I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
I've always seen the RF part of TERF to be optional, they always seem far more concerned about trans women than women's struggles. This is necessary of course, because if they did focus on women's struggles they would notice that trans women are a crucial part of the fight against institutional patriarchy, feminism that isn't trans inclusive is ineffective and dead in the water.
it's an interesting tension within the movement. there are the online antisocial femcels who innovate a lot of the rhetoric, tend to be more invested in their self perception as radicals, and mostly fixate on the constant trauma and suffering of existing under patriarchy, and then there are the mostly bourgeois pantsuit feminists at the NYT and BBC who just think that feminism is when a (white, cis) woman does something. the bigots contain multitudes!
Also heads up, I don't know if this has propagated much yet, but I read these freaks' tumblr blogs and a lot of them have recently adopted pseudo-marxist language of "class" to I guess seem more materialist. Like describing women and men as "classes" and saying that their aim in converting cis women (and "saving" AFAB trans people) is to spread "class consciousness." Some of them will use this rhetoric and then in the very next post describe patriarchy as a biological inevitability, so rest assured it doesn't represent any serious theoretical shift.
From your descriptions this is just another way of repackaging lib shit. Hyper online people parroting Marxist talking points without actually understanding their implications or having actually read any of the literature to understand what these words even are or refer to, and then lib economists at think tanks writing articles based off of these hyper online screeds. Basically, describing a 'class' as anything other than a 'relationship to the means of production' is very lib shit.
Removed by mod
You're right in that it's an important part of their identity, but I don't think it affects their praxis. I never hear about these types of people doing activism for real feminist causes, just mobilizing to intimidate/dox/harass trans people.
Imagine a Venn diagram with a circle labeled "RF" and a smaller circle inside labeled "TERF".
Would it be kind of like if you drew a circle labeled "Marxists" and a smaller circle labeled "Gonzaloists," since Gonzaloists claim to be marxists but never do any praxis beyond the most destructive, op-like behavior?
Can you explain what you mean by "trans ideology"
Hey how come "TERF" is in scare quotes but "trans ideology" isn't?
Also the term TERF is almost 15 years old.
The issue is that these people were always 'radical' in the same way Sargon was 'liberal'. It is in their own mind with no relationship to history or the outside world.