TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's complicated honestly. Rowling has spoken about the need for female only spaces, the biological and cultural distinctiveness of "woman", the danger of predation and disrespect for this identity if anyone can just wake up one morning and declare themselves as a woman and demand access to these spaces and that everyone must now stop talking about biology and female experience through socialisation etc, some of the stuff that provides some of the glue keeping the group together.

She has somewhat of a point. It's a clash of identities. When one group from outside the traditional bounds of an identity group turns up and demands admission then some people are going to say no, there's claim and counter claim of erasure and things get spicy because people attach great value to these basic identities particularly in a world where community is in short supply.

She talks a lot of concerns but she is very light on what she thinks should be done, how she thinks this clash she perceives between the two identities should be resolved in terms of public policy. People who are annoyed at her and feel threatened tend to "read in" the worst interpretation. It's degenerated into a lot of people screaming that no THEY'RE being persecuted and noone is looking good from it.

[VVerkia]

Personally, listening to both those videos of Natalie, I have to say I think both transmedicalist and performativity explanations of trans people's gender identity have redeeming qualities, whereas the self-ID version of gender is pretty impossible to logically defend on any reasonable argument or debate, because gender plays such a big role in how we relate to one another in a society, and form intimate partnerships, relationships, and connections with each other, that it can never be a purely private or individual experience. Indeed, if gender were purely individual or private, and lacking in any interpersonal or social element with the outside world, the whole concept of gender dysphoria could not exist, neither could the concepts of 'transition' or social transition or 'passing'. As Justine rightly puts it in "The Aesthetic", gender cannot be just a "private daydream", a personal or individual fantasy, it has to be embodied or reflected in an individual's practical and everyday lived reality, otherwise it has no real normative value to it.

Maybe "Schrödinger gender-cat"
You don't know own gender, until you open box.
When you have one and only solely one point in universe, then you don't know if that point stay, or move, expand or is reduced, but when you see other points, you can calculate your position.

Eg. I identify as female, as someone who can give birth in human ways, not someone who "impregnate" etc. But in "sea-horse", "males" are these one, who impregnate and "give birth" i some way. This is somehow different from human. In other universe, in other realms it can work in different ways. I don't know how. That's way i don't recognized my "point" in relation to situation from "other" realm. But my point is my. And i find my point in human female way of beeing, but i not find it in "sea-horse". "sea-horse" way of beeing female is something that is lacking from my pov of beeing. Similar as butch lesbian way of beeing is something that is lacking from my way of beeing, and i'm not female with that label or way.

I find self-id more proper, because "other self" don't know "myself" as much as i know. Because of differences of thinking, feelings, emotions, souls, personalities etc. un-understandings between them is more than probable. Even is someone have "label of authority", then that person still can not understand someone. Errors can be made in all stages of trying understand or know someone. How someone interpret other, depend of many factors and there is still X% of uncertainty. Even biological, science way of doing something isn't completely independent from errors, bad will, and also depend on interpretations, based on education, knowledge - and still there is possibility, that it can answer to some question in science way, but due to all of factors, result is different from expectation. That's why from my pov, knowledge about ownself etc. is better in hand of person who know themself, and others can't force own pov. Only can try be point of reference and advice. Honest point, and honest advice.

[Purgatio]

It's complicated honestly. Rowling has spoken about the need for female only spaces, the biological and cultural distinctiveness of "woman", the danger of predation and disrespect for this identity if anyone can just wake up one morning and declare themselves as a woman and demand access to these spaces and that everyone must now stop talking about biology and female experience through socialisation etc, some of the stuff that provides some of the glue keeping the group together.

She has somewhat of a point. It's a clash of identities. When one group from outside the traditional bounds of an identity group turns up and demands admission then some people are going to say no, there's claim and counter claim of erasure and things get spicy because people attach great value to these basic identities particularly in a world where community is in short supply.

