What exactly makes someone a TERF?

[SomeRandom]

I would agree that there is no need for the language to demean women. The problem is that it often does

Call me whatever you want to call me, but if the women in my life who I love are referred to as "womb owners", I take that as derogatory, dehumanizing, demeaning, and slipping into Handmaid's Tale territory.

Offence is taken not given, as they say.
Okay I don’t really hold that to be entirely true. But what one person finds endearing can be horrifying to another. Trust me, as an Aussie, our terms of endearment are considered curse words in other Western countries lol

Whilst I can agree that terms like “womb owners” can certainly be seen as demeaning.
This sounds more like the memes I see in many trans/NB spaces, to be honest. And the term itself isn’t necessarily cruel or demeaning so much as overly simplistic. Many (not all) women do in fact own wombs, after all.

I kind of suspect (but admittedly can’t verify) that terms such as this are used for more dramatic effect. Bringing to light or even making light of the overall “baby making” intent found in many terms used by folks to describe women. Usually from anti trans areas (conservatives.)

As I've mentioned before, I believe that the ecological psychology perspective is gaining a lot of support, and that it's proving to be a way to learn things about the world that normal, linear approaches have failed to crack.

From this perspective, I believe (as I've said to others in these discussions), that sentient creatures are a unified mind/body system. I believe that once we see beings this way, we'll make astounding progress in understanding and supporting all sentient creatures.

So when a term like "womb owner" is used, it tacitly tries to separate the mind from the body. I think this artificial separation underlies a LOT of the language and ideas around trans people. There is this assumption that the mind is separate / independent from the body, and that the mind will feel better when the body is altered. From a current neurobiology perspective, it's getting harder and harder to know how to separate the brain / mind from the body. We're understanding that the nerves and neurons that exist throughout our bodies are more complex and capable than we ever knew.

In light of this understanding, terms like "womb owner" are not only derogatory and such, they also fly in the face of science. We CANNOT really separate a brain from a body - they are an interconnected, synergistic, holistic system.

Wow, you analysed that usage like it was a competition!! Damn! Ngl, that was a bit impressive lol

So what's wrong with saying that there are women and trans-women?

Nothing? I haven’t really seen that much pushback against the usage in the trans community itself, if I’m being honest

But I suppose “terminology” will always be argued by someone. And what one generation deems acceptable in social use might not carry over to the next.
For example. My uncle and Aunty on my father’s side are warm hearted and welcoming with open arms. But they did have to forcibly examine what terms they use once they welcomed my mother into the family (she’s from Fiji.) Guess why?
And it’s not really their fault either. They're like in their 80s!! Not even kidding.
The terms that their generation collectively deemed acceptable was just simply not anymore.

What I'm seeing is trendy, hip-looking, young trans-women sporting full, thick, look-a-long-time-to-grow beards.

Welcome to the incredibly weird world of fashion. I can’t make heads nor tails of it. At least the “bearded lady look” is amusing, I suppose

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison. Racial bigotry wasn't supported by simple physics. But in general a trans women who went thru puberty as a male will be physically much larger and stronger than most women. So this gets back to the safety issue. Once again, for those just joining, I'm NOT saying trans women are any more violent. What I'm saying is that all women understand that there is always a concern that they will be physically assaulted / raped by a larger, stronger man. So if we NORMALIZE the idea that men can enter women's restrooms without raising alarms, it's only common sense that violent men will take advantage of that.

This is nothing like racial bigotry.

Some women who go through puberty might end up more physically stronger than other women. Biology isn’t exactly….”neat.”
I’ve seen women (cis) literally beat up men (also cis.)

Also maybe this would be curtailed by this thing we call “puberty blockers” and “gender affirming care” done during the time of adolescence?

And really what’s to stop violent men taking advantage of women in restrooms now? A sign on a door?
Oh yeah, that’s such a useful deterrent

I’m not seeing a whole lot of concrete logic.
And indeed I stand by the comparison. It was based on flimsy logic back then, based on conjecture, outdated so called “science” and indeed presupposed that people might take advantage of the situation if the divide wasn’t issued.
And it’s based on flimsy logic now. Just worded differently.
Though admittedly I can agree that post pubescent transitioning women will be a bit more physically stronger on average (I think. I honestly think the hormone therapy combats this to a certain extent, but I’m not well versed on the ins and outs of transitioning. I’m not a doctor, nor am I trans. That’s just what I’ve been able to gather on the subject.)

Probably sad, but true.

