I see a lot of people say things like "TERFs aren't real feminists" or "We should call TERFs something besides feminists," and I understand where this viewpoint comes from, but as a transfeminine person, I honestly don't like this approach.
I feel like when people utilize this approach, they're trying to see TERFs as a problem from the outside rather than a problem within. We cannot build a better, more inclusive, and more intersectional flavor of feminism if we assume that problematic tendencies such as transphobia are inherently beyond feminist thought.
Is TERF ideology flawed and misguided? Absolutely, 100%. Is it not feminist? On some level, I see why some would say it isn't, but at the very least, it's in the name of feminism. Although TERFs are incredibly sus with their hyperfocus on trans people, especially transfeminine people, and very minimal focus on actually advocating for women's rights, TERFs are not exactly stemming their transphobia from a viewpoint that conservative Christians, for instance, might stem their transphobia. Their viewpoint is tied to a certain interpretation of feminism, even if that interpretation sucks major doodoo ass.
We have to remember that even mainstream, liberal feminists are not exempt from some problems that TERFs embody. These kinds of feminists can often have transphobic and bioessentialist ideas as well. The difference? They are often more implicit and mask-on with these problematic tendencies. If they're not outright transphobic in their thinking, they, at the very least, tend to be very erasing of trans struggles, as they usually are with all other kinds of intersectionality. Their major issue with failing to grasp intersectionality is painfully obvious with how much they focus on white cishet women, failing to demonstrate that they don't even have a single place in their mind concerned about black women, trans women, and other more marginalized groups of women. I see these feminists as a problem obviously (because libs suck), but I certainly wouldn't say they're not feminists.
I'm functionally at a point where I can only trust feminists that are truly intersectional and communists, but unfortunately, I wouldn't say that outlook comprises most self-identified feminists. However, I wouldn't say that any feminist that deviates from the most helpful outlook on patriarchy isn't a feminist. They're just, in some way, a failed one in desperate need of education.
I honestly think we should stop using the term and just call them transphobes. I don't have a problem using it for actual radical feminist that hates trans people, ie. Germaine Greer and people like that, but in reality people who hold those believes in anti-trans circles are very rare, and they're mostly second wave feminists in their 70s or above.
I'm aware that a few radical feminists are still active in those circles, but the majority of TERF thought leaders are either liberal pop-feminists, or don't even identify as feminist at all. Because of that I don't buy for a single second that their hatred of trans people comes from misguided feminist beliefs, rather than plain old disgust and a weird need to defend normalcy that's not at all different from how conservative christians feel.
This is a productive viewpoint. It also reminds me of how pissed off I got at the annoying tendency people had to call every transphobe a TERF. I've seen someone call Blaire White a TERF when she literally rejects feminism by her own words. Yes, she is a self-hating trans person, but it isn't anything to do with her having "TERF" views, not even by her own admission.
In the same vein Dave Chappelle isn't a terf, he's not feminist and even less a radical
This is almost the same as claiming every homophobe is a closeted gay
It's putting the responsibility of bigotry on an oppressed group to let the status quo off the hook
On this topic, it looks to me that liberals will hold onto exactly fucking one progressive ideology and think that they're done, but really their spin on it is absolutely toxic. TERFs are just one manifestation of that. Ya feminism is great and important, but it's not the only method of analysis. Heaps of non-white feminists like bell hooks have written entire books about how white feminism is problematic by itself.
I say this as a vegan, but FUCKKKK vegans that imagine that veganism will solve everything or that they're done with growth because they try not to harm animals. Yes veganism is important for not harming animals, and yes it will cut down on a lot of environmental destruction. But veganism doesn't do anything to solve capitalism, imperialism, and patriarchy. A lot of non white people online call this "white veganism", and I'll borrow this term from them.
I feel like a lot of valuable movements get hijacked by middle class Westerners and turned bullshit. It's one really insidious way of managing popular discontent.
As a non-white vegan, I can definitely tell you that the term "white veganism" can only be based if it's used by vegans themselves.
