The ‘inclusivity’ stupid train just keeps on chugging along over at ShoutoutJMU. Not an argument or even a shade of nuance is to be found there. Just dull eyed listless opprobrium meant to keep people in line and critical analysis at bay.
It is an insipid shit show, and we all know by now that the RPOJ is a vehicle build specifically for shit-shows. But let us not tarry further – let’s see what this “feminist” resource has to offer on the subject of the intersection between radical feminism and queer politics.
—–
“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are one of the worst kinds of people out there. You’re not a feminist, so you’ve been canceled.”
Wow. Such insight, much praxis, good enlightening… Starting your thoughts off with insults and slander always sets the stage for a charitable, honest, and productive discussion.
The only aspect missing is a strawman caricature of your opponents position to savagely beat and make your fellow besotted acolytes feel powerful….
“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. These are “feminists” who consistently choose to leave trans folks OUT of the conversation.”
Radical feminism, or effective feminism, is the project to liberate women (Adult human females) from the patriarchal constructs of society. Generally speaking radical feminist theory and praxis revolves around identifying social structures in society that are oppressing women, raising the consciousness of women being affected by said structures, then analyzing and deconstructing said oppressive edifices with the goal of the emancipation of women from patriarchy.
A helpful insight provided free of charge – One of the primary axis of oppression women experience is based on their sex. The means of this oppression is the construct of gender which dictates and imposes the inferior role for women in society.
The radical feminist solution is working toward the abolition of gender in society, because the of the harmful nature of the construct for both women and men.
Radical Feminists are therefore about the liberation of women in society, and centring women in that struggle. The activist world is big, if you’re not feeling like you’re the primary concern in Feminism (the struggle for female liberation) then start your own damn movement and stop co-opting feminism proper for goals that do not focus on the female struggle against patriarchy.
Also since trans identified females (Tif’s) are in fact, female, they are subject to the same sex based oppression all females face and indeed are included under the aegis of effective female-centric feminism.
“Why? Because, well they suck.”
Queer theorists and the SJW ilk are just full of profoundly deep explanations for their assertions. To be fair though, they are gangbusters at circular arguments, but that’s still coming; so hold on to your hats folks, the circus ride of abjectly plaintive idiocy has yet to crest.
“The idea is that “transwomen” aren’t really women because they “grew up men” and still “receive all the benefits of the patriarchy”.
Trans women, or trans identified males (Tim’s) are not women. Male socialization is unavoidable for natal males born into our society. You’ll have about as much success as renouncing your white privilege if you happen to be born white. In other words – your personal subjective solution to the dominant ethos of society is fucking irrelevant.
“In turn, they use the same rhetoric with transmen “who grew up women” and are now “trying to receive the benefits of the patriarchy”
They actually don’t. It is risible enough to deny the potency and ubiquitous nature of male socialization, but to gloss over the fact that much of radical feminism is built on material, factual, reality, is really quite egregious. Furthermore since TiF’s are female they are indeed most welcome in effective feminism.
“Either way, someway, all transpeople contribute to the patriarchy and therefore, do not deserve feminism.”
Said no radical feminist ever. But its damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead when beating the the crap out of the straw feminist bogywoman you’ve created.
That was honestly hard to write.”
It must have been hard to write considering the sheer magnitude of bullshit per square centimetre demonstrated.
“Transwomen are women.
Transmen are men.”
It wouldn’t be a ‘woke’ SJW article without at least one thought terminating cliche, combined of course, with a circular definition of what a woman is. (i.e. What is a woman, a woman is anyone who says they are woman [but what is a woman…??]. – You can’t define a term by itself.)
Sorry, not sorry, but the above statements are not arguments, they are strictures meant to discriminate between the ideologically sound and the unwashed. They are endpoints meant to discourage questioning and silence dissent. You many fuck off now with your thinly veiled ‘woke’ misogyny at your earliest convenience.
“They aren’t “men who grew up to be women and women who grew up to be men”. They’re people who sometimes grew up in the wrong bodies.”
Wrong bodies or not, biological sex is immutable.
“Don’t even get me started with NB people. OOMPH. The DISRESPECT.”
So we’ll combat the evil of the gender binary by creating another false binary? Seems to be layering another layer of oppression into a already terribly oppressive system. Woo, the progress…
“Rhetoric from TERFs has been used for years to silence people. But right now, me and everyone else in the gendery and queer community are amused…”
Wow, winning the oppression Olympics must feel soooo fucking good.