Ahh the reality of the internet lol
Le sigh




Also, my apologies for steelmanning you.
I didn’t realise I was.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm actually now opening up to the idea that there "may" be some things wrong with the trans "movement" as acceptance and existence seems to rely a lot on left-wing politics taking course. If things could be done over again, it would be better to try to negotiate terms from a Centrist perspective, and either we would end up with less problems, or when problems arose, they could be tackled more easily.

That's not to say there are no conservative trans people, though.

Thank you for this, @Snow White

I remember watching, Marcus, the Offensive Tranny, one day and he was commenting on how weird it is that non-binary people seem to be only on the left wing. Though they may exist, I too have not seen or met any non-binary person who identified as Liberal or Conservative.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I’ve seen women (cis) literally beat up men (also cis.)

A bit off-topic, but part of it might be because, I hate to say it, but a lot of men, despite being stronger, are very poor when it comes to fighting techniques. The average man probably knows less about them on the level of instinct, than the average woman.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm actually now opening up to the idea that there "may" be some things wrong with the trans "movement" as acceptance and existence seems to rely a lot on left-wing politics taking course. If things could be done over again, it would be better to try to negotiate terms from a Centrist perspective, and either we would end up with less problems, or when problems arose, they could be tackled more easily.

That's not to say there are no conservative trans people, though.

Thank you for this, @Snow White

I remember watching, Marcus, the Offensive Tranny, one day and he was commenting on how weird it is that non-binary people seem to be only on the left wing. Though they may exist, I too have not seen or met any non-binary person who identified as Liberal or Conservative.

I think this largely depends on where the "left wing," "right wing," and "center" are in a given country.

One thing I've noticed in the Arab irreligious communities I've seen is that the majority of people are indeed left-wing by their respective countries' standards but may be closer to the center or the right in most developed countries. Similarly, the "center" in the US seems to be farther right than the "center" in other developed countries.

The trend of some communities of minorities toward the left in their respective countries doesn't remotely surprise me considering that right-wing politics in many countries is generally not welcoming toward certain minority groups or supportive of them. When I see irreligious Arabs tending toward the left in countries where the right wing includes Islamists who want them beheaded, I can clearly see why irreligious Arabs don't tend to lean right by their countries' standards.

The same applies to "centrism" that is not supportive of certain minorities and may retain some of the abovementioned right-wing positions that end up harming or excluding minorities. While there are definitely many accepting, open-minded centrists, there are also some who describe themselves as such while supporting dehumanizing or exclusionary beliefs and trying to pass that off as a "different opinion" or downplaying the extent of the harm to which certain positions can contribute. This seems to me especially worrisome in countries where the "center" is already skewed toward conserving an abusive status quo.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think this largely depends on where the "left wing," "right wing," and "center" are in a given country.

One thing I've noticed in the Arab irreligious communities I've seen is that the majority of people are indeed left-wing by their respective countries' standards but may be closer to the center or the right in most developed countries. Similarly, the "center" in the US seems to be farther right than the "center" in other developed countries.

The trend of some communities of minorities toward the left in their respective countries doesn't remotely surprise me considering that right-wing politics in many countries is generally not welcoming toward certain minority groups or supportive of them. When I see irreligious Arabs tending toward the left in countries where the right wing includes Islamists who want them beheaded, I can clearly see why irreligious Arabs don't tend to lean right.

The same applies to "centrism" that is not supportive of certain minorities and may retain some of the abovementioned right-wing positions that end up harming or excluding minorities. While there are definitely many accepting, open-minded centrists, there are also some who describe themselves as such while supporting dehumanizing or exclusionary beliefs and trying to pass that off as a "different opinion" or downplaying the extent of the harm to which certain positions can contribute. This seems to me especially worrisome in countries where the "center" is already skewed toward conserving an abusive status quo.

Yet, relying on one side only in a partisan system just creates future problems to resolve.

 

[PureX]

How many such humans fitting this description could there possibly be? I'm guessing not many. And of those that do, I would suspect some past trauma is likely fueling it and cauing them to be so extreme. So I am empathetic for them, and hope they can gain some serenity.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yet, relying on one side only in a partisan system just creates future problems to resolve.

I don't know that leaning left necessarily means someone relies on one side only. It could just as well be that they don't feel welcome or even safe on the "other side," or they see practical reasons to support either "side" given current circumstances.