As a white vegan (btw) I totally feel this. If you do a little bit of thought into how animal ag got so awful you quickly realise the problems stem from so much more than people just wanting to eat chicken nuggies. Political change would probably do more for veganism than most vegan specific activism, but of course both is still good.
extremely unrelated to anything, but your comment is comment 5,000,000. thought that was interesting
Yes, feminisms can certainly be transphobic. And like you say, "TERFs" are transphobic in the name of feminism. Almost always as some form of cultural feminism. Which is an issue because TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminists, yet 99% of so-called TERFs (even self-identified ones) don't know jack shit about radical feminism! So the whole term is a misnomer. Maybe even counterproductive because by equating radical feminism with transphobia, you're distancing yourself from some very useful feminist critique (like the construction of sex as a class that can be abolished) that is actually quite relevant to transgender liberation!
social constructionism is a harmful dichotomous viewpoint that invalidates trans experiences, see whipping girl
I don't think Julia Serano is totally and completely right about that. She's great, and Whipping Girl is great, very worth reading, it really helped me flesh out my understanding of gender, but still, I think she's wrong about, at least, the subconscious sex theory she posits.
I'd like to recommend Judith Butler's new book here, but I'll be honest, I can't read Butler, I find them extremely confusing. For an easier time, you could instead watch Philosophy Tube's newest video, because Abby talks a little about this issue, following Butler. If you're interested, I also could see if my sister would be ok with me posting an excerpt of an essay she wrote on this subject, because that's my exposure to Judith Butler, filtered through my sister's writing.
Total social constructionism is genuinely transphobic. If sex is entirely constructed, than the only reason we have to explain dysphoria is as internalized patriarchal norms. It therefore leads to attempts at conversion therapy as a natural conclusion of it, as “deprogramming of patriarchal norms and the fake expectations of sex and gender”. It is also probably wrong, because many trans people literally have desires contradictory of socially constructed norms since their early childhood. Not to mention that conversion therapy has never been shown to work (if it was just social influence that made sex dysphoria happen, these things would not be a thing, and Hitlerites would have succeeded at eliminating trans people long ago).
Now keep in mind this is not the same thing as trying to abolish gender as we currently understand it. Both me and Julia Serano believe the majority of gender is pretty much entirely made up.
This is why the “subconscious sex” theory is pretty much the only non-problematic one I could think of. It leaves room for gender abolition while also explaining the feelings of trans people in a way that’s accurate and not invalidating. It’s also why the disappearance of the term transsexual is kind of sad and makes things way more confusing.
Edit: I think what I’m saying here is very similar to the idea proposed in the Gender Abolitionist Manifesto. You can want to (have dysphoria over etc) have boobs or something but not be labelled a Woman and given that social class for that
If sex is entirely constructed, than the only reason we have to explain dysphoria is as internalized patriarchal norms.
I think fundamentally this is what I don't agree with. I don't believe I feel better with a testosterone-dominant endocrine system because of societal norms. It's a body thing, not a society thing, at least for me. But, that doesn't necessarily mean "sex" isn't socially constructed. Why does feeling better with testosterone necessitate that I be "subconsciously male"?
Let me say a little more: I had tits once, and I got top surgery to remove them. That choice was purely societal. In a perfect world, I would have kept my tits while being on testosterone. Would you still say I'm "subconsciously male" if my ideal body would have large (they were big and wonderful) boobs, but also facial and body hair? If so, what exactly does "male" mean? If not, what is my "subconscious sex"? Something other than male or female?
(I do actually agree about transsexual being a word that perhaps we should keep. I far, far preferred when my official diagnosis was "transsexualism" rather than "gender identity disorder". I'm trans, but I'm not disordered.)
I would argue that “subconscious sex”‘s main flaw is that it’s called “subconscious sex” when it’s not really about entire “sex”‘s as we understand them (which yes, do not exist).
Male and female are a made up dichotomy (a ‘fun’ oppositional sexism example!!) but the identification/dysphoria/euphoria desires people in patriarchal society associate with those supposed sexes is not made up. I think Julia Serano actually holds this opinion but doesn’t explain it particularly well. Sexes themselves aren’t real but some factors that make them up are. I think she was trying to get at this when she pointed out how things can be both socially constructed and partially influenced by biology.