You and the ‘gendery-queery’ community continue to avoid speaking and acting on the elephant in the room: the epidemic of patriarchally endorsed male violence. Violent males continue to kill women and trans people at alarming rate, pretty much without repercussion and you’re banging on about experiencing repression at the hands of the Radical Feminists?
Get back to me when you start tackling the root of the problem instead of whinging on about a small collection of females who are rightly calling bullshit your inconsistent, misogynistic, and female erasing ideology.
“Some folks are discussing… […]”
Skipping tangential meanderings/virtue signalling.
“TERFs are exclusive, and demand their turf space. But, people like me aren’t going to let them have it.”
The struggle against male power is age old, and the misogyny exhibited here is nothing new. Women will rise, women will struggle, and women will prevail against patriarchy in whatever form it happens to take. Thankyouverymuch.
“Even when TERFs include race or ability, their sole goal to deconstruct the patriarchy and battle gender stereotypes and fight for equality of gender….is counter intuitive. They’re not fighting for all women.”
Radical feminists are struggling for female liberation. Gender is a toxic hierarchy by definition, and thus, no semblance of “equality” can be struck within the system.
The only counterintuitive aspect of your statement is attempting to lump males into a movement that strives for female liberation. It makes about as much sense as asking for management’s opinions on how to run a union strike.
“Why should I contribute to feminist conversations… […]”
I’m solidly with you on that one, because other than creating a writable RPOJ-moment, the value of your contributions (at least to the feminist movement) approaches zero.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 3, 2018 at 8:00 am
socialjusticesolidarity
Okay so, first of all, I’m flattered I was chosen to be under fire for such an…interesting perspective.
This entire post was actually originally centered around a tweet by THe Daily Spew that was started by, you guessed it, TERFs, the “#NotAllWomenAreMen” which, ironically, affirms transfolks? The irony was interesting, so for my post, I decided to write about the inherent counter productivity of TERF rhetoric.
I think you completely missed the point that, it’s inherently misogynistic to exclude all men and all women out of the conversation. And being anti-trans is being misogynistic. And no, you can’t “smash the patriarchy” by excluding those voices. Your post here is an interesting one, as, you had to dedicate an entire post to bash my post. I appreciate your perspective though. However, you’re inherently wrong. This whole idea that only cis women will prevail is the exact binary that’s violent and contributing to the patriarchy in the first place. These waves of feminism didn’t push forward to quality or even the fight against harmful masculine structures.
The newer feminist movement is not about “female liberation” and yes, it is about deconstructing the idea of gender. But newer waves are constructing feminism in a way that discusses the ways that it is trying to deconstruct the system. And trust me, I’m well aware of the harmfulness that feminism has had to women of color groups, queer groups, and especially QTPOC groups in the past. So, if you’re claiming to be a “feminist”, even a radical feminist, but you’re not actually including all women, then you’re just fighting for….white women equality? White women have more privilege than QTPOC.
If you’re actually working to even remotely fight for women, or even “liberate women” but you’re not actually fighting for…all women, then who exactly are you fighting for? Since, it seems, you’re this expert on radical feminist theory. What’s old is the fight for cis women, but rather the fight for all women. And if you’re not fighting for transwomen, then call yourself a transphobe and move on. Because this whole idea that transwomen aren’t women is absolute shit.
Interestingly, you skipped the part where I acknowledged my struggle with the word feminism because it seems to contribute to the points you’re making here. But, worry not right? Let’s just skip to another part where you can bash the post with more unproductive slander.
What’s interesting here is that this entire post is meant to acknowledge that by inherently only fighting for cis women, you’re contributing to the patriarchy and the binary. You’re not actually liberating women. You’re inherently being counter productive and transphobic, and that’s just that. The part where you’re discussing the idea that I’m creating another binary, by acknowledging that people like you function off of a binary is counter productive. You’ve acknowledged the gender binary, but then…discussed biological sex, as if they’re the same thing. They’re not.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-sex-and-gender-which-are-not-the-same-thing-influence-our-health.html
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sexual-orientation-gender/gender-gender-identity
So, I mean this post is interesting in the lack of information, but try doing your research on gender, the binary, and science in general before you pretend like you actually care about “feminism”. Excluding transwomen is counter productive because you’re acknowledging that the gender binary is productive and discrimination is acceptable based on your sex. It’s not about the idea that identity is used as a vehicle, but rather deconstructing the harmful constrictions of gender to contribute to the deconstruction of a system.
