, their opinions are all questionable. Or, "X is a flat-earther." This is generally used to imply a form of mental incompetence. So, in general, if a term is used to provide a reason for the summary rejection, a sort of "everything you need to know about that jackass, X.", then the usage has the character of a slur. Finally, I never implied that slurs shouldn't be used. Semantics shouldn't be this antagonizing.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Flat earthers don't want to violently eradicate a minority. Additionally, the term 'slur' inherently implies a power difference. Rich white women bullying a minority are not the victims here. Scribbinus (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But the definition of "flat-earther" does not contain any derogatory term in itself, just an objective and neutral description of what they do: they believe in the flat-earth theory. If you then have a bad image of them, it's not because of the name, but because of their actions and their revendications. You can call them whatever you want, you will always have a bad image of them, not because the fact that the term used is itself negative, but because of their actions and revendications. With this approach, if for some reason I don't like the Belgians or the nurses, suddenly, it implies that those terms are slurs. Then, for some reason, I would not be able to use the proper term that, objectively, corresponds really to what the person is or do without being considered as someone who insult others. What can I do then? This guy is from Belgium and its origin is 100% relevant to the discussion (for example we are talking about which laws apply to this person and some are specific to his citizenship), but if I say he is from Belgium, it means I resort to insult (which is something I don't want to do). Isn't there a problem? 84.64.130.74 (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean this to be a discussion about semantics, not whether slurs are appropriate in any context. "Belgian" is not just a name given to people by people who are not them selves Belgians. If you say you are a Belgian, for example, then you will call yourself a Belgian, and I, who am not a Belgian, will agree, yes, you certainly (for all I know) are a Belgian. At this point the term "common sense" comes to the front. The term, common sense, has the common meaning equivalent to the right understanding of something. e.g., "X is the right way to think about Y, and everyone around here thinks so." Semantically, however, common sense is our common or shared understanding about something and, in particular cases, may not be coherent with other common sense understandings. Consider a standard definition of "slur": "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation." This is what Google, that friendly search engine, will come up with. The simple fact that TERFs say "TERF" is a slur, makes "TERF" a slur with respect to any reference to those particular TERFS. After all, it's not the name they call themselves. I don't object to your use of it. I think you should feel free to do so. I don't use the word "orientals" for Asian people because some people object to the usage. In my opinion, there is nothing about the term "oriental" that suggests anything untoward about Asians. In Spanish, the word for address is "direccion," with the obvious English cognate. One could make the symmetrical complaint about the term "westerner." So far, nobody has done so.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, the problem is symmetric. TERFs say "people who uses TERF uses it as a slur". Who, amongst people using the term TERF are agreeing that they are impolite insulting persons? So, by your own logic, saying "TERF is a slur" is itself a slur, because it will imply that the person using the term TERF are impolite and nobody want to call themselves impolite. The problem here is that only one "side" is agreeing, it's not "common sense", it's "just the sense of the group that profit from this particular sense". With "oriental", it is easy: people who feel insulted just explain why, and a majority of the people agree that it is fair enough, and uses the alternative term that the people who feel insulted proposes. But for TERF, the main argument is that "everyone who does not agree with us is an insulting meany", and it feels just like a bad ad hominem (and they don't propose any alternative that corresponds properly to the community in question). Again, this is pretty problematic and leads to fallacy: it just means that I can decide that every term that you use to refer to my community is a slur, and kill any possibility to critic problems in my community. You notice that it's not the case with "oriental", as they are very happy to be called with an alternative that still correspond to the same initial definition (they just don't like a term that has acquired a bad connotation because of the people using it, not because of the actions of the people designed by it, but they are ok with the objective definition) 84.64.130.74 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No dear. Just no.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you're either sea-lioning or a straight up TERF who's wasting time debating a settled question in order to promote your disgusting beliefs. "The simple fact that TERFs say "TERF" is a slur, makes "TERF" a slur" - Nonsense. Racists say that racist is a slur. They, like TERFs, are wrong. For something to be a slur, it has to be a word that a powerful group use against a minority. The majority of people who get called TERFs are rich white middle class straight women who are using their power to hurt a minority group. It's not a slur just because it hurts your feelings, and your choice to be cruel to minorities does not make you the injured party if they justifiably lash back. As the great Tassia Agatowski, who I quoted on this page said "Punching someone and breaking your hand doesn’t make you the victim."Scribbinus (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scribbinus Real racists are not afraid to admit they are racists, unless they are under cover for some reason. You don't have to use the definitions other people use. X is a slur if you don't call yourself X and you don't like it. You can slur anyone you like. Do you think that makes you wrong? Is that your problem? Because it doesn't make you wrong. Rude maybe. You must know that ship has sailed.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arial31459 ‘Real racists’ like most bigots, use all sorts of euphemisms for themselves. Proud boy, nationalist, race realist, just sensible. Your misunderstanding of the term slur really isn’t my problem - it is a term that specifically refers to words that have an inherent power imbalance. And I’m sorry, but if you think calling me rude is any sort of point then you are sadly mistaken. I see zero reason to be polite to racists, Nazis, white supremacists or TERFs, and your bull about ‘so called transphobic people’ and ‘they’re just women with concerns’ has pretty definitively outed you as the latter. I don’t know why you decided to waste everyone’s time with this nonsense. The only people who think TERF is a slur are TERFs. So again, congrats on outing yourself. Scribbinus (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