This means that people with a non-binary “subconscious sex” can exist and in fact are probably way more common than we think. Generally I think it would be better to just call it “biologically driven body dysphoria” instead of subconscious sex, because it’s not about fitting a specific sex, and more about having deep discomfort due to your brain feeling “not right” with a certain aspect of your biology, which doesn’t even have to be gendered IMO. I wonder how many cis people experience this but we consider them cis because their dysphoria is over something we don’t consider to be gendered (and therefore they were able to rectify it without getting attacked for being an evil trans…)
Well alright, that's fine, but then, like, so what? How is it helpful to think about "subconscious sex" if really the idea there is no more than "some people are more comfortable if certain parts of their biology are changed from what their bodies would do without intervention"? What do we gain by saying something like "everyone has a subconscious sex that may or may not match the gender we're assigned at birth and could even have very little to do with what society calls 'sex' "?
Am I underselling the idea somehow?
(Thanks for talking with me, I'm really not trying to be argumentative or contrarian.
)
Honestly, I wrote up a response similar to this to @EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net, but I didn't want to seem argumentative. I just hope to be educational and clarify what trans-affirming gender abolitionists believe in. Here it is:
"I don't agree that total social constructionism is genuinely transphobic. I also don't think your dichotomy is accurate here. To say that 'If sex is entirely socially constructed, then the only potentially applicable explanation for dysphoria is that it's caused by submitting to patriarchal norms and nothing else can possibly be the explanation for such a feeling whatsoever' presents that false dichotomy. Let me ask you this: why must those only be the two options?
When people say gender and/or sex is socially constructed, they're not necessarily saying that the 'feelings' around gender/sex aren't real. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as masculinity and femininity could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as gender dysphoria could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, you're still gonna have your genitals, hormones, and characteristics of 'biological sex' as people know it. It's just that these things would all take on a different outlook. These things wouldn't have an idea of 'gender' tied to them. Gender abolitionists seek this reality because it liberates people from how seemingly concrete gender is placed as an expectation within society.
Gender and sex are made up categories regardless of the things we categorize within them. Dysphoria could be innate to trans people, but the way we have gendering around it obviously is entirely a social construct. A very non-gendered way explain the manifestation of a trans person would be something like:
Person is born with penis and gonads that produce testosterone.
Person doesn't like effects of this testosterone hormone.
They take pills to increase the presence of the other hormone instead and seek out other features they would rather have such as longer hair, a bigger chest, and a higher-pitched voice. They feel much happier afterwards.
No where in that explanation did I mention gender. Although, this kind of reality sounds unimaginable because of how deeply gender is woven into society, nothing is saying that the hypothetical trans person in this scenario would be unable to be uncomfortable with the way testosterone impacts their body. That's something that could theoretically occur regardless if you tie a social construction of gender or sex to that discomfort or not.
It's effectively the same thing as:
Person is born with male features.
Person grows up and develops as a man and doesn't like it.
They undergo procedures and changes to look like a woman instead, and now they feel more comfortable.
The difference is that this latter example is gendered, and it's the way many people would look at it as things stand now. We don't really need to have an 'explanation' for dysphoria in particular to validate it. To be honest, we don't have a perfectly definitive explanation as to why people experience gender dysphoria now, and the same could honestly be said about homosexuality even. This does not mean that gender dysphoria and homosexuality aren't real things people experience. The simplest explanation that I wish people could accept for queer people is: it be like that sometimes (seriously)."
This sounds exactly like what I’m saying, just without sticking to saying “sex” is socially constructed. Like I don’t believe “sex” is real because it’s a bunch of disparate shit we think is related when it probably isn’t in a lot of cases. Neither is gender, for that matter.
When I say, “sex is entirely socially constructed” I am not referring to the idea of the concept of sex nor the concept of gender, but rather the idea that any and all feelings people experience around those things are the result of conditioning and conditioning alone. I disagree with that idea because I think, like you said, a world without the categories of gender and sex could still have people with dysphoria and different desires around presentation and just general existence.
