#but imo if you exclude any trans person you are a radfem | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

uter-us · 4 months

Note

it's funny how y'all can't define what a woman is either. i'd like to see you define what a woman is without excluding ANY cis women. "oh a woman is someone with two x chromosomes ! ☝🏿🤓" uh oh! cis women who have turner syndrome are only born with one x chromosome and cis men who have Klinefelter syndrome have an extra x chromosome! "Someone who can give birth" so we're just gonna ignore the millions of women who can't give birth and now they aren't women anymore? "no,no,no someone who has a euterus!" how about the cis women who get hysterectomies or are born without euteruses? guess they aren't women to you! and then when y'all are all out of options, you say "adult human female." re-read what i said and replace the word "woman" with "female" you're in the same predicament buddy!

(woman = adult human female)

female = the sex that produces large gametes (ova)

check out this link if you want more information on the sex binary

i think this argument is silly anyway cuz yall do know who is female and who is male. trans terminology relies on knowing who is female and who is male, or else “trans woman” could apply to both female and male people. but you know what sex applies to which person, or those terms (same with ones like mtf and ftm) wouldnt be in rotation. but somehow radfems can't know who is female and who is male? imo its j weird! and surreal that i used to say this type of thing w my whole chest too. dont attack this person cuz thats unnecessary and their lack of knowledge isnt malicious they j dont know (sorry anon if i sound condescending. im rereading that it kinda does but idk how else to phrase it without sounding like that. its not my intention). i used to think this same thing and i might not have been open to changing if people came at me for not knowing stuff.

if i defined women as "cis women, trans men, and afab nonbinary people," is it clearer who i am talking about?

anon, come out in the open and tell me your problems with gender criticism ! id love to talk!

#radfem #radical feminist safe #radblr #terfsafe #gender critical #gender abolition #not j a reblog tag

9 notes · View notes

bisquid · 2 years

Text

"Why do people not complain about people saying 'white people have been party to a lot of bad shit' but get upset when I say 'all men are evil'?"

Because 'white people are evil' has not once been used as an excuse to opress, harass, ostracize or otherwise bully white people, while 'all men are evil' has been used to do such things to - in particular - bully and ostracize trans and nonbinary people. And is used by terfs and other exclusionists to bully and harass anyone attracted to men. I'm a bi person who has on multiple occasions been told I'm 'tainted', 'straight' or 'misguided' for finding men attractive.

It's also a very very useful weapon for abusive women to wield. 'Oh no i was scared of him I was protecting myself from the scary aggressive man!' is a very compelling argument, particularly in certain circles.

The issue, of course, is that 'not all men' is a) a red flag for exactly the kind of shit that makes people think 'all men are evil' and b) not actually that helpful from a 'protecting yourself' perspective. 'all men are evil' is a harmful reduction of a complicated issue (anything about people is gonna be complicated because PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED!) that imo comes from a logical feeling but incorrect extrapolation of the concept of 'any man might be evil', which.... Isn't inaccurate.

There's a large and visible subset of the demographic largely understood to be (cis) 'men' who ARE evil! Who prey on the vulnerable and masquerade as safe and decent people well enough and long enough that it's simpler and safer for people looking to date men - mostly straight women and gay men - to assume that any potential partner might be looking to hurt them. The whole 'I'm going on a date with a new(ish) person I've got my location on if I don't text you every half an hour call the cops' trope is a trope for a reason.

But using that as an excuse to exclude trans women from 'women only spaces', calling trans men 'traitors' for transitioning, treating male abuse survivors as if they're pathetic and/or lying, and the whole laundry list of other things I've seen justified with that reasoning,,,,, isn't actually a decent or constructive thing to do.

And often shows up in conjunction with a whole host of other terf/exclusionist/radfem ideologia.

#anyway things are complicated #gender stuff? i guess?#anyway i copied this from a reblog i did on another post #because i didn't want to engage with the op anymore

2 notes · View notes

terflogs · 3 years

Note

hey, no offense but how exactly can you be a radfem but still be "trans inclusive"? doesn't that kinda.... beat the point? since 99% of radfeminism is just hating males and trans people altogether? like i don't want to sound rude but i'm just getting mixed signals since imo, no trans ally would genuinely call themselves a radfem in any way.