She talks a lot of concerns but she is very light on what she thinks should be done, how she thinks this clash she perceives between the two identities should be resolved in terms of public policy. People who are annoyed at her and feel threatened tend to "read in" the worst interpretation. It's degenerated into a lot of people screaming that no THEY'RE being persecuted and noone is looking good from it.

The thing is Rowling didn't even say that women-only spaces should remain strictly sex-segregated, contrary to what some have claimed. Her article was specifically attacking the concept of self-identification or self-ID, which is a reform proposal that some of the more radical trans activists have pushed for, vis-a-vis the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Nothing in Rowling's article attacked the concept of trans women entering women's bathrooms, or the idea that women's spaces should be reserved solely for people of the female sex. Instead, she argued that self-ID specifically would put "natal women and girls at risk", because of the lack of administrative and medical gatekeeping and regulation involved. That's not an inherently transphobic point of view (in fact, she specifically and explicitly acknowledged that trans women are also at risk of suffering VAW in general society). You can think its wrong or incorrect, but its not transphobic because it doesn't oppose the concept of trans women, who are biologically male, entering women-only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms.

Moreover, her main argument, which is indisputably correct, is that biological sex and gender identity both exist, and are distinct and separate concepts. Trans women are women, but that doesn't erase the concept of biological sex, or the fact that biological females or natal women suffer from specific forms of oppression and discrimination which shapes their specific experiences, on the basis of sex and sexism. What's wrong with that? I genuinely can't understand what's transphobic about that, or what about that tweet invalidates or delegitimises transgender identities. She didn't say trans women are not women, or trans men are not men, nor did she attack the concept of gender identity, nor did she propose misgendering trans people. All she said was that biological sex exists and should not be erased. That women should be referred to as "women" rather than "people who menstruate". That the use of "women" in the context of biological sex should not be erased or thrown out the window just because trans women don't menstruate.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I've read Rowling's tweets over and over again, I've read her article over and over again - I genuinely can't see the transphobia. I've tried to find it, but I just don't see it. At all.

[Purgatio]

Personally, listening to both those videos of Natalie, I have to say I think both transmedicalist and performativity explanations of trans people's gender identity have redeeming qualities, whereas the self-ID version of gender is pretty impossible to logically defend on any reasonable argument or debate, because gender plays such a big role in how we relate to one another in a society, and form intimate partnerships, relationships, and connections with each other, that it can never be a purely private or individual experience. Indeed, if gender were purely individual or private, and lacking in any interpersonal or social element with the outside world, the whole concept of gender dysphoria could not exist, neither could the concepts of 'transition' or social transition or 'passing'. As Justine rightly puts it in "The Aesthetic", gender cannot be just a "private daydream", a personal or individual fantasy, it has to be embodied or reflected in an individual's practical and everyday lived reality, otherwise it has no real normative value to it.

Maybe "Schrödinger gender-cat"
You don't know own gender, until you open box.
When you have one and only solely one point in universe, then you don't know if that point stay, or move, expand or is reduced, but when you see other points, you can calculate your position.

Eg. I identify as female, as someone who can give birth in human ways, not someone who "impregnate" etc. But in "sea-horse", "males" are these one, who impregnate and "give birth" i some way. This is somehow different from human. In other universe, in other realms it can work in different ways. I don't know how. That's way i don't recognized my "point" in relation to situation from "other" realm. But my point is my. And i find my point in human female way of beeing, but i not find it in "sea-horse". "sea-horse" way of beeing female is something that is lacking from my pov of beeing. Similar as butch lesbian way of beeing is something that is lacking from my way of beeing, and i'm not female with that label or way.

I find self-id more proper, because "other self" don't know "myself" as much as i know. Because of differences of thinking, feelings, emotions, souls, personalities etc. un-understandings between them is more than probable. Even is someone have "label of authority", then that person still can not understand someone. Errors can be made in all stages of trying understand or know someone. How someone interpret other, depend of many factors and there is still X% of uncertainty. Even biological, science way of doing something isn't completely independent from errors, bad will, and also depend on interpretations, based on education, knowledge - and still there is possibility, that it can answer to some question in science way, but due to all of factors, result is different from expectation. That's why from my pov, knowledge about ownself etc. is better in hand of person who know themself, and others can't force own pov. Only can try be point of reference and advice. Honest point, and honest advice.