This is an example of limited language I think
And this is what gender abolitionists like myself believe in, hence my comment here tying in perfectly, the one starting with "I honestly hold it to be a semantic argument..." These semantic discrepancies are what got me to reject the notion of gender abolitionism initially. I don't base my view of the existence of trans people off of conditioning like you mentioned, and that isn't an inherent part of proper gender abolitionist views. Any gender abolitionist with a proper grasp on how gender works in this society will not see it that way, but the same can't be said for TERFs. TERFs don't often manifest this kind of thinking because they try to have bioessentialism and gender abolition co-exist, which is just nonsensical on their part. I was exactly thinking the same way as you before I understood these things, so I understand where you're coming from for sure. This knowledge may not do the same for everyone, but in my personal experience, I found so much more comfort, peace, and liberation in my gender (or lack thereof) once these realizations hit.
Well I’ve already read the Gender Abolitionist Manifesto and mostly agree with it, I just take issue with any sort of implication that dysphoria and the like is constructed and/or a result of some sort of brainwashing
I don't see how that's the case so I'll make sure to read it this summer.
I honestly hold it to be a semantic argument. It depends on how you define "social constructionism" and how that definition relates to trans experiences. TERFs oftentimes do define gender being a social construct in a way that does invalidate trans experiences, but I don't think gender abolitionism has to, in all interpretations, be at odds with trans experiences being valid. Quite frankly, I'd argue the contrary, especially since The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto liberated my mind on gender which liberated the way I handle my own sense of gender.
Yeah exactly, I learned about gender and sex abolition from transgender feminists. I'm curious what Serano is talking about though so I'll acquire that book sooner rather than later.
There are some trans people who effectively argue that "If you assert that gender and sex are socially constructed and can be abolished, you're basically saying that my transness/dysphoria isn't real when it feels very real," and that interpretation leads to quite a lot of trans people opposing this abolitionist viewpoint. I know because I used to be one of them, even though I am non-binary. The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto cured my ignorance there. I only learned to properly understand what gender abolition is about after reading that, so I don't fault trans people who don't have as coherent of an understanding of such a position.
The issue with feminism is that all the terms have so many different meanings
It's a process of a thing creating and becoming its opposite, at the same time feminist and one of the most mainstream forms of antifeminism. I don't think they can be understood by thinking of them one-sidedly as feminists or not feminists, they are both at the same time.
I see a lot of people say things like "TERFs aren't real feminists" or "We should call TERFs something besides feminists," and I understand where this viewpoint comes from, but as a transfeminine person, I honestly don't like this approach.
That's the 'Masses, Elites, and Rebels' mentality that Roderick Day criticized, is it?
To make one's enemy fully 'alien' to themselves is part of that... (I agree on your point, Angel)...
This begs the question: why do they {the TERFs} believe the things they do?
This begs the question: why do they {the TERFs} believe the things they do?
Trans-exclusionary "radical" feminism is a form of bioessentialist feminism. That is to say, they believe what they do because they fall for the patriarchal hegemonic idea that "biological" sex is natural. Marxists like Cockshott who fall for it fail to properly apply dialectics to sex. To be fair, Marx, Engels, and Lenin also failed to do so, but they did apply it to the family correctly, which was pretty forward-thinking. You'd think 21st century Marxists would know better!
they fall for the patriarchal hegemonic idea that "biological" sex is natural.
They do fall for that, I know?
But what deeper stake and implication does it carry should biological sex be natural or not TO THEM anyway?
I'm sure this isn't a complete answer, but from what I've seen from TERF rhetoric, it seems to be basically "girls rule, boys drool". They need to believe that men and women are different so that they can easily split humanity into a very basic us vs them dichotomy, with themselves in the "good" group. I don't know why they want to make sex/gender the fundamental contradiction in their lives, it seems to me there are way more explanatory ways of looking at the world, but every single TERF argument seems to boil down to hating people they perceive as men and thinking the people they hate are biologically programmed to be evil.