in fact guys, how do we mark something as don’t feed the troll? Because this is pure trolling. Scribbinus (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ariel31459 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"No u" is some seriously childish thinking from someone who's trying to make an argument out of pure pedantry and hypothetical constructions. In the real world, TERFs refers to a real highly bigotted movement who seeks to active repression of a minority group, often with lethal results, and the acronym "TERF" almost perfectly describes them. It's akin to saying "klansmen is a slur" because decent people understand that Klansmen are terrible people. There's no framing of this where it's a justifiable argument to have, much less a seriously justified one. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation. There is the political point, which I admit is unavoidable, and there is the academic, or semantic point, which has evidently been deemed unimportant. I submit to the politics, and don't want to be the problem here by pressing for the coherence of the presentation. On the other hand when a supercilious comment gaslights me I will take a small exception. Calling a klansman a klansman is not a slur because that is what a klansman would call himself. You can willfully ignore common usage for political purposes. It doesn't look smart. But politics seldom does. I am satisfied to leave it at that.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe this one will get through your head. "Calling me a murderer is a slur, I just disagree with that man's life continuing". The only part that's unreasonable or wrong is "feminist" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term. It doesn't matter whether the nominee likes being called a murderer. The papers will refer to an alleged murderer. Once convicted they are a murderer. If you call someone a murderer just because you think they might be one, be prepared for a lawsuit. I never said the term was unreasonable or wrong. Only that it is taken as an insult. I guess this is a fact because the article states it as such. TERF has no special status as a technical term. It is a neologism, a political acronym. There is no question that "slur" has been defined in a way that suggests the interpretation I have given is correct. it doesn't matter to me if you don't want to change the text. Indeed, it hardly matters if those people are or are not offended. It is difficult to know when good style is not called for in some of these articles. It is enough for me to have pointed out the error. which, as you have established, is now also your own. On a positive note, Spring feels very near. I hope it is getting warmer where you are.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, we've reached the "finding a single tree to beat your head against so you can't notice the forest" stage of dealing with fucking ariel. By all means, please ignore the applicable relevant parts of the analogy to hyperfocus on some irrelevant technical detail. I could have said "killer" and nothing would change about the core of my argument, whereas your entire reprisal about legalism becomes meaningless garbage. Stop trying to thread a semantic needle. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not so fast. There are no "applicable relevant parts of the analogy." "Killer" has a clear and well defined meaning when used in the context of a murder. "TERF" does not. It is not only a person who does not agree with the fundamental assertion of the protagonists: they can be Nazis willing to murder trans folk, or in some undefined way cause a genocide of sorts. It's a tough term. Stop with the gaslighting.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Santa and Satan, all I want for Christmas is for people on the internet to stop mis-using the term 'gaslighting'. For the 10 billionth time to all of you who wilfully mis-use it - gaslighting is not someone disagreeing with you on the internet, or saying something you consider incorrect. Gaslighting is a form of prolonged psychological abuse where a person manipulates you into doubting your own sanity. Jesus wept, you'd think someone who wasted several hours pretending not to be a TERF would be familiar with the meaning of a very specific term. Scribbinus (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You remind me of a stranger who once called me a "Jew" on a public street in my home town. I was not inclined to satisfy his attention with any sort of definitive acknowledgement either.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comparison is infantile and absurd. Being Jewish is an inoffensive racial and religious identity. Choosing to be a TERF is a political choice to be a bigot. Comparing the two terms is offensive in and of itself, and demonstrates exactly why TERF is not a slur. Insulting someone on the basis of their racial identity, and correctly labelling a bigot are not remotely the same. It’s the difference between using a racial slur and correctly labelling someone a racist. Scribbinus (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel, if you want to contribute to the debate, the first thing to do is to understand why some people have a problem with the subject. Me (the previous IP) and others here have repeated several times: a main problem is that "TERF is a slur" is a strategy to discredit every critical discussion on a community by painting anyone who dares discussing as being insulting. The fact that yourself don't consider that being insulting is bad does not matter, this argument would be valid only if 100% of the world (including, by the way, TERFs) would agree that it brings no discredit at all. This is objectively not the case, the clear majority of people complaining that "TERF is a slur" does it with the message that it means that the people using this term should be criticized for doing so, which is the key element of the discreditation. The discussions about "legal term" or "they don't call themselves like that" miss totally that, even if they would have good points (I'm personally not convinced, these look ad-hoc excuses built during the discussion to justify that "it's just not the same". I have few objections to each of them. For example, terms that are "legal" are still considered as slur in other context, or some black communities call their own members by term that are still slur when used by people from outside the community). Please, if you want to continue to discuss, please, address this. For example, what is the "non slur" term that properly identifies the community that we talk about (the TERFs) and that this community WILL NEVER say "this is a slur" once this term will be associated with their actions and revendications and therefore being seen as "not good". 90.246.192.164 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for clearly stating your arguments. I don't want to refute them. My discussions have been meant to show how a term can be taken as a slur. Different terms have different connotations. I was not pointing out differences just to declare their existence, which I admit is a specious form of argument. In my first attempt, I pointed out that characterizing a person by one thing about them, can be problematic. For example, one could say, "hey, he is a Jew!" Now that's not a slur, but is clearly uncalled for and might call down violence, and functions as a slur in certain neighborhoods. I, myself, have a larger than average nose, and in earlier days have been called "Jew" in public. What to make of it? I think it is an ambiguous case.