The fact that other people don't know or can't see your internal thoughts, emotions, and feelings, is not a good reason to support a self-ID view of gender identity, because it still doesn't address the social, communal, or interpersonal aspect of gender. Gender isn't a purely-individual matter, it profoundly affects the way one relates to others, and the way others interact with you. Whether its within the context of the family, or intimate partnerships, or relationships, or social groups, or gender-segregated spaces, whatever it is, gender is part of how you relate to others. Gender dysphoria exists precisely because of that - because its not enough for a trans person to internally-identify as a particular gender, if they are being constantly misgendered by the outside world, and treated as the opposite gender in their everyday life. If gender were really just personal and individual, social transition would be unnecessary, 'passing' as your gender would be unnecessary, it wouldn't matter, you could just internally identify as your gender, and whatever other people thought and said or believed about your gender would be irrelevant to your internal psychological identity.

Of course, that's ridiculous. No one really believes that gender can exist as a private ideal, divorced from one's interpersonal interactions with other people. Banning a trans women from transitioning into womanhood, for instance, robs her of her womanhood in a very tangible, practical, everyday sense, even if it doesn't take away her psychological reality, it takes away her lived reality, it erases her womanhood in her every day life. That necessarily implies a social element to 'gender' as well. That gender isn't purely internal or personal in its character. Conceptually, then, we need an explanation for transgender identities that doesn't rest purely on internal, individual identification alone. We need a coherent explanation that is better than the self-ID explanation.

Both transmedicalism and performativity offer competing and contradictory explanations for transgender identity, but neither of those theories suffer from the crucial flaw of the self-ID view (i.e., the failure to account for the communal, societal, interpersonal aspect of gender). Transmedicalism says that gender roles arise out of human biology, sexual dimorphism, cross-sex brain anatomy, hormonal differences, physiological or appearance/presentation differences, that transgender identities are innate and neurological and arise from the moment of one's birth, and 'transitioning' involves medically and hormonally assimilating and adopting the recognised physiological characteristics of a particular gender. Performativity says that gender is not biological at all, but socially-constructed, its a cultural language of gestures and signifiers that a trans person adopts through the process of 'transition', to fully and tangibly embody manhood or womanhood in everyday society, so that others in their interactions with a trans man or trans woman will recognise said trans person's gender identity and treat them as such.

I think both transmedicalism and performativity have their benefits and weak points, they are necessarily incompatible with one another, but both at least attempt to proffer some explanation or justification for transgender identities which, unlike the self-ID view, don't suffer from the logical obstacle that gender has an interpersonal and social element to it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

With Rowling a lot of people assume she's dogwhistling because of the not saids. If someone talks in generalities and "I'm only saying" but then never develops it into a coherent point of what they actually want then people tend to assume that what they want is something that's within the realm of the "unsayable" rather than them being someone who genuinely doesn't want to change anything. This mindset can definitely lead to some false alarms but then taking things at face value isn't flawless either. Do trans people have a particular tendency to alarmism - possibly.

[Purgatio]

With Rowling a lot of people assume she's dogwhistling because of the not saids. If someone talks in generalities and "I'm only saying" but then never develops it into a coherent point of what they actually want then people tend to assume that what they want is something that's within the realm of the "unsayable" rather than them being someone who genuinely doesn't want to change anything. This mindset can definitely lead to some false alarms but then taking things at face value isn't flawless either. Do trans people have a particular tendency to alarmism - possibly.