But then they rarely take this idea to its logical conclusion, which would be cis-female only enclaves without any cis men or trans people present at all. Even the most rhetorically strident TERFs tend to have a cis man or two in their life who they don't seem to hate. And I have to admit I think that's odd. If someone truly in their heart of hearts believed that evil lived in the penis (or XY chromosomes or whatever), you'd think they would try harder to avoid people with those traits. You'd think genital inspections and maybe even chromosome tests would be a prerequisite to friendship with someone with that (incredibly shitty) belief.
I dunno, I do think hatred and disgust are at the root of TERF beliefs, but I don't think most TERFs really interrogate their own beliefs very much.
Yes, the logical conclusion is S.C.U.M. But in reality most "TERFs" ally with the patriarchy and are willing to sacrifice anything in order to punish trans women. So like, props to the couple hundred TERFs who are true believers in SCUM ig. Still hate you ofc
Far from it- The cornerstone of much of TERF theory is that, as they believe sex is entirely socially constructed and primarily used as a form of social control:
CW transphobic thought process
- As sex is (supposedly) entirely constructed, dysphoria is either not real or is entirely the product of social conditioning (This is incorrect as there is overwhelming evidence that sex is partially constructed and partially biological. Or, more accurately, aspects of sex are real biological traits but the binary as well as hierarchical and numerous psychological assumptions we make about it are incorrect and socially constructed)
- Therefore, they believe the only reason for someone to transition is as a form of either delusion caused by social abuse, as a form of appropriation of the other sex, or as a form of class traitorism. (This is, I believe, is why many of them hate transmasc people as well. It goes without saying they are incorrect and dysphoria is a scientifically proven phenomenon)
- Therefore trans women are just insert horrifically incorrect and twisted stereotype here.
at least this is how I read part of whipping girl. I may be wrong
I think we are both right... Points 2 and 3 are pretty much unanimous opinions that TERFs hold. Point 1 should be held by all, but is not because TERF as a category is overly broad. And then despite nominally believing in the social construction of sex, a lot of TERFs hold bioessentialist opinions simultaneously. Like if sex is a class then you can change sex but they also say you'll never be a woman. They have to hold these contradictory views because if they excised them then they'd end up with radical trans feminism. The issue with TERF ideology is that they're gender fascists and you should not take fascists' words at face value.
Most TERFs are just delusional Nazis, but the ones who are actively logically consistent are very insidious and as far as I can tell follow exactly what I just wrote here.
I have not read this yet, but based on what I'm looking at, I'm gonna take this as a good recommendation. Thanks, comrade.
I get what you’re saying. The argument of TERFs not being real feminists is typically a philosophical one, that the underlying assumptions and mentality preclude feminism. Which makes valid points, but that doesn’t automatically turn TERFs into cultural conservatives, as fun as it is to point out to TERFs the bedfellows they’ve made.
That’s why I stick to arguing that the assumption is biologically reductive. That they’re arguing that the feminine is fundamentally about the reproductive organs, exactly the view that feminism has been trying to overcome for centuries.
That they’re arguing that the feminine is fundamentally about the reproductive organs, exactly the view that feminism has been trying to overcome for centuries.
Calling reactionary second-wave feminism "feminism" is like calling National Socialism "second-wave socialism." The whole "movement" was founded on a contradictory premise, courtesy of middle-class white people.
Second wave feminism is to feminism what bourgeois democracy is to democracy.
The R stands for Reactionary.
There is absolutely a potential for feminism to overlap with parts of reactionary ideology.
I'm in the same boat largely. Are terfs in practice working towards the most awful, antifeminist goals? Absolutely. It lies in the nature of the terf rabbit hole that fighting against our rights turns people into single-issue obsessives that are willing to compromise any and all other issues besides transphobia and enter alliances with openly anti-feminist orgs, because that's where all the campaign funds are. But that doesn't change that historically, terfs represent what used to be a major wing of feminism. To write that off for the sake of a simple gotcha like so many people do eschews the possibility for needed feminist self crit and creates blindspots in the understanding of feminist history and intra-feminist struggles. Terfism is one of the worse acts of mental contortionism out there, but it does come out of the gender essentialist wing of 2nd wave feminism that also was the root for political lesbianism and swerfism and that origin story is inseperable from their specific brand of transphobia. That they have backed themselves up into a discursive corner doesn't change how they got there in the first place.
