Cweepy
We have always been at war with…Singal.
Lawsuit threats *by proxy*!
And now, according to Nathan, the whispers go back a *decade* instead of, you know, right after I started writing about youth GD in 2016. I'd love to hear more about these whispers from 2012 — he should say more. pic.twitter.com/YoSOccqaxy
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) March 18, 2021
Should somebody still on Twitter contact Bari Weiss and suggest she do a gofundme type thing to raise dollars for a reward for receipts on Singal going back to 2012? My guess is we want to see his alleged bad behavior with trans, not real women because being creepy to real women is pretty much a much-loved sport among men of both the right and the left.
Even though I laugh at his troubles with trans (because he took a cheap shot at “terfs”) I would be glad to show the trans cult supporters up for the liars they are.
I guess I’m confused about the status of the term “TERF.”
What’s the prevailing sentiment here?
1) “Hell yes, I’m a TERF, and proud of it.”
2) “I don’t like the term ‘TERF,’ and prefer to call myself something else, but I hold the views attributable to so-called ‘TERFs'”
3) “TERFs exist, but I’m not one of them, though I consider their views a legitimate perspective.”
4) “TERFs exist, but I’m not one of them, and I consider their views extreme and/or disreputable.”
5) “There’s effectively no such thing as a ‘TERF’ — they’re a bogeyman invented to smear those with more reasonable views.”
6) something else?
Screechy@2:
Silence, TERF.
@Screechy Monkey;
Personally, I’d go for #5. Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists is a misnomer for radical feminists, because the underlying philosophy would instead be that they are Male-exclusionary Radical Feminists, in that they reserve feminism, woman’s safe spaces, and the category “woman” for women. The exclusion then is reasonable and sex-based, and not based on gender. Transgender-identified males then aren’t discriminated against any more than other males, which means civil rights and basic respect are intact. And transgender-identified females are, of course, included.
In other words, not TERFS, but MERFS.
I don’t think I qualify as a radical feminist — I seem to be more of a hybrid between radical and “choice” feminism — but I’m sympathetic to the philosophy and admire the coherent and reasonable explanation for female oppression. They base it in sex, and control of reproduction, which makes sense. I don’t know what kind of explanatory narrative would base it on “gender.” I refer to myself as a gender critical feminist. Not all GC feminists are radical feminists, but all radical feminists are GC.
I’ve noticed that, in places where the GC congregate, they seldom adopt the term TERF, but “terven “(adjective) and “the Terven” (noun) are used with affection.
It works a bit the way the N-word does, in that we may sometimes call ourselves or each other it, ironically but also for real at the same time, but when the dogmatists call us it it’s a fighting word.
One complication is that I think the “exclusionary” part is utterly stupid, for reasons I’ve gone into here ad infinitum et tedium – nobody is expected to be “inclusionary” of everyone and everything, and it’s psychotic to try to force women to “include” men in the category “women.”
Screechy Monkey, in the use-mention distinction, I never use “TERF” in my thinking, so I relate to your #5 or #6.
I see “TERF” as cognitive framing (like “pro choice” versus “pro life”). By design, Exclusionary is bad (supposedly), and a Feminist is a person, so a TERF is a bad person by definition. Then someone using TERF in their cognition is occupied with fighting a bad person, instead of engaging issues. Punching TERFs ensues.
I also see TERF as an abstraction, characterization or generalization (that I represent by holding my left hand at the height of my head), and I ground my position with an example (that I represent by holding my right hand lower than that).
For example (of an example), I give a monthly donation to Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) because they are run by and for women to set sexual boundaries. Vancouver defunded them because they will not employ transwomen. So someone could call my support for VRR “exclusionary” and think they scored a point in a game. But the example highlights a conflict. I support women setting sexual boundaries, versus the gender ID movement is fighting against women setting sexual boundaries.
I think with my hands another way. A person can keep maybe five things in their working memory. I let my support for VRR be my thumb on my left hand. I might let a conversation wander, and use the other fingers on my left hand too. But VRR is my thumb, and I won’t forget it.
@ Screechy, the great difficulty is that our opponents apply the term “TERF” to anyone these days, not just radical feminists. I am a radical feminist, and yet easily in the minority of who comprises those called TERFs.
I can say TERFs don’t exist. Because Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists don’t exist. Radical feminists include all female people, which includes trans men, non binary and agender female people (and intersex females). They call us exclusionary because males are not any part of our feminism, so therefore trans women are out, by dint of being male.
A number of the views ascribed to TERFs I do hold, such as not believing that TWAW, or TMAM, and that women’s rights and spaces are not meant for TW. None of the hyperbole about wanting trans people dead, or excluded from society is anything remotely like what I, or any other radfem I’ve ever met, has ever expressed, even privately.
I think Ophelia is right, in that TERF is always a slur but might be used by those it’s applied to in an ironic sense. Hence the use of “terven” by… well, TERFs. There are various threads on Twitter at the moment about there being a TERF Island to which the terven can relocate. The breaking news is that a location has been found! There’s a Scottish island for sale at a guide price of only £80k!
But we’re all using TERF ironically, joking about the ridiculous attributes and beliefs ascribed to us by those who use it unironically.
latsot, in #8, you can speak for yourself, but in your last sentence, where you speak for “all” of us, you’re wrong on these facts:
1) I never use TERF in my cognition.
2) I never write or say TERF ironically.
3) I never joke about the ideas in the word.
I’m sorry, I’m not angry at you personally, but in this moment, I am feeling years of pent up anger on this topic since 2015, when TWAW appeared, and the Stonewall glossary of terms defined lesbians as same-gender attracted. I work every day to make sense of the situation accurately. My comment #6 took me two hours to write carefully — to argue in the positive for my positions, clearly and explicitly — and you were wrong to speak for “all” of us.
Again, I’m not angry at you personally. Fortran is an excellent name for a cat. I’ll calm down now, and feel satisfied that I stated my positions carefully and clearly in my comment #6 and this comment.
2015 was a turning point for a lot of us.
Dave, you misinterpreted “we”. I wasn’t claiming to speak for everyone by using it. I wouldn’t do that.
My fault for being unclear. I meant “we” as in “the people who sometimes use ‘TERF’ ironically”.