Realistically, many people are not going to say, "Maybe I'll be a fence-sitter or lean toward that other political aisle that openly harbors and supports the politics of those wanting to behead people like me or send them to prison for their beliefs." If they see that one "side" is generally more welcoming and safer for them, chances are they will be more inclined to fit into it.

This has been the story of politics since time immemorial. Marginalize or abuse one group enough and you ensure that significant numbers among them will flock to the "other side." Look at conservative Cubans in the US who despise Castro due to his oppression of them, or the "pink wave" of socialism in Latin America where socialists have been winning democratic elections after decades of exploitation and abuse by capitalists pushed many to the left in a country like Chile or Bolivia.

If some on the right in the US don't want non-binary people to lean left, perhaps they should consider how the right in the US generally approaches LGBT rights and see what they can change about that to attract more LGBT supporters.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't know that leaning left necessarily means someone relies on one side only. It could just as well be that they don't feel welcome or even safe on the "other side," or they see practical reasons to support either "side" given current circumstances.

Realistically, many people are not going to say, "Maybe I'll be a fence-sitter or lean toward that other political aisle that openly harbors and supports the politics of those wanting to behead people like me or send them to prison for their beliefs." If they see that one "side" is generally more welcoming and safer for them, chances are they will be more inclined to fit into it.

This has been the story of politics since time immemorial. Marginalize or abuse one group enough and you ensure that significant numbers among them will flock to the "other side." Look at conservative Cubans in the US who despise Castro due to his oppression of them, or the "pink wave" of socialism in Latin America where socialists are winning democratic elections after decades of exploitation and abuse by capitalists pushed many to the left in a country like Chile or Bolivia.

If some on the right in the US don't want non-binary people to lean left, perhaps they should consider how the right in the US generally approaches LGBT rights and see what they can change about that to attract more LGBT supporters.

Sure. We can talk about how things "should" be. But I prefer to talk in safety risks. To align yourself with the left with something like trans in a political climate that is sometimes flirting with fascism, and where you'll get 4 years of an agenda on one side, and 4 years of an agenda on another.... I feel there are safety risks not only existing in such a system and with a target on your back, but it just doesn't make sense to consider negotiations and debate to occur mostly on one side and determining terms etc on one side, where you'll just go through 4 years where you can exist peacefully, and 4 years where it could go so far, that you might not even be able to get your HRT due to state and legislative issues, and other issues.

(I'm just talking hypotheticals.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sure. We can talk about how things "should" be. But I prefer to talk in safety risks. To align yourself with the left with something like trans in a political climate that is sometimes flirting with fascism, and where you'll get 4 years of an agenda on one side, and 4 years of an agenda on another.... I feel there are safety risks not only existing in such a system and with a target on your back, but it just doesn't make sense to consider negotiations and debate to occur mostly on one side and determining terms etc on one side, where you'll just go through 4 years where you can exist peacefully, and 4 years where it could go so far, that you might not even be able to get your HRT due to state and legislative issues, and other issues.

I'm speaking generally; what I'm saying doesn't just apply to the US, although I do think it's understandable that many LGBT people may lean left there considering the state of right-wing politics in the US for the last several years. When a conservative SCOTUS justice openly mentions a potential reversal of the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage right after he and his fellow conservative justices had finished overturning federal protection for abortion rights, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that many LGBT people would take that as an alarming sign and not lean right, and that's just one example.

There's also the question of what alternatives there are. Four years of one agenda isn't an ideal outcome, but what's the alternative? To sit on the fence and risk another GOP win that could make the four years even worse and possibly have lasting effects afterward? That wouldn't be unprecedented either: Trump appointed three SCOTUS justices in his four years as president, and that may well have decades-long ramifications for domestic politics in the US.

I don't claim to have perfect answers here, but I can see profoundly valid reasons for many people in certain communities or groups to lean toward one "side" or the other under these circumstances. The extreme polarization, in my opinion, shouldn't be pinned on those who understandably feel they possibly have no refuge but to support a party or political wing they may or may not even support otherwise. It's mainly on the powerful and influential legislators and policymakers who have ratcheted up the hostility and theocratic platforms up to this point.

 

[icehorse]

Wow, you analysed that usage like it was a competition!! Damn! Ngl, that was a bit impressive lol

Most of my career was spent as a teacher. So for a long time I focused on "cognitive skill acquisition". More recently I've branched out to include sports coaching, a.k.a. "motor skill acquisition". The newest ideas in motor skill acquisition fall under the domain of "ecological dynamics" which is a subset of "ecological psychology". So this line of thinking is not new to me

Nothing? I haven’t really seen that much pushback against the usage in the trans community itself, if I’m being honest

In cased you missed it, recently on RF some of the biggest threads have been on the topic of "what is a woman?" and this all came from the claim that "a trans woman is a woman". This is indicative of the fact that this is hardly a backwater, seldom used term. At least in the US, this is a raging debate.