It doesn't justify the fact that some people will take a point or argument that Rowling made, which is fairly measured and nuanced, and twist it into a hyperbolic, strawman version of what she actually said. The women-only spaces part of her article is just one example of that. Rowling will make a more moderate argument against self-ID, will make clear that she still supports allowing trans women into women-only spaces under the current system, she just opposes GRA reform into a system of self-identification. YouTubers like Sarah Z or Jessie Gender and many people on Twitter will then put out videos or publish tweets suggesting that Rowling wants to exclude trans women from women-only spaces or force them into men-only spaces based on their biological sex. It puts a halt to any reasonable debate or argument. Its impossible for Rowling to make a nuanced or measured argument without it becoming blown out of proportion into something she didn't say.

She'll say that biological sex is real and natal women suffer sexism on the basis of their biological sex, and then people on Twitter will accuse her of invalidating transgender identities and promoting biological essentialism or being a TERF who opposes the very concept of gender identity altogether. Its surreal to me the gigantic disconnect between what people say Rowling said, and what Rowling actually said.

[VVerkia]

Both transmedicalism and performativity offer competing and contradictory explanations for transgender identity, but neither of those theories suffer from the crucial flaw of the self-ID view (i.e., the failure to account for the communal, societal, interpersonal aspect of gender). Transmedicalism says that gender roles arise out of human biology, sexual dimorphism, cross-sex brain anatomy, hormonal differences, physiological or appearance/presentation differences, that transgender identities are innate and neurological and arise from the moment of one's birth, and 'transitioning' involves medically and hormonally assimilating and adopting the recognised physiological characteristics of a particular gender. Performativity says that gender is not biological at all, but socially-constructed, its a cultural language of gestures and signifiers that a trans person adopts through the process of 'transition', to fully and tangibly embody manhood or womanhood in everyday society, so that others in their interactions with a trans man or trans woman will recognise said trans person's gender identity and treat them as such.

Personally, i don't understand socially constructed view. I don't adopt these things. From my pov, soc-con can be more connected with gender roles, gender behaviour etc. that can varied depending on culture and personality. Depending only on "biological" is easy way to something like racist - we don't see biological evidences, so you're not men/women/etc., not people of that color etc. way of behaviour to transpeoples.

And i also distinguish "self-id" and "self-claiming". Someone can identify as female/male/etc,, but don't say, don't claim, don't inform anyone, living in suffering and not being recognized as someone of own gender identity sex. Someone can claim, that identify as female/male/etc. but in the end that people lie or something similar and not "self-id". That can explain "attack helicopter" way of trolling. Still, i'm no one to judge, so i don't care about trolls speech.

she still supports allowing trans women into women-only spaces under the current system, (...) force them into men-only spaces based on their biological sex.

I don't feel connected in either. For "men", because obviously, i'm not men, and i don't feel in place like this as myself. For "women", because no matter how someone support or say about accepting etc. i still feel excluded, feel being seeing as fake, feel being judged as someone who don't have rights, feel as some kind of "alien", because i "live" in that wrong kind of body. And as long i will live, i still will be feel that way. Sorry. For me my body and all that world is one big prison.

Also that kind of "allowing someone" feel especially as something, that i have no right, so it also add to that feeling of "i don't have rights".

[Mirjt]

J.K. Rowling is just a generic TERF, like many others. However, no one's childhood has been ruined, after an author or creator releases their work, that work now belongs to the world, authorial intent means nothing. The authorial canon is one version of the work and the author/creator has the right to the credit of that work and to the expansion or changing of that authorial canon version, but the work belongs to the fans and they make interpret the work, mix the work, reinterpret the work, modify the work, build off the work, etc... in any way they want. Who cares what J.K. Rowling has to say about it.

Also the issue of TERFs was also brought up in the gender article from Current Affairs I linked to a few posts back. Here it is again. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/06/ ... -of-gender

P.S. The original Harry Potter stories are not even that good, the world is fascinating, and some characters (mainly Hermione, Luna, Dumbledore, Snape, and Hagrid for me) may be awesome, but I think the story over all was poorly written.

