TERF Is A Misnomer

TERF-splaining TERFery.

Photo by Thought Catalog on Unsplash

Disclaimer: This essay is not prescriptive. Whether you choose to use the term TERF or not is entirely your prerogative. My concern is primarily with how the term is used against radical feminists by trans “rights” activists (TRAs). Many brilliant writers and feminists on Substack and elsewhere use the term thoughtfully, including MadFem ♀️, Dusty Masterson and Kara Dansky.

---

The term TERF, short for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, is a misnomer. It refers to radical feminists who do not include “transgender women” (trans-identified males) in their feminist activism or in women’s single-sex spaces. The term was coined in 2008 by Viv Smythe, a feminist who considers “trans women” as women and part of feminism, a perspective sometimes called trans-inclusive radical feminism (TIRF). Smythe first used TERF in a blog post responding to the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival’s policy of excluding trans-identified males:

“...I am aware that this decision is likely to affront some trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), but it must be said: marginalising trans women at actual risk from regularly documented abuse/violence in favour of protecting hypothetical cis women from purely hypothetical abuse/violence from trans women in women-only safe spaces strikes me as horribly unethical as well as repellently callous.”

Ironically, radical feminists do include trans people, specifically “trans men” (trans-identified females), because they are female, regardless of their identity claim. The same logic applies to “trans women”: they are not included because they are male, regardless of their identity claim. The existence of a term like TERF implies that there is a coherent category of TIRFs or that feminism has historically been about including men. This is false. Feminism has always been about women and their liberation, not about men or men with identity claims.

Moreover, the term TERF is often misused. TRAs sometimes apply it to people who are not radical feminists, or even feminists at all. For instance, when a far-right figure claims, “transgender people, drag queens, and gays are pedophiles,” they are sometimes labeled TERFs. Then, when a radical feminist like myself asserts that women and girls require single-sex spaces, I am also called a TERF. The implication is that I am aligned with someone who is right-wing (which I am not), homophobic (which I am not), or transphobic (which I am not). This mislabeling conflates fundamentally different positions and undermines the actual work of feminism.

---

My other issue with the term TERF is that the concept of “trans” as a separate, inherent category is misleading. There is no such thing as a “trans woman” or a “trans man” in the same sense that sex exists as a material reality. A “trans woman” is a male who “identifies as” female; a “trans man” is a female who “identifies as” male. These individuals believe that they can “identify as” the opposite sex and that they can change their sex, through legal documents, wrong-sex hormones, experimental surgeries, and adopting gendered behaviors or appearances. They are not a distinct biological category, and there is nothing inherent to “exclude” or fear in their belief system. Unlike race, sex, sexuality, or class, being trans is a self-asserted identity rather than an objectively measurable characteristic.

For example, women and girls are not opposing “trans women” using female bathrooms because they believe these individuals are a separate category of woman entitled to different rights. They are opposing males, regardless of identity claim, accessing women-only spaces. When a Department of Education policy bars “trans girls” from single-sex girls’ schools, it is not denying a trans-identified male’s right to education per se; it is denying access to spaces designated for females, because he is male.

Therefore, if “trans” is not a meaningful or real category, then no trans people are being excluded, and one cannot be described as trans-exclusionary.

What about “reasonable” trans people?

This framing is misleading. I have no issue with trans-identified males or females so long as they do not enter single-sex spaces that are not theirs or demand that society recognise them as the sex they are not. Labeling such behavior as “reasonable” misses the point: this is about respecting material reality.

What about “reasonable” trans people being excluded and targeted?

It depends on the circumstances. If a a trans identified female (trans man), is denied access to a women’s bathroom, that is discriminatory. They are female and entitled to that space. If a trans identified male is verbally abused in public, that is unacceptable as well. However, these reactions are often not “transphobic” or "TERFy" in the strict sense; they are responses to perceived violations of social expectations about gender. Patriarchy enforces punishment for males displaying femininity, which is why gay men or trans-identified males may face disgust or ridicule.

So you just find trans people disgusting? That's mean and transphobic!

It is never acceptable to verbally abuse or deny someone access to a public space or public service, regardless of personal disgust or biases. Thoughts and feelings of discomfort must be kept private. That said, disgust is not arbitrary, it is often tied to real concerns. Some trans-identified males engage in fetishistic behavior (or, more accurately, violating behavior) where sexual arousal is linked to imagining themselves as women. This behavior is disturbing and can be harmful, particularly to women and children and should be called out.

"Our revulsion instinct in the face of these open fetishes is not only an alarm bell alerting us to potential danger, but a valuable social tool that can be wielded as a weapon to help us curb unwanted behavior from individuals whose toxic proclivities threaten healthy community relationships." - Amy Sousa

Revulsion is a “safeguarding impulse.” It is a strong feeling of repugnance or intense aversion, often triggered by stimuli that threaten one’s well-being or violate societal norms. Evolutionarily, disgust serves as a protective mechanism: it deters behaviors or situations that could jeopardisee safety, reproductive success, or social cohesion. Amy Sousa has brilliantly illustrated this using the gag reflex, which primarily functions to “protect individuals from potential harm posed by toxic substances or behaviors,” such as spoiled food, thereby reducing the risk of illness or death. Disgust also historically protected against the spread of disease, as individuals repulsed by illness were less likely to come into contact with contagious agents. (To be clear, trans-identified people are not diseased.) Disgust can also function as a moral and social safeguard, discouraging engagement in behaviors perceived as exploitative or socially unacceptable. Experiencing revulsion toward harmful or predatory behaviors does not make one transphobic, TERFy, or bigoted. How an individual responds to that disgust determines whether it manifests in harmful action or reasoned boundary-setting.