Let me answer your central question. That is, what to call Terfs, if not "terfs?" Well I never meant to drive home the idea that they should not be called terfs. What I did mean to say is that it is disingenuous to declare Terfs to have no right to be insulted by the term, because "that is what they are." People of every sort are entitled to take offence by the manner in which they are addressed.

I do want to apologize for at least giving the impression that I thought I was addressing a semantic question. I thought I was in fact doing so. It seemed to me from the common definition of "slur" and the extreme connotations of "Terf" (nazi and genocide come immediately to mind), that it could indeed be taken as an insult. I proceeded as if this were enough to settle the account. It clearly is not. What I should have done was consult what authorities in academics have had to say about the term. Which I subsequently did. The answer surprised me. The question is a subject of dispute even among academics. This fact alone should satisfy all who have commented here that the case is not open and shut, and worthy of some discussion, if only from an academic point of view. I am not calling for the article to be changed as the article is clearly meant to make a political statement. I never intended to do so. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel, you say "to declare Terfs to have no right to be insulted by the term". Where this is even done? Again, this is the problem with this discussion: when they say "TERF is a slur", they don't just say "I feel insulted" (which is fine), they also say "and you who are using this term, you should be discredited for being meanies". They have the right to feel insulted, but when they are behaving disingeniously when they use their offense to discredit other people and dismiss every discussion with this strategy, they expose themselves to criticisms. And, no, disagreeing with a discourse is not forcing people to lose some rights (I also have the right to not feel insulted by the term TERF, and your shortcut would imply that if you do agree with "TERF is not a slur", then you pretend that I have no right to do so. I know it's not what you do, but it's what your shortcut implies, and that's why your shortcut is a bad, unconvincing argument).