P.S. TERFs, SWERFs, and carceral feminists are not leftists, are not allies, and it is extremely questionable if they are even feminists at all.

[Autarkheia]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

[Cekoviu]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

[Proctopeo]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

I'm of the mind that they are feminists, largely because their beliefs are rooted in and derived from "core" feminist beliefs. Of course, I have the (perhaps controversial) thought that modern feminism is impossible to disentangle from its own sexism, and thus a sect of feminists hating trans women because they believe them to be men is not all too far from the orthodoxy.

[Novus America]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

Feminism is not a coherent, unified belief structure at all.

The key point is that TERFs have a different view on what it means to be a women, and thus by their definition of women, trans women are not women at all, but part of the “patriarchy”.
So they absolutely are feminists, the problem seems to be you do not want to acknowledge the toxic and sexist parts of feminism.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

They are feminists. Toxic feminists, but feminists nevertheless.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The incoherence of feminism is mostly due to the mixing together of two very different "flavours". In one the aim is to make women equal to men by removing "fake" social differences. In the other women and men are thought of as essentially different (due to biology, socialisation etc.) and equality comes through increasing the "status" of the feminine and being very critical of men and masculinity. Transphobic feminists largely come from those who lean more towards the latter. Men have some essentially bad characteristic and so those with male biology or who have been brought up as male are people they don't want. Does it make sense to call people not feminists for having ideas that come from within the feminist tradition?

By the by, trans communities aren't much better on this question of consistency. Notions of dysphoria and the traditional transsexual narrative rely on an essentially feminine/masculine self and the realisation of that fundamental truth through transition, while the pet theory of many non-binary people is that gender needs to be deconstructed. And still, apparently, we're all to be in the same community, pull together, and speak as vaguely as possible at all times so as not to invalidate someone's experience.

[VVerkia]

The incoherence of feminism is mostly due to the mixing together of two very different "flavours". In one the aim is to make women equal to men by removing "fake" social differences. In the other women and men are thought of as essentially different (due to biology, socialisation etc.) and equality comes through increasing the "status" of the feminine and being very critical of men and masculinity. Transphobic feminists largely come from those who lean more towards the latter. Men have some essentially bad characteristic and so those with male biology or who have been brought up as male are people they don't want. Does it make sense to call people not feminists for having ideas that come from within the feminist tradition?

Maybe it's "flavour of sexism". Idk.

[Cekoviu]

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

Feminism is not a coherent, unified belief structure at all.

The key point is that TERFs have a different view on what it means to be a women, and thus by their definition of women, trans women are not women at all, but part of the “patriarchy”.
So they absolutely are feminists, the problem seems to be you do not want to acknowledge the toxic and sexist parts of feminism.

Yes, the TERFs think they are feminists because their definition of women is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are.

[Proctopeo]

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

They are feminists. Toxic feminists, but feminists nevertheless.

Feminism without toxicity is hard to come by, tbh.

[Auzkhia]

I sometimes can on somethings agree with terfs, as long we don't talk about trans issues, and sex work, because every TERF I've encountered was anti Sex Work. One exchange I had, and this was offline at a student run feminist club, she said that sex work does not effect me. She was ostracized and rightfully so, as they were all pro-trans and accepted me. Though the club isn't women only, but I was out as a transfem enby and had their acceptance as a "woman-aligned" person.

But yeah, I suppose terfs are feminist, or at least they claim to be. Feminism has many schools of thought Radical Cultural Feminism is one such example, but so is Transfeminism, and so is Marxist Feminism, or Liberal Feminism, or Eco-feminism, etc. Their idea of feminism and what it means to be one and also a woman, is very different than mine. Some feminists do believe in gender essentialism, and for TERFs it's bio-essentialism, though some transgender theories are essentialist, such as "being born in the wrong body, female soul in male body"— the feminine essence theory of transsexuality. I can see why people believe in that, unlike why someone would exclude trans women from womanhood, but include trans men into womanhood.