Since the 1970s, there has been a debate among radical feminists about transgender identities. In 1978, the Lesbian Organization of Toronto voted to become womyn-born womyn only and wrote:

A woman's voice was almost never heard as a woman's voice—it was always filtered through men's voices. So here a guy comes along saying, "I'm going to be a girl now and speak for girls." And we thought, "No you're not." A person cannot just join the oppressed by fiat.

Some radical feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, John Stoltenberg and Monique Wittig, have supported recognition of trans women as women, which they describe as trans-inclusive feminism, while others, such as Mary Daly, Janice Raymond, Robin Morgan, Germaine Greer, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, and Robert Jensen, have argued that the transgender movement perpetuates patriarchal gender norms and is incompatible with radical-feminist ideology.

Those who exclude trans women from womanhood or women's spaces refer to themselves as gender critical and are referred to by others as trans-exclusionary. Radical feminists in particular who exclude trans women are often referred to as "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" or "TERFs", an acronym to which they object, say is inaccurate (citing, for example, their inclusion of trans men as women), and argue is a slur or even hate speech.

These feminists argue that because trans women are assigned male at birth, they are accorded corresponding privileges in society, and even if they choose to present as women, the fact that they have a choice in this sets them apart from people assigned female. Gender-critical or trans-exclusionary radical feminists in particular say that the difference in behavior between men and women is the result of socialization. Lierre Keith describes femininity as "a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission", and hence, gender is not an identity but a caste position, and gender-identity politics are an obstacle to gender abolition.

Julie Bindel argued in 2008 that Iran carries out the highest number of sex-change operations in the world, because "surgery is an attempt to keep gender stereotypes intact", and that "it is precisely this idea that certain distinct behaviours are appropriate for males and females that underlies feminist criticism of the phenomenon of 'transgenderism'." According to the BBC in 2014, there are no reliable figures regarding gender-reassignment operations in Iran.

In The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (1979), the lesbian radical feminist Janice Raymond argued that "transsexuals ... reduce the female form to artefact, appropriating this body for themselves".

In The Whole Woman (1999), Germaine Greer wrote that largely male governments "recognise as women men who believe that they are women ... because [those governments] see women not as another sex but as a non-sex"; she continued that if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were a mandatory part of sex-change operations, the latter "would disappear overnight". Sheila Jeffreys argued in 1997 that "the vast majority of transsexuals still subscribe to the traditional stereotype of women" and that by transitioning they are "constructing a conservative fantasy of what women should be ... an essence of womanhood which is deeply insulting and restrictive."

In Gender Hurts (2014), she referred to sex reassignment surgery as "self-mutilation", and used pronouns that refer to biological sex. Jeffreys argued that feminists need to know "the biological sex of those who claim to be women and promote prejudicial versions of what constitutes womanhood", and that the "use by men of feminine pronouns conceals the masculine privilege bestowed upon them by virtue of having been placed in and brought up in the male sex caste".

Then you have Trans-inclusive radical feminists who claim that a biology-based or sex-essentialist ideology itself upholds patriarchal constructions of womanhood. Andrea Dworkin argued as early as 1974 that transgender people and gender identity research have the potential to radically undermine patriarchal sex essentialism:

work with transsexuals, and studies of formation of gender identity in children provide basic information which challenges the notion that there are two discrete biological sexes. That information threatens to transform the traditional biology of sex difference into the radical biology of sex similarity. That is not to say that there is one sex, but that there are many. The evidence which is germane here is simple. The words "male" and "female," "man" and "woman," are used only because as yet there are no others.

In 2015, radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon said:

Male dominant society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever. If this was going to produce liberation, we'd be free ... To me, women is a political group. I never had much occasion to say that, or work with it, until the last few years when there has been a lot of discussion about whether trans women are women ... I always thought I don't care how someone becomes a woman or a man; it does not matter to me. It is just part of their specificity, their uniqueness, like everyone else's. Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I'm concerned, is a woman.

#anti terf #gender critical #radical feminist theory #radical feminists do touch #radical feminists please interact #trans exclusionary radical feminist

6 notes · View notes