I don't see your point about the article you provided: yes, the debate in the civil society also occurs in the academic level, it is absolutely no surprise. But the existence of this debate in an academic environment does not prove that some of the people bringing this debate are not perfect morons letting their non-academically-neutral ideology bias the discussion (in the two sides, by the way). We can notice that the people complaining proposed to use "gender critical" instead of "trans-exclusionary", which does not inspire trust on their academic-neutraly, because (even if we let beside the obvious spin due to the loaded language) it implies that according to them the only good way to be analytical on gender is by agreeing that trans should be excluded (there are plenty of novel theories on gender that challenge the notion of gender, either their proposed usage means that those theories are irrelevant or that their proposed term is not talking about the TERFs but about any gender critical person). We can also notice that the academic paper in itself was not using the term in an insulting way, neither concerning the context or the intentions, which illustrates that "TERF is a slur" is both itself insulting for people who uses the term normally and deteriorates the neutral discussions. 90.246.192.164 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Slur and insult are distinct terms. TERF was coined as a value neutral term by a radical feminist. Slur implies that using it makes the person as bad as the TERF - who again, I’d like to remind everyone, are a group in favour of conversion therapy, forcible sterilisation and segregation. It is an attempt to limit discourse among an oppressed minority by forcing them to use the terms of their oppressors to engage. It is nothing more than a reframing exercise, attempting to villainise trans people and restrict their speech. See the comparison above between ‘Jew’ and ‘Terf’. The implication is that using the term, I.e. correctly labelling a bigot in the same way you would a racist or homophobe, is *just as bad* as using a racial slur. Which is absurd, is a very old technique that bigots have been using for time immemorial, and pretty much immediately proves that TERF is no more a ‘slur’ than racist, homophobe or transphobe. Bigots call it a slur because they don’t want their bigotry called out. That’s literally all there is to it, and I propose we stop wasting time on this nonsense, and even delete this section. It’s nothing more than overtly trans hostile sealioning and Jaqing off. Ariel is not interested in learning, she just wants to waste everyone’s time.

“Sealioning involves jumping into a conversation with endless polite, reasonable questions and demands for answers, usually of entry-level topics far below the actual conversation (e.g. "please prove sexism exists"). This tactic differs little from harassment; instead of discussion, the point is to derail discussion, receive criticism (for their ignorance) so as to look like a victim, or to make someone feel overwhelmed and quit talking.” Scribbinus (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to give you the last word, you obnoxious little shit. I apologized for getting involved in your little political pissing match. You just kept arguing nonsense. Kindly fuck off.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling

I've reverted the Centrist / left wing note, because JK Rowling is completely centrist. Left wing people don't fight against Scottish independence. They don't support red-Tory neo-liberalist Tony Blair. They don't call centre left party leaders of a "solipsistic personality cult". She literally tried to launch a centrist political party - https://www.thenational.scot/news/17422702.rowling-in-talks-with-former-blair-adviser-on-new-centrist-party/.

Her politics as a whole - wealthy middle class centrist women who borrow glamour from the left whenever it's politically expedient, (aka 'champagne socialists') - are pretty much textbook TERF.

I do recognise that many left wing people are transphobic, but being transphobic does not in itself make a person left wing, and Rowling is simply not.

Rowling is a centrist through and through. But there are leftists opposed to Scottish Independence, as you'd expect from the links of anti-nationalist internationalism with the left. The Communist Party of Great Britain wants a federal Britain. And a lot of leftists dislike the centrist SNP, for obvious reasons.