I consider myself a feminist, but I don't need to label it beyond that, since a lot of feminist philosophies are an influence on my own worldview.

[Novus America]

Feminism is not a coherent, unified belief structure at all.

The key point is that TERFs have a different view on what it means to be a women, and thus by their definition of women, trans women are not women at all, but part of the “patriarchy”.
So they absolutely are feminists, the problem seems to be you do not want to acknowledge the toxic and sexist parts of feminism.

Yes, the TERFs think they are feminists because their definition of women is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are.

I mean this is something like the “no true communist” thing. “X is not actually Marxist because it is incorrect about Y” and stuff. Or more claiming that anyone who is racist is not Alt Right as the raising of biological aspects of a woman like child birth as a vital factor has been a Feminist shibboleth in large portions of the movement since the beginning.

Sure we think the TERFs are wrong about the definition of a women but they would say the same thing, that you or I are wrong about it.
It is not an objective universally agreed on and proved point.

Simply claiming toxic aspects of a movement are not part of the movement does not make those toxic aspects any less real, or less influential in the movement.

Feminism has had toxic aspects since the beginning.

[Auzkhia]

Yes, the TERFs think they are feminists because their definition of women is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are.

I mean this is something like the “no true communist” thing. “X is not actually Marxist because it is incorrect about Y” and stuff. Or more claiming that anyone who is racist is not Alt Right as the raising of biological aspects of a woman like child birth as a vital factor has been a Feminist shibboleth in large portions of the movement since the beginning.

Sure we think the TERFs are wrong about the definition of a women but they would say the same thing, that you or I are wrong about it.
It is not an objective universally agreed on and proved point.

Simply claiming toxic aspects of a movement are not part of the movement does not make those toxic aspects any less real, or less influential in the movement.

Feminism has had toxic aspects since the beginning.

What do you mean by toxic aspects?

I mean, there are some good critiques such as 1st wave feminists prioritizing white women over black liberation, for example.

[Novus America]

I mean this is something like the “no true communist” thing. “X is not actually Marxist because it is incorrect about Y” and stuff. Or more claiming that anyone who is racist is not Alt Right as the raising of biological aspects of a woman like child birth as a vital factor has been a Feminist shibboleth in large portions of the movement since the beginning.

Sure we think the TERFs are wrong about the definition of a women but they would say the same thing, that you or I are wrong about it.
It is not an objective universally agreed on and proved point.

Simply claiming toxic aspects of a movement are not part of the movement does not make those toxic aspects any less real, or less influential in the movement.

Feminism has had toxic aspects since the beginning.

What do you mean by toxic aspects?

I mean, there are some good critiques such as 1st wave feminists prioritizing white women over black liberation, for example.

That would be one aspect, some thinking the issues women faced should be prioritized over other civil rights concerns, along with a sense of women having superior qualities that are often biologically determined (even near religious or mystical sometimes), viewing masculinity, male qualities and even being a man as inherently worse or bad and a refusal by many to acknowledge or want to address things like males being more likely to face harsher criminal punishments and aspects of family law that prioritize women over men.
A Manichaean view of the world as women and men locked in a never ending struggle has always permeated much of the movement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nation ... eople/amp/
This sort of insanity.

Obviously not all self described Feminists ascribe to the above, but those parts of the Feminist movement cannot be denied.

[Cekoviu]

Yes, the TERFs think they are feminists because their definition of women is incorrect. That doesn't mean they are.

I mean this is something like the “no true communist” thing. “X is not actually Marxist because it is incorrect about Y” and stuff. Or more claiming that anyone who is racist is not Alt Right as the raising of biological aspects of a woman like child birth as a vital factor has been a Feminist shibboleth in large portions of the movement since the beginning.

Sure we think the TERFs are wrong about the definition of a women but they would say the same thing, that you or I are wrong about it.
It is not an objective universally agreed on and proved point.

