I love Male Exclusionary Radical Feminist. I get how we might not want to confuse anyone with additional terms, but this one feels clarifying. I love how it’s clearly about safeguarding based on material reality for women and girls. While I know TERF has been used more generally to refer to many feminists, it still sounds like I’m mad at somebody’s pseudo-religious beliefs or special personal feelings. No matter how XY choose to celebrate their personalities (gender or trans), XX still need civil rights and separate spaces based in material reality. Nothing to do with “‘trans” or “‘gender” after all, just XX vs XY. As ever.
Thank you, WSES for an excellent thought provoking discussion and thanks for the namecheck - I'm flattered.
Thank you also for letting us know who invented the acronym - I was unaware of that.
The term, as an insult, was always strange because unlike all the other terms that are thrown at us ( fascist, Nazi, bigot, misogynist etc) it was actually accurate ( leaving aside for the moment the word 'trans' - see further below) because radical feminists do want to exclude 'transwomen' from their single sex spaces and women's sports.
I accept, of course, that 'trans' is a meaningless word since you cannot 'trans' but 'gender' (in terms of 'gender critical') has also become a bit of a meaningless word due to the fiction of 'gender identity'. 'Gender stereotype' was a useful concept but has become blurred by the TRAs who, of course, rely heavily on gender stereotypes!!
In any event I and many others have stolen back the acronym ( the great thing about an acronym is you can re-form it, so to speak) and now see it as meaning Tired of Explaining Reality to Fools ( or sometimes F***wits). This has the advantage of also covering blokes like me who, obviously, cannot be feminists but do support the radical feminists and those fighting for women's rights.
So I'm sticking with what I call the Terf Resistance though I'm happy to join with those who call themselves GC or the other favoured term ' sex realist'.
I agree with you, TRAs fuck everything up but once you scratch at the surface of their idiocy you can see how truly meaningless their slander and slurs are. I totally get why people are reclaiming TERF - they’re not reclaiming with the TRA stupidity, TERFs don’t actually believe trans is a real category - this was more so written for TRAs and the unaware to show them how truly stupid and meaningless the term is as an insult and label against people (some who are feminists) who believe in material reality.
I was telling my partner about that specific dog-man yesterday. 🤣 I found him while searching using the term "fetish". I was a bit surprised by his multiple photos ready for use.
It's funny how contested just one small aspect of language can be.
This is going to sound kind of stupid, I'm sure, but I'm going to risk looking like a fool.
I'm generally someone who is far more precise with language, but I'm not terribly interested in switching from "TERF" to something else.
I know that "TERF" is problematic in several ways. Unfortunately, there's no other word that has the same impact.
Transgenderism is, in many ways, a giant language game and no matter how I label myself, I'm going to lose.
No matter what I call myself, they are going to call me a TERF.
As I said, I am generally more intentional when it comes to language and accuracy, but I want to reclaim it. I'm not interested in dissecting language when they aren't going to notice, let alone acknowledge the intentionality of my word choices.
I may change my mind over time, but I've found strength in owning TERF, as much of a misnomer as it is.
(At the same time, I think you're right about much of this. I suppose you could call my stance "linguistic obstinance".)
I don’t think that you sound foolish or stupid. You make perfect sense, I get you. And also, this piece was meant more for the TRAs and libfems to show how stupid the term is when they use it as it is totally incoherent. Obviously when us GCs and rad fems use it, it is different and we’re not using it because we actually view trans as a category and something that is being excluded. I also like the term linguistic obstinance! Very clever!
"Mostly devoted to clawing feminism back from the idiots that ruined it. Some other things too." Kathleen Stock's substack description
"I’m a journalist, campaigner for women’s rights (with Sex Matters charity) and author of “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality”." Helen Joyce on substack
"I don’t know a huge amount about the history of feminism, but my impression is that there’s a history [in the UK] that’s grounded in women organizing and trade unionism, in women fighting for maternity rights and getting abortion rights earlier. A history of success is very helpful. American feminism is one long history of failure; they don’t even have maternity rights. By comparison, British feminism is strong, it’s organized, it’s material. And not being politically polarized helps a lot because you can make coalitions across boundaries that you can’t very easily in America. There’s a sort of bolshiness in the British, and also not being very religious and being a lot less prudish helps. And then I think it’s very important to say that, in America, the whole discourse has been horribly distorted by false analogies with race. Which hasn’t happened in the UK, because the racial history is completely different.
I love Male Exclusionary Radical Feminist. I get how we might not want to confuse anyone with additional terms, but this one feels clarifying. I love how it’s clearly about safeguarding based on material reality for women and girls. While I know TERF has been used more generally to refer to many feminists, it still sounds like I’m mad at somebody’s pseudo-religious beliefs or special personal feelings. No matter how XY choose to celebrate their personalities (gender or trans), XX still need civil rights and separate spaces based in material reality. Nothing to do with “‘trans” or “‘gender” after all, just XX vs XY. As ever.
