From RationalWiki

This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



Archives for this talk page: <1> This page is automatically archived by Archiver Archives for this talk page:

Need some sources [ edit ]

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? [ edit ]

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)

Veterofemminismo [ edit ]

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

TERF people are their own worst enemy [ edit ]

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 )

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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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" [ edit ]

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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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 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)

A Real Radical Feminist Perspective [ edit ]



This entire wikipedia article about terfs is so blatantly misoginist, incorrect, biased, was clearly not written by women, and is just plain factually inaccurate. As with all spheres of modern information/communication at the moment, women who speak out about this issue are silenced & ridiculed. For example i was called an idiot, blocked, and labeled a vandal by someone named GrammarCommie for editing this wikipedia page. Which to my knowledge is the point of wikipedia, to edit and share information, ideally accurate information and this thread is sorely lacking in accurate information and needs addition/revision. TERF - a made up misogynist slur directed at women by men to silence women from speaking out about male violence against women, the male supremacy we live in and the subordinate status that women are forced to inhabit under men in that male supremacy. Gender is a Hierarchy not a Binary. Women are Oppressed on the basis of Sex & Biology not Feelings & Self Proclaimed Identity. Terf is the modern day equivalent of accusing a Women of being a Witch. She who is Unruly, Defiant, & Uncontrollable By Male Society, is Branded and Banished if she does not comply with Male Ideology & Rule. Modern day Queer/Trans Ideology is just the latest face & form of Male Supremacy, redefining feminism to mean centering the needs of men over women's rights, needs, feelings, and safety. Women who do not agree with Trans/Queer dogma are silenced, harassed, fired, no platformed, threatened, and subjected to emotional, verbal and physical attack. The term Terf was created to legitimize sexist anti women misogynist sentiment, speech, violence and action in liberal circles & spaces. — Unsigned, by: 196.196.200.38 / talk A), this isn't Wikipedia, check the logo and URL. First piece of stupidity. B) The fact that you had to remove the majority of the article and it's citations in order to make it fit your worldview is a major red flag that your worldview is off. Second piece of stupidity. C) Your constant invoking of the talking point "TERF is a slur" is addressed by the article, with citations, you're either too lazy or too dishonest to read it. D) Your behavior concerning this article is identical to that of other pseudoscience promoters, such as but not limited to, Manosphereians, Nazis, Communists, Creationists, and Conspiracy theorists. E) When multiple fields of scientific study come to an agreement on something, odds are it's probably (though not always) true. Oh, and D) you are overly fond of claiming that your opponents are overly emotional, and implicitly implying that you are calm and rational 100% of the time, all while throwing a tanrum. This is a fallacious argument, not to mention just plain stupid. TL;DR, I didn't call you an idiot because of your gender, or because of your cause. I called you an idiot and told you to shut up because of your behavior and your arguments, both of which are more becoming of a six year old than the adult I suspect you are. ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 20:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

why do you hate the global poor? [ edit ]

"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)





You guys really drank the Koolaid on this one [ edit ]



In your defense, so did I. I am in detransition. There are more and more of us every day, and many of us have adopted a gender critical perspective. Most of us have lost years of our lives and have severely damaged our bodies. We have earned the right to speak critically of the trans movement. This article erases us. Just as the trans movement has erased us; most of us are now considered apostates and have also been branded TERFs. RationalWiki has always impressed me with its dismissal of pseudoscience and its skepticism. It blows my mind to see you throwing your lot in with a completely anti-science, faddish, cultlike ideology, and assisting them in mocking, misrepresenting and silencing anyone who deviates from the party line. Derrick Jensen's The Primacy of Physical Reality is what I would expect from a Wiki with "rational" in its title. This features some of the most dishonest writing I've encountered here. E.g. "While the lifetime of experiences many woman have accumulated in being treated as women are doubtless important, how and why this should translate into opposition for trans rights is unclear at best" is a falsehood. It's actually super clear, when you're clear about what rights we're talking about: men who grew up with the rights and privileges afforded to males should not be taking home achievement awards, scholarships and grants for women any more than Rachel Dolezal should be running the NAACP. Distinctions between trans and cis are even more critical when it comes to physical differences; the current trend of allowing male trans athletes to compete against female cis athletes is basically going to mean the end of women's sports if it is not stopped. There's lots more but I'm not going to write a full article unless I know it won't be deleted or hidden. If you're not going to remove what's here altogether, you should at least provide an alternative, GC perspective and remove some of the deliberate mischaracterizations. You could start with the absurd comparison of GC people to white nationalists which is basically good ol' Godwin's law. — Unsigned, by: Brownpenny / talk / contribs I call bullshit. Oxyaena Harass "Derrick Jensen's The Primacy of Physical Reality is what I would expect from a Wiki with "rational" in its title."

Guys, I thought this was supposed to be a RATIONAL wiki!!!!!! Minish (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"TERFs and the far-right" section [ edit ]

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 [ edit ]

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 here for an example. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Ariel32459

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 Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Ariel32459 [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 [ edit ]

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, Lefty Green Mario ! 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) LeftyGreenMario 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 )

Quick Note [ edit ]

Ugh, edited on my phone and messed up. @Ariel - I know blank headings are bad, I started writing a section then changed my mind. For clarification, the section was supposed to be about TERFs calling trans people / activists Nazis, not the other way around. There’s been a spate of it recently. — Unsigned, by: Scribbinus / talk / contribs

Jess Phillips [ edit ]

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)

Do transphobic NON-radical feminists count as TERFS? [ edit ]

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 ) 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)

Relitigating Whether TERF is a Slur [ edit ]

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, Lefty Green Mario ! 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Ariel31459 ☭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 Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Minish Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Ariel31459 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) Ariel31459 Minish (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC) GrammarCommie 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 Ariel31459 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Arial31459 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 [ edit ]

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 ClickerClock 💾 talk.txt 03:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC) ClickerClock Scribbinus (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Deep Green Resistance's RadFem FAQ [ edit ]

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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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 [ edit ]