Personally, when I see a trans-identified male walking around in fishnets, pigtails, a bra, a mesh top, and a dog collar, I feel strong disgust and revulsion. Mimicry itself is predatory to me, and predators naturally evoke disgust. The way this individual has chosen to enact that mimicry, through the most stereotypical, sexualised, and childlike markers of “womanhood”, intensifies the feeling. I do not consent to witnessing males, or anyone, performing their “kink” or sexual fetish in public. It evokes the same intense repulsion I experienced when I once saw a man and his girlfriend in a bookshop, both wearing pants modified to accommodate butt plugs with tails attached. It was utterly revolting! The disgust is compounded when the male in fishnets enters a women-only space. While calling such an individual a derogatory name would be unreasonable, my revulsion itself is valid. Asking him to leave a women’s bathroom, however, is entirely reasonable. Disgust is a natural safeguard; expressing it reasonably and asserting boundaries is entirely appropriate and not exclusionary.

"The public at large, and especially women and children, do not consent to being participants in men's sexual gratification games. Men's open fetishistic performances of womanhood are harmful both because they perpetuate hypersexualised and objectifying tropes of women and because they normalise public sexual behaviour." - Amy Sousa

---

Photo by Sonny Ravesteijn on Unsplash

Another problem I have with the term TERF is how it is applied to women who are not feminists but are critical of gender ideology and its impact on women. For example, I really admire Helen Joyce for her work.¹ I would label her as gender critical, she is not a feminist, let alone a radical feminist. So when people call her a TERF, or describe her organisation Sex Matters as “TERFy,” it is incorrect on two levels: first, as discussed earlier, she is not excluding anyone because trans is not a real category; and second, because she is not a radical feminist, she is simply gender critical. The same applies to Kathleen Stock. I respect her work, but she is neither a radical feminist nor a TERF, for the same reasons.² At the end of the day, the word TERF is almost always misapplied. Trans is not real, so there is nothing to exclude. On top of that, the label is often applied to people who are not radical feminists at all. A far more accurate term for those critical of gender ideology is gender critical.

Some might argue that all feminists are gender critical, but that is not true. Many liberal feminists are proponents of gender ideology, and some are TRAs or transmaidens. Gender critical, however, accurately describes feminists and non-feminists alike who critique gender ideology. They affirm material reality: sex is biological and immutable, while gender ideology and identity are tied to regressive and oppressive gender roles. There are also gender abolitionists who share these ideals but go further, advocating for the dissolution of gender roles and related cultural norms. Personally, as a gender-critical radical feminist, I see the critique of gender and gender roles as the first step toward a society in which the gender class system no longer exists, but that is a topic for another day.

You know what? I think the term “MERF” is even better: Male-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Why? Well, if we follow part of TRA logic, we are not excluding “trans men,” who are female, or, as they would put it, “assigned female at birth.” We only exclude “trans women,” who are male, or, as TRAs would say, “assigned male at birth.” Regardless of the confusing Orwellian language and linguistic impositions they have created, my point still stands: the only people we are excluding are males with or without an identity claim.

---

Despite being inaccurate and false, the term TERF has gained enormous popularity in academia, politics, and mainstream media. It is now used almost synonymously with bigot, homophobe, Nazi, fascist, abuser, everything one does not want to be labelled. As Julie Bindel has said, TERF “is one of the most incendiary terms against feminists; remember, we are left-wing liberal feminists, we have not just all of a sudden taken some magic pill to make us Nazis and bigots and start hating marginalised people.” (Men are not marginalised. Even if a man rejects his sex and identifies as a woman, he is not marginalised). I would argue that TERF is often used as a slur, a word designed to insult and shame. TRAs may object to this, but I do not care, it is true. While TERF is not equivalent to the n-word or f-word it functions similarly by disparaging and insulting women for believing in material reality, for setting boundaries, and for holding personal views and making personal choices. Furthermore, those labelled as such are actively targeted. Evidence is easy to find: look at the TERF is a Slur website, which is rife with misogynistic sexual abuse.

The term is also used to justify violence against women, physically, verbally, legally, and to socially banish them. This behaviour is common among trans identified males, though some trans-identified females and liberal feminists engage in it as well. They apply the term “TERF” to anyone and anything that challenges their worldview, using it to ostracise and other women. Some of these women are genuinely misled and/or confused; others know exactly what they are doing, and how dishonest it is, but they understand that if they do not keep up the charade of conforming to the ideology, they may be next. As the lovely JonquilJones put it in response to one of my latest pieces: “Do it to her, not to me.” This phrase captures the dynamic perfectly among certain male-centred “feminists.”

Although TRAs are often poor at recognising material reality or producing coherent arguments, they are remarkably skilled at manipulating language to suit their purposes and materially affect others, even when that language is logically or intellectually incoherent. This is why I think this essay was important for me to write. I needed to expose the absurdity of the word TERF and reassure women who fear being called one. In reality, being labelled a TERF means absolutely nothing. Its impact may be real, but once we interrogate it and break it down etymologically, its stupidity becomes obvious, and that makes it easier to resist those who weaponise it to punish women for believing in reality.

Fear not, you are fine. Keep on TERFIN’ on.

---

Please continue to hold Substack accountable for the misogynistic, racist, and sexual abuse of female readers and writers that they are enabling on this platform. When you see abuse under this piece, on my page, or on the pages of other women, screenshot it, report it, and block the account. Document it. Keep receipts. I’ve also shared a guide and a script you can use here.

---

1. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not seen Helen describe herself as a feminist, radical feminist, or gender-critical feminist.

2. Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not seen Kathleen describe herself as such.