That said, i'm also cautious to give terfs too much credit. I'm absolutely not saying that you're doing that, this is not my impression, but i run into a lot of people both offline and in discourse about trans rights that overestimate how many terfs are actually out there, how important they really are in anti-trans activism and how much influence they still have on feminism and lesbian* spaces today. So i think this is worth noting when we're having a discussion like this one: While cis feminism urgently needs a more thorough critique of its cisnormative biases and expectations, while there are areas where the movement needs to incorporate more of a trans perspective, i generally find that feminists, particularly lesbian, bi and pan feminists, are among the best allies i have out there. A lot of the offline spaces i feel safest in are operated by them and when i sit down at a table with cis people where i feel welcomed, it's usually a table in a deliberately feminist venue. And on the opposite end, when i look at how anti-trans movements are structured, terfs are tokenized figureheads for a movement that is overwhelmingly made up of and almost exclusively funded by rightwing white cishet dudes that deliberately hide behind the protective veneer that the weaponization of issues like "women-only" spaces offers them.
But it's worth noting that the feminist allies i'm talking about are the ones that are leftists instead of liberals, that are accutely aware of and critical of white feminist bias and take effort in welcoming PoC in their spaces, that have early on grown into a part of the movement that has consistently been open to impulses outside of white, affluent, cishet voices. Safe communities are always built on taking each others' experiences seriously.
I feel like when people utilize this approach, they're trying to see TERFs as a problem from the outside rather than a problem within. We cannot build a better, more inclusive, and more intersectional flavor of feminism if we assume that problematic tendencies such as transphobia are inherently beyond feminist thought.
In the US at least, the TERFs I see come across as BlueMAGA liberals and reactionary conservatives masquerading as feminists, if they are even appropriating the label feminism. They're using their megaphones to silence real feminist topics and sucking up all the attention and energy away from solving real problems. I have no trouble accusing them of not being feminists. Imagine if someone had a lot of anti-minority rhetoric dressed up with feminist aesthetics, you'd correctly label that person as a racist first, not a feminist-with-one-bad-opinion.
I guess I'll continue, if a rando calls themselves a feminist, you really have no idea what's about to follow, it could be a lot of random things like "I'm a woman who doesn't like misogyny against me", "I'm a woman supremacist", "I want an ideological framework to classify me as a sympathetic victim among my peers to satisfy my persecution complex despite nothing bad currently happening to me.", "I don't like the way men treat me and have no interest in feminist theory".
For these reasons, I find it prudent to use terms like Intersectional Feminist and Marxist Feminist, as they help delineate what is a principled feminist apart from reactionary and unprincipled uses of the label.
I've noticed this tendency very well. "Feminist" alone is a vague label that can either make a person either extremely trustworthy or extremely untrustworthy depending on how they're using the label. My point is, though, I think a lot of these people who say things like "TERFs aren't true feminists" aren't people who truly understand feminist theory themselves. I love specifying that I don't fuck with liberal, bourgeois, and unintersectional feminism in every instance I speak on my views about the movement. It's the only way I can make it sound likable in my own mind.
Ideologically, you could say they're not in alignment with feminists. Their analysis is insanely flawed and at odds with achieving genuine feminist goals such as abolition of patriarchy. However, the point isn't to argue that they are ideologically aligned with "true feminism but with one problematic caveat;" the point is to argue that acting as if their bigotry isn't rooted in a flawed interpretation of feminism and is something else entirely is just flat out unhelpful. "This is a totally separate group that has nothing to do with feminism at all" is an outlook that won't solve the problem. Responding to their viewpoints without specifically focusing on correcting their horrid interpretation of feminism won't be so effective regardless of how unlike feminists they seem.