Some women who go through puberty might end up more physically stronger than other women. Biology isn’t exactly….”neat.”
I’ve seen women (cis) literally beat up men (also cis.)

The context I'm concerned with (sorry if it hasn't been clear), is public policy. No doubt there are exceptions to every generality. But I think I was careful to use words like "mostly" or "usually", because of course rare exceptions exist. But no policies are perfect, the typical goal is to serve the most people well.

Also maybe this would be curtailed by this thing we call “puberty blockers” and “gender affirming care” done during the time of adolescence?

And really what’s to stop violent men taking advantage of women in restrooms now? A sign on a door?
Oh yeah, that’s such a useful deterrent

sigh... Once again WITH JAZZ HANDS, the concern here is violent, non-trans men. So GAC is not the topic.

As for deterrence, none are perfect, most are sort of incremental.

 

[icehorse]

Also, my apologies for steelmanning you.
I didn’t realise I was.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. JIC there has been a miscommunication, steelmanning is a nice thing to do

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't claim to have perfect answers here, but I can see profoundly valid reasons for many people in certain communities or groups to lean toward one "side" or the other under these circumstances. The extreme polarization, in my opinion, shouldn't be pinned on those who understandably feel they possibly have no refuge but to support a party or political wing they may or may not even support otherwise. It's mainly on the powerful and influential legislators and policymakers who have ratcheted up the hostility and theocratic platforms up to this point.

True. Honestly though, part of why I said what I did, was that I speculate that in this current climate, if things don't change ideologically, I see there as being possible wars fought about this stuff. Just speculation.

What I was saying, though it might not work, was that it'd be simpler for the trans people to at least try to find common ground with the other side on this stuff, gaining their support. Then if any corrupt leaders try to have their way, both sides will be against them.

It seems less dangerous than what I could see happening as is - 4 years of peace, then 4 years where the trans people that simply "existed" during that time and were out in the open, are persecuted.

(I'm just talking hypotheticals.)

 

[YmirGF]

If some on the right in the US don't want non-binary people to lean left, perhaps they should consider how the right in the US generally approaches LGBT rights and see what they can change about that to attract more LGBT supporters.

I love how you have framed this point. You give the impression that the non-binary demographic is one worthy of being persued. I have serious doubts. I think this group is already "captured" and would be very resistent to any ideological changes. One would probably have better success trying to teach Kamala Harris how to form cogent sentences (and that's a long shot).

 

[Debater Slayer]

True. Honestly though, part of why I said what I did, was that I speculate that in this current climate, if things don't change ideologically, I see there as being possible wars fought about this stuff. Just speculation.

What I was saying, though it might not work, was that it'd be simpler for the trans people to at least try to find common ground with the other side on this stuff, gaining their support. Then if any corrupt leaders try to have their way, both sides will be against them.

It seems less dangerous than what I could see happening as is - 4 years of peace, then 4 years where the trans people that simply "existed" during that time and were out in the open, are persecuted.

I can see where you're coming from about the potential for even further escalation whether or not Democrats win four more years in the White House. I see that as an overarching problem with American politics and its bipartisan system, though, and given that trans people make up a tiny percentage of the population in the US and not all of them vote, I don't think what most of them decide to do will ultimately have any significant impact on the trajectory of American politics.

I also don't think it's always possible or even safe for people in certain groups to try to change the minds of people whose politics are hostile to them. This is especially so when the social or political climate is heavily lopsided, as it currently seems to be in some parts of the US. I think it can be a useful thing to do, but there are many variables to take into account that may change depending on the context and place in which someone tries to reach out and change others' minds.

In places where a trans person would be free and able to engage anti-trans voters to try to chip away at their beliefs without risking their own safety, I can see the potential usefulness. On the other hand, imagine if an ex-Muslim approached fundamentalists to try to change their minds in a highly conservative Muslim community. That could easily turn into a physically unsafe situation, and I wouldn't blame the ex-Muslim at all if they chose not to engage. In fact, I would be more surprised if they chose to engage.