Your logic, while you think it is sound, is not. I’m not asking you to agree with everything on the site. I’m not even asking you to agree with everything I’m saying. But do your research and actually pull up science, facts, and information before you make ignorant comments that contribute to your transphobia.
If radical rhetoric is trying to rid women of the patriarchy, unless you, and your angry blog, are planning on starting a revolution by tomorrow, try actually being productive by making real criticisms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 3, 2018 at 11:56 am
alwaysovaryacting
It is ironic that you say that radical feminists work towards the abolition of gender when then you go about to say that yet “trans women” are not women. You contradict yourself and by not seeing trans women as women, and trans men as men, that’s transphobic. Also, by stating that biological sex and gender are the same, is just false and SJS so generously gave you the links for you to educate yourself. By using the “trans-identified” you are silencing trans women and trans men and by doing are denying their basic rights to humanity and self-determination. You are directly attacking their humanity for nothing more than being themselves. If you google or go on YouTube for “trans-identified” it will tell you it is a made-up discriminatory word which excludes and therefore is not productive to the progression of feminism. Also, since you fight for the destruction of the gender binary, I wonder what your thoughts are on non-binary folks? Lastly, how can you say that biological sex is immutable when you’re calling for an erasure of genders at the same time? Why are you speaking for the trans community if you are ultimately erasing their voices by categorizing them as “trans-identified”? Again, as SJS states above, your whole argument is based on no facts and no research – so before replying, please do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2018 at 4:40 pm
deborahpeifer
A very fine post, DWR. I note that the two comments above conflate sex and gender, and then attempt to use that erroneous conflation to misstate your arguments, proving yet again that there is nothing of logic, science, fact, or value in transblathering. Thank you very much for continuing the good fight, and giving me some laughs at the same time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 4, 2018 at 12:03 am
The Arbourist
@socialjusticesolidarity
Doubt it. Being called out on one’s bullshit is neither flattering or particularly pleasant. Been there, doesn’t feel good. Depends what you do with the criticism.
My interest in right-wing twitter is limited. What is of interest is that ‘feminist’ organizations use slurs against women that they don’t agree with. The term ‘terf’ is almost always used pejoratively to silence and intimidate women who refuse to centre men in their feminism.
But hey, I guess labels are not that important, right?
An uncharitable, mostly fact free, beating of strawmen only demonstrates your lack of productivity and coherence, if one is to be completely honest.
Misogyny is the hatred of females. Excluding men from a movement whose goal is female liberation is in no way misogynistic, considering that it is yoke of male oppression feminism proper is struggling against.
I will concisely define every term I use, and by my count, you don’t know what misogyny is, please check the link for your edification.
Not agreeing with the deeply subjective personal feelings of (mostly) men and not allowing them to redefine terms like woman (adult human female) isn’t being ‘anti-trans’ but rather pro-reality. Biological sex is immutable, and all the passionate gender-feels in the world do not change the material, observable, scientific fact that men cannot become women, and vice versa.
A large portion of the trans-activist community is openly hostile toward women. They have no place in the struggle for female liberation. As I said in the RPOJ, you don’t invite management to the union strategy meetings. It is nonsensical.
Patriarchal, anti-woman bullshit doesn’t fly whether it comes from MRA’s or members of the regressive left. It’s nothing personal, but trans rhetoric is a inconsistent hot mess that represents a clear and present danger to women and the gains they have made in their struggle against patriarchy.
You would need to demonstrate that a feminism centred on the needs of females is ‘inherently wrong’.
Please quote where is stated that only “cis” women will prevail? I can’t find a reference, in fact, I do believe it was stated that feminism is for all women, including trans-identified females, as indeed they have a place in the movement and the struggle against patriarchy.
For the record the term “CIS” is a non starter here, as no woman ‘identifies’ with the oppressive gender roles society enforces upon her. The creation of the cis/trans binary serves as an instrument to silence women and prevent them from naming their oppressors (men) in society.
You may have to provide some evidence that (I’m guessing here because your sentence isn’t particularly cogent) that a certain wave of feminism didn’t do “X”.
So really past intersectionality, as defined by Crenshaw, 3rd wave feminism isn’t worth very