There's literally no such thing as a universally agreed on or proven point. You will find people who object to gravity being real. You'll even find people who object to the assertion that 2+2 is equal to 4. But we take those things to essentially be axioms in debates because they are the scientific consensus; we need not concern ourselves with the opinions of those who believe in the contrary because they are so outside the bounds of reason. The emerging scientific reality is that gender identity is real (not performative), neurological, and need not be aligned with birth sex, which directly and completely contradicts TERFs' conceptions of gender (as well as certain radical anti-binary social constructionists').

An argument that might be made in response to that point could be that while TERFs might have the wrong understanding of gender, that doesn't necessarily mean their definition of women is (near-)objectively wrong. The issue here is that while the scientific or dictionary definition of "man" or "woman" varies, the applied social consensus on the definition of "man" and "woman" is dependent not on the birth genitalia of a person, but their perceived sexual characteristics (in general society, people do not X-ray everyone else or pull their pants down in order to determine their genitalia, but extrapolate based on what they can actually see).

Strictly speaking, in a linguistic sense, there is not necessarily a "correct" and "incorrect" definition for any lexeme, but there are standard and non-standard definitions (defined by what the societal consensus on the definition of a lexeme, determined by how it is used in most settings rather than what the OED says). In formal political discussion, the standard definitions for words are typically used, and I'd argue that any political theory should be based around the common understanding of a word; if that common understanding is not what you mean, then you must choose a different word. Then if we define feminism as "broad support for the liberation of women in general from patriarchy," TERFs cannot be included, as they do not support the liberation of all people who are generally considered women from patriarchy. They are free to create their own ideology supporting liberation for people born with vaginas and functional female reproductive systems if they so choose, and call it "natouterism" or whatever.

Simply claiming toxic aspects of a movement are not part of the movement does not make those toxic aspects any less real, or less influential in the movement.

Feminism has had toxic aspects since the beginning.

I've argued TERFism is not strictly feminist, not that there aren't people who call themselves feminists (and are therefore part of the "movement" but not the ideology) who subscribe to that idea.

I’ve emerged thinking about what gender we assign to each person. Now I am in the habit of calling cats “she” and dogs “he”.Even despite what tree genders are. So I was wondering other adults refer to you as the opposite gender than you really are.
Let me give you an example. There was a woman who to others point of view acted like a stereotypical male. She was always handing out with females and sucking face. While she looked female, She definitely didn’t act female .
A since you are Trasgender, have people had a hard time acting in a stereotypical male or a stereotypical female fashion ? How long did it take to learn the stereotypical male or stereotypical female role ? When did you first notice that you should transgender to the opposite role of the binary role (male t female and female to male) ?
VI am interested in what you say.

You don't have to act like a stereotype of the opposite sex to be transgender or "pass"... There are plenty of trans women who are tomboys and the other way around. The main changes one has to make are physical, and they don't have to be completely drastic. You seem to have a very simplistic understanding of the issue, tbh. Don't ask how if you don't know what.

[Cekoviu]

I live my life everyday like my parents programmed me. In other words, I have been brainwashed to see things from a male perspective And I do see it from a male point of view. Having dais that, you must know I’m asexual. I do not know or ever want to have sex with a female or male.

Okay? Is there a point?

[Purgatio]

I don't really agree that TERFs and SWERFs are not leftists, because it seems like a no true Scotsman argument to me. That is, it's defining leftism in a way that means the people with views we don't like don't count, but it's not like there have never bigoted leftists in history before or with incoherent or conflicting views. Many leftists in the past were homophobes, for example.

Then again, a lot also depends on how you are defining left or right. I tend to define left mostly in terms of economics and being for some kind of socialism or maybe social democracy at the least. Radfems sometimes have anticapitalist views or are socialists, but not always. Often it's like they don't care about any issues that aren't directly related to women because they believe that is the source of all oppression. Most leftists would say that class is, if anything, though they'd most likely say gender inequality is important too.