My own background undoubtedly factors into my views on this, which is part of why I've never found it surprising whenever someone has mentioned that many (but certainly not all) LGBT people, atheists, ex-Muslims, or any other group politically or religiously targeted in a given country leans left rather than right when the latter variety of politics entails preservation or escalation of the hostile status quo. My main reaction is usually along the lines of, "What did people expect, given the alternatives?"

 

[Debater Slayer]

I love how you have framed this point. You give the impression that the non-binary demographic is one worthy of being persued. I have serious doubts.

I generally don't think anyone is "worthy of being pursued" save for criminals and other security threats, but you can easily look up what some right-wing media outlets and individuals, such as certain YouTubers, have to say about non-binary people. I would indeed ask them why they're so fixated on non-binary and trans people, but I haven't found a convincing answer so far.

I think this group is already "captured" and would be very resistent to any ideological changes. One would probably have better success trying to teach Kamala Harris how to form cogent sentences (and that's a long shot).

That's an assumption about an entire group who are, no doubt, not uniform in their views, as is the case with any other group of humans. I'm sure some are resistant to ideological changes (again, as is the case with a subset of humans in general), but I'm also sure—and have personally seen examples—that some of them would care much less about partisan politics if they weren't targeted with hostility and demonization.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I can see where you're coming from about the potential for even further escalation whether or not Democrats win four more years in the White House. I see that as an overarching problem with American politics and its bipartisan system, though, and given that trans people make up a tiny percentage of the population in the US and not all of them vote, I don't think what most of them decide to do will ultimately have any significant impact on the trajectory of American politics.

I'd just say that I think that's wrong because small groups of people are often the ones that change the world. Even single prolific people can have an influence.

Though I will admit, that "steering that ship" could be very hard.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd just say that I think that's wrong because small groups of people are often the ones that change the world. Even single prolific people can have an influence.

Though I will admit, that "steering that ship" could be very hard.

If it happened, I think it would be an extraordinary event, but I believe the more likely scenario for a bigger pro-trans shift in American politics would be for considerably large segments of the population in general to become supportive of trans rights (and I realize many already are, but there are still enough anti-trans politicians who win elections to pose a threat to trans rights). It's still possible that a tiny percentage of the population (0.5% of all adults in the US, in the case of trans people) could drive significant change without broader support from other groups, but historically and statistically speaking, I think that's extremely unlikely. I would love to see it happen, though.

 

[YmirGF]

I generally don't think anyone is "worthy of being pursued" save for criminals and other security threats, but you can easily look up what some right-wing outlets and individuals, such as certain YouTubers, have to say about non-binary people. I would indeed ask them why they're so fixated on non-binary and trans people, but I haven't found a convincing answer so far.

I think part of the fixation is because of the tidal wave of bizarre people coming out with bizarre takes on whatever gets them going today. Humanity is not adapting well to social media and the cracks are appearing. Conservatives actors like LibsofTikTok may well have brought a lot of this unique content a bit more exposure than the creators bargained for. How fair that is, is open to debate. It's pretty low hanging fruit. That said, and I am no exception here, people have a tendency to OVER-SHARE these days. It's like people have no shame and here I'm really meaning they do not seem to have any boundaries. Should we protect people from those who would take advantage of the poor choices they have made?
No one protected me from my own poor choices, but more importatly, there is no way you could have.

That's an assumption about an entire group who are, no doubt, not uniform in their views, as is the case with any other group of humans. I'm sure some are resistant to ideological changes (again, as is the case with a subset of humans in general), but I'm also sure—and have personally seen examples—that some of them would care much less about partisan politics if they weren't targeted with hostility and demonization.

You are talking to a gay conservative so I am a tiny bit familiar with this subject matter. It is amusing having it explained to me, however. {For the record, you do a good job.) In your country I can well imagine how horrific the hostility and demonization must get. The thing is what constitutes hostility and demonization? Who decides?

 

[syo]

But what exactly does a person have to believe to ACCURATELY be labeled a TERF?

Oh boy... People sure have problems...

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That said, and I am no exception here, people have a tendency to OVER-SHARE these days. It's like people have no shame and here I'm really meaning they do not seem to have any boundaries.

In the past, it often seemed that people were more hesitant to share their thoughts and knowledge, possibly due to a prevailing fear of appearing too intellectual or different. However, in the present, there appears to be a noticeable shift. Some individuals are now inclined to share more than before, with an aim to educate and inform (usually). As a result, people today are more willing to break away from past fears and contribute to better information despite all the craziness going on. I guess.