But another correction to the article: Jonathan Ross is not and never has been a comedian. He's a TV presenter. --Annanoon (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, but I stand by the rest of my comments. I've changed Ross' description to 'comedic TV presenter' - you're correct that it is far more accurate Scribbinus (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scribbinus Complete centrist? This seems to be a case of contradicting definitions. When I say left-wing, I mean the whole spectrum of the Left which includes the more moderate center-left. I don't mean she's a leftist. It seems when you say left-wing, you mean leftists only. Which is fair enough. I admit the term 'left-wing' is too vague (varying definitions, how left?), it was not the best choice of wording on my part. There's more nuance to this. Why add specifically that her politics are more moderate? Do we comb through the politics of every TERF and go Leftist TERF, Socialist TERF, Communist TERF on this article? We can't pretend that TERFs aren't part of the Left. I feel like this is distancing the Left from transphobia. We can't go 'no true Left' or 'no true socialist'. We can't point out the politics of a TERF when it's not Left enough. We don't go around saying 'Maoist TERF'. Saying that JK is a centrist ignores that her politics do lean left. So how about we cut the difference and say 'centre-left' for accuracy. --ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 03:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@ClickerClock Maybe? But I do want to explain myself. I’m not just trying to pull the ‘no true Left’. I genuinely don’t consider her left wing, and thought it was an important distinction to make, probably because I’m a massive nerd. I know, sadly, that TERFs are a part of the left. Put it this way - personally I think Julie Bindel is in many ways a moral monster. She’s transphobic, biphobic, extremely nasty. But her voting record puts her at left wing and her fight for abused and trafficked women does make her a feminist. For contrast, consider Posie Parker - a SAHM supported by her husband who thinks trans people should be sterilised and that LGBT education is wrong. She’s gleefully collaborated with anti abortion groups and literal neo-Nazis. She’s also never campaigned for any actual women’s rights. I’d consider her, in contrast to Bindel, a right wing transphobe with zero claim to feminist or leftist credentials. Whereas Rowling, to me, fits very neatly into the Blair supportive, well off, middle aged, middle class bracket of people who like the NHS but that’s really about as ‘leftist’ as they get. Scribbinus (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Deep Green Resistance's RadFem FAQ

I was checking DGR's FAQ on radical feminism and i found some really interesting points. They seem to reject the idea of gender binary and gender itself (going as far as comparing women's clothing with the yellow stars the nazis-of course-made the jews wear during the Holocaust) and claim that it's the genderists (from patriarchal society to third wave feminists) the ones that hold a essentialist point of view, but keep their grip on transphobia. They even do the old trick of referring to extreme cases of violence in order to shut any criticism down: in one part, they talk about how there's some villages on India were women get their kidneys sold by their husbands. Horrific, but they use it to discredit gender fluidity by saying that 'there's nothing fluid about getting your kidney stolen'. The weirdest part is how the seem to recognize intersectionality, social constructionism, and other similar views, but only in a superficial manner so it doesn't defy their bigoted and outdated ideas. I also think that DGR should be added to the organisations section, as they have a long history of transphobia, and their FAQ is a proof of how much of a clusterfuck TERFism is.

https://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/faqs/radical-feminism-faqs Jogg66 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

"We have been called transphobic because the women of DGR do not want men—people born male and socialized into masculinity—in women-only spaces. DGR stands with women in that decision." Oh gosh. Way to reduce this into being unreasonably exclusionary. It doesn't help I just had a short discussion with trans people earlier about this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario

Also notice all the comparisons they use to race and class issues, they know their critics are mainly left-leaning, so they try to show that they are 'on our side'. The other interesting thing is the design of the background of their page. Ted Kaczynski would love it. Jogg66 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... what do the kids call that these days? .... virtue signaling? Getting perspective and support of minority trans people is highly valuable and they actually acknowledge this, just in a superficial fashion. "Many women of color and poor/working class women made sure that race and class issues were grappled with in a way that previously had not been addressed across the Left." Yeah, what better than to be inclusive for that demographic? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This actually gets into a point that the trans-feminist Julia Serano made about what she calls gender artefactualism. We have a tendency to see TERF's as invalid feminists not only for the outright bigotry they express towards trans-people but there seemingly bio-essentialist views on gender. However, within the history of feminism itself a lot of highly influential TERF works had forward the idea of gender as being a social construct and entirely the result of socialization. This idea of gender being entirely reducible to cultural artifacts and socialization is what Serano calls "Gender Artefactualism". We often treat this artefactualism as if its the total non-problematic polar opposite of bio-essentialism but according to Serano it goes too far into the other direction and is used just as much to invalidate trans, non-binary. and intersex people.

A famous example of how this can be problematic is with the doctor John Money and his theory of gender as being entirely the result of socialization. This was used as justification to impose sex reassignment surgeries on intersex children under the assumption they will accept what ever gender they are socialized with, this follows if you think gender has no internal basis and is entirely socialized.

Understanding this history its not entirely that weird that you would find TERF's who forward social constructionist views of gender and yet still maintain transphobic ideas. I think this is why you also seem some TERF's forwarding gender abolitionist views. Though don't take away from this that bio-essentialist or gender essentialist views on gender are more defensible positions, because obviously those stances are incredibly problematic too.