Whether TERFs and SWERFs are feminists then is also a spicy issue. I think it's a lot harder to argue someone is a feminist when they have views on a subset of women (or what are widely seen as women by feminists nowadays in the case of trans women) which seem to align more with what anti-feminist right-wingers want. But they have different reasons for this, making it perhaps an odd case of "horseshoe theory" (IMO a bad way of looking at politics on the whole, but now and then it seems fitting to me). I also sometimes say half-ironically that TERFs are genderist Nazbols. More accurately though they're cis-female-supremacists. They also hate cis men but are okay with trans men because they think they are poor lost and confused tomboys uwu. Then again, as I said above there is no law saying you can't believe in an ideology while also being a hypocrite. Most of us are from time to time.

TERFs are definitely not feminists. Feminism is, in my view, the belief in liberation for women from patriarchy. Not supporting liberation for a particular group of women (here, trans women) mean you are not really a feminist, merely an opportunist. I don't see why they must be disqualified from being leftists on account of their terrible views, though; leftism is a very broad category.

On the other hand, I would argue that feminists who wouldn't be considered SWERFs by your average socdem-libfem probably aren't feminists at all, as sex work is a patriarchal institution which is incredibly damaging to women, especially those who are subject to intersectional oppression (prostitution in particular disproportionately affects women of color, poor women, and in fact trans women).

Gender-Critical Feminists certainly are feminists, they just have a different definition of women as an oppressed class in society, viewing women as being oppressed owing to their biological sex (FGM, forced pregnancy, forced marriages, reproductive oppression, control of biological women within the family for procreative purposes etc.), and agitating for women's liberation from that basis. You and the Gender-Critical Feminists simply have a different definition of how to delineate the outer boundaries of an oppressed class, 'women'. You define it based on gender identity, the GCFs define it based on biological sex. Its a legitimate debate as to how to define the outer boundaries of an oppressed class when you're discussing how to define a movement that's supposed to be about liberating said class of people. You're basically saying because the GCFs don't adopt your definition of said oppressed class, they can't be feminist, and I don't think that's a fair characterisation.

[Purgatio]

The incoherence of feminism is mostly due to the mixing together of two very different "flavours". In one the aim is to make women equal to men by removing "fake" social differences. In the other women and men are thought of as essentially different (due to biology, socialisation etc.) and equality comes through increasing the "status" of the feminine and being very critical of men and masculinity. Transphobic feminists largely come from those who lean more towards the latter. Men have some essentially bad characteristic and so those with male biology or who have been brought up as male are people they don't want. Does it make sense to call people not feminists for having ideas that come from within the feminist tradition?

By the by, trans communities aren't much better on this question of consistency. Notions of dysphoria and the traditional transsexual narrative rely on an essentially feminine/masculine self and the realisation of that fundamental truth through transition, while the pet theory of many non-binary people is that gender needs to be deconstructed. And still, apparently, we're all to be in the same community, pull together, and speak as vaguely as possible at all times so as not to invalidate someone's experience.

I disagree with the second characterisation. No feminists, including the Gender-Critical Feminists (or 'TERFs' as some prefer to call them), believe that men and women have biologically-essential differences that give rise to masculinity and femininity. Quite the opposite, the GCFs attribute masculinity and femininity entirely to social construction and socialisation. Instead, the biological essentialism that defines GCFs comes down to their ideology that women are oppressed for being biological female, the idea being that a female reproductive system, and its capacity for pregnancy and procreation, is what gives rise to patriarchal oppression and inequality in the first place. PIV rape within the family context to force a pregnancy on an unwilling wife. The 'glass ceiling' in the workplace arising out of employers fearing female employees will get pregnant. Lack of maternity leave or pregnancy leave protections. The so-called 'tampon tax' in the UK arising from VATs. Lack of adequate access to abortion and contraceptives.

To a GCF, the biological differences between men and women don't give rise to differing and essential behaviours or tendencies, like violence etc. Instead, to a GCF, the biological differences between men and women give rise to a specific form of oppression, reproductive oppression, that characterises the patriarchy.