No I can’t just ignore this and move on. I should but I can’t. A Washington Post article that purports to “explain” what “terfs” are as if no one had ever heard of them before. It’s painfully stupid.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion, many celebrities have spoken out about what they see as a loss of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.

First paragraph and already wtf? Who cares what “celebrities” have spoken out about? The protagonists here are women, not celebrities. And “what they see as” a loss of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy? As if there’s some other way to see it? As if this is just some tendentious whim of some celebrities as opposed to women’s basic need and right to decide what they want to do with their lives? Obviously overturning Roe is the loss of reproductive rights and of bodily autonomy. If you can’t say no to someone taking up residence in your abdomen and then expanding, you don’t have bodily autonomy. That remains true even though it’s how we all got here and even though many women are overjoyed when they get to do it.

Then there’s a boring summary of the Midler and Gray tweets and the shock-horror about them blah blah.

Some on social media referred to the celebrities as “TERFs,” an acronym for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” — and drew comparisons to author J.K. Rowling, who has come under criticism from trans advocates in the past. 

…

Many trans advocates and allies saw in Midler and Gray’s comments the kind of talking points typically associated with anti-trans feminists, who are also known as “gender critical” feminists.

But we’re not “anti-trans” feminists. That’s one of the more subtle lies about us: it implies that we’re anti trans people, when what we reject is the ideology and especially the authoritarian imposition of the ideology on all of us.

These anti-trans feminists have recently found common ground — and increasing visibility and power — with conservative evangelical Christians, a group that has been largely credited with mobilizing, politically and socially, to curtail abortion and other reproductive rights.

And that’s where the Post veers into outright lying. No we fucking haven’t. Some gender critical feminists have, but not many. Conservative evangelical Christians are anti-feminist, so the pairing would be pretty uncomfortable, before we even get to everything else wrong about conservative evangelical Christians.

Midler and Gray’s remarks are also coming at a significant time for both trans people and cisgender women, experts note: Both groups are widely seen as the most invested in — and vulnerable to — a recent rollback of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.

We’re not cisgender women. Don’t call us that. And widely seen as or not, trans people as such are not vulnerable to the rollback; they’re vulnerable to it only if they’re women. It’s the women bit, not the trans bit. The overturn of Roe is a crime against women, not a crime against trans people. It has nothing to do with being trans.

Given the political moment, it’s no wonder the two celebrities touched off a conversation about transphobic language, defining womanhood and more. We asked advocates and experts to contextualize what’s at play.

Nonsense. This particular moment is no more a wonder-free moment to babble about trans issues than any other moment. Also it’s in play, not at play.

In the past decade, TERF has become increasingly common as a shorthand way of identifying a person who self-identifies as a feminist but is unwilling to include transgender women and girls in their advocacy — and more frequently, have actively sought to exclude trans women from women’s spaces.

What a stupid, roundabout, passive-aggressive way to put it. We’re “unwilling” to include dogs or trees or rototillers in our advocacy, too; so what? Feminist advocacy is about women, not trans people. Women who say they are trans are “included” in our advocacy, whether they like it or not, because we advocate for women. Men, trans or otherwise, are not, because they don’t need to be.

They were considered a fringe offshoot of the women’s rights movement of the 1970s and are still a relatively small group, according to Heron Greenesmith, a senior research analyst for LGBTQ justice at Political Research Associates, a left-leaning social justice research and strategy organization.

Nonsense. They weren’t considered anything of the feminism of the 70s. It wasn’t an issue.

What interests Greenesmith about this group is how it adopts feminist principles “while actually undermining bodily autonomy … one of those foundational principles of feminism,” they said.

Gotcha! Right?

No. The right to abortion is not comparable to a “right” to mutilate yourself in an attempt to resemble the other sex.

Proponents of anti-trans feminism have argued that trans women diminish the power and rights of cisgender women. Originally, “TERF” referred to a specific, radical feminist ideology, but in recent years it has become an umbrella term to describe anyone who opposes trans rights or advocacy in the name of feminism.

But how are we defining “trans rights”? Of course, like all hacks who do these pieces, she doesn’t say. How are we defining “trans advocacy”? Doesn’t say.

The fact that Midler and Gray, who both consider themselves allies of the LGBTQ community, could knowingly or unknowingly spout anti-trans rhetoric is a sign of how much that messaging has proliferated in the mainstream, experts say.

“Spout”? Letting the mask slip there, Anne Branigin.

There’s more but I’ve had enough.

H/t What a Maroon