Fixed gender perspectives and gender entitlement that is non-holistic and refuses to acknowledge the sheer heterogeneity in humans in regards to gender, sex, and sexuality is the ultimate problem here. Gender is for the large part a social construct but it also multi-factorial with a variety of factors related to genetics, endocrinology, psycho-social dynamics, socialization, cultural constructs, neurology, gendered roles, gendered expectations, history, social scripts, dress, performative acts, etc. It's a mistake to treat either biological, or social factors as primary because the dynamic being played for any given individual doesn't necessarily reflect this universal norm in which things are easily understood within a nature or nurture dichotomy. It's incredibly complex, and produces incredibly complicated results. Expecting and normalizing gender diversity is only real way of combating this. - Only Sort of Dumb 02:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Only Sort of Dumb Fully agree with you. In a way, TERFism is just a byproduct of an incredibly reductionist view of highly complex issues, issues our species doesn't fully understand yet. When you check out their views, some of it sounds straight out of conspiracy theory territory, and as such, they are constructed in a manner that is hard to break down for people with no previous socio-political education or poor critical thinking skills. That's why is so hard to convince them of their mistakes, they treat their beliefs in a dogmatic way. Jogg66 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

Wondering if TERFs In the U.K. should be it’s own page? Scribbinus (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And wether there’s scope for a TERF conspiracy theory / tropes section, e.g. ‘Transing is the real conversion therapy’ / ‘Soros is after our children / ‘I met a woman who’d mysteriously had a double mastectomy on demand despite not knowing what lesbianism was’ etc Scribbinus (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as TERF tropes go, this is a decent resource, although it's far from being exhaustive. --Subito Fortissimo (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Veterofemminismo

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)

Do transphobic NON-radical feminists count as TERFS?

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. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype 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[3]. 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. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The other Wiki 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 Dollars^{her again} 19:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

LMAO I like it; TEFs triggered in 3... 2... 1... --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype 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?

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

They actively court the right wing and promote Islamophobic, transphobic, and antisemitic narratives: [4] — 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)

Quick Note

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} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Death to endless lists of examples

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, 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 Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 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, 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, 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. DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Shit terfs say

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, LeftyGreenMario! 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)

Sourcing

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)

Feminists??

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

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: 79.76.55.69 / talk / contribs}

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

a mom on trans issues

https://twitter.com/MillieCorner2/status/1506759003606503426 ^{— 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, LeftyGreenMario! 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

New edits reverted without explanation

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)

Untitled

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)

Sources

Usable maybe https://progressive.org/magazine/antisemitism-meets-transphobia-greenesmith-lorber/ Chillpilled (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A compilation of sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5vy5-A2as17Vi5Kp7xYouCMv6BaMcZ6NVZ5cyS_LX8/edit Chillpilled (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Are TWEF/TWERF interchangeable with TERF?

I've seen some trans women exclusionary feminists(TWEFs)/trans women exclusionary radical feminists(TWERFs) say they include trans men in their feminism,<.ref>I am not a terf. (2020, December 18). Radicallyaligned. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://archive.ph/HdlHN</ref> so are these terms really interchangeable with TERF? Light hearted sam (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be subtypes, so my answer would be no. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

They consider trans men to be women, so it's just a euphemism for TERF. Plutocow (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

TMERF/NBERF

there is "Trans masculine exclusionary feminist"(TMERFs)<.ref>TMERF(TransMasculine Exclusionary Radical Feminists) coining. (2022, July 6). Tucuteboything. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://archive.ph/KjUOD</ref> and "Non-Binary exclusionary radical feminists"(NBERFs/NERFs),<.ref>What is a Non-Binary Exclusionary Radical Feminist(NBERF/NERF)? (2022, September 16). Light-Hearted-Sam. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://archive.ph/sH8wJ</ref> should we add those to the article or should we make articles for them too? Light hearted sam (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to make a new thread for this. But back to your question, I've never seen these kinds of TERFs, do you have examples of notable people holding these positions? (also, please don't use references in talk pages, you can just use regular external links, like this: [https://google.com link]) Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Magdalen Berns

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

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 International. 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)