Thank you, WSES for an excellent thought provoking discussion and thanks for the namecheck - I'm flattered.
Thank you also for letting us know who invented the acronym - I was unaware of that.
The term, as an insult, was always strange because unlike all the other terms that are thrown at us ( fascist, Nazi, bigot, misogynist etc) it was actually accurate ( leaving aside for the moment the word 'trans' - see further below) because radical feminists do want to exclude 'transwomen' from their single sex spaces and women's sports.
I accept, of course, that 'trans' is a meaningless word since you cannot 'trans' but 'gender' (in terms of 'gender critical') has also become a bit of a meaningless word due to the fiction of 'gender identity'. 'Gender stereotype' was a useful concept but has become blurred by the TRAs who, of course, rely heavily on gender stereotypes!!
In any event I and many others have stolen back the acronym ( the great thing about an acronym is you can re-form it, so to speak) and now see it as meaning Tired of Explaining Reality to Fools ( or sometimes F***wits). This has the advantage of also covering blokes like me who, obviously, cannot be feminists but do support the radical feminists and those fighting for women's rights.
So I'm sticking with what I call the Terf Resistance though I'm happy to join with those who call themselves GC or the other favoured term ' sex realist'.
Onwards, Terven 😀
Dusty
No worries! I appreciate your work and support.
I agree with you, TRAs fuck everything up but once you scratch at the surface of their idiocy you can see how truly meaningless their slander and slurs are. I totally get why people are reclaiming TERF - they’re not reclaiming with the TRA stupidity, TERFs don’t actually believe trans is a real category - this was more so written for TRAs and the unaware to show them how truly stupid and meaningless the term is as an insult and label against people (some who are feminists) who believe in material reality.
Have now cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/lawn-dogs
ALSO
I was telling my partner about that specific dog-man yesterday. 🤣 I found him while searching using the term "fetish". I was a bit surprised by his multiple photos ready for use.
LOL! When I looked up kink his photos came up😂!
Thank you for the mention!
It's funny how contested just one small aspect of language can be.
This is going to sound kind of stupid, I'm sure, but I'm going to risk looking like a fool.
I'm generally someone who is far more precise with language, but I'm not terribly interested in switching from "TERF" to something else.
I know that "TERF" is problematic in several ways. Unfortunately, there's no other word that has the same impact.
Transgenderism is, in many ways, a giant language game and no matter how I label myself, I'm going to lose.
No matter what I call myself, they are going to call me a TERF.
As I said, I am generally more intentional when it comes to language and accuracy, but I want to reclaim it. I'm not interested in dissecting language when they aren't going to notice, let alone acknowledge the intentionality of my word choices.
I may change my mind over time, but I've found strength in owning TERF, as much of a misnomer as it is.
(At the same time, I think you're right about much of this. I suppose you could call my stance "linguistic obstinance".)
I don’t think that you sound foolish or stupid. You make perfect sense, I get you. And also, this piece was meant more for the TRAs and libfems to show how stupid the term is when they use it as it is totally incoherent. Obviously when us GCs and rad fems use it, it is different and we’re not using it because we actually view trans as a category and something that is being excluded. I also like the term linguistic obstinance! Very clever!
Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce are not feminists? I think both would disagree. Why do you say that?
Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce are both gender-critical feminists, who believe in the material reality of sex.
I have not seem them describe themselves as such. Could you please provide me with sources so I can have a look and adjust my piece accordingly?
Kathleen Stock:
https://www.ft.com/content/9504baa4-5cf9-40b5-87b5-04d24f19f2b6?sharetype=gift&syn-25a6b1a6=1
"Mostly devoted to clawing feminism back from the idiots that ruined it. Some other things too." Kathleen Stock's substack description
"I’m a journalist, campaigner for women’s rights (with Sex Matters charity) and author of “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality”." Helen Joyce on substack
"I don’t know a huge amount about the history of feminism, but my impression is that there’s a history [in the UK] that’s grounded in women organizing and trade unionism, in women fighting for maternity rights and getting abortion rights earlier. A history of success is very helpful. American feminism is one long history of failure; they don’t even have maternity rights. By comparison, British feminism is strong, it’s organized, it’s material. And not being politically polarized helps a lot because you can make coalitions across boundaries that you can’t very easily in America. There’s a sort of bolshiness in the British, and also not being very religious and being a lot less prudish helps. And then I think it’s very important to say that, in America, the whole discourse has been horribly distorted by false analogies with race. Which hasn’t happened in the UK, because the racial history is completely different.
https://theradicalnotion.org/someone-has-to-be-the-someone-an-interview-with-helen-joyce/
Thanks! I’ll have a proper read of the link and all, and if needed I’ll adjust.
However, my point still stands that Kathleen and Helen do not describe themselves as gender critical radical feminists.
Kathleen Stock's book is called 'Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism.'
On a side note amazing how us on the Terf side use the word 'reality' so often!
I'm looking forward to reading this despite our different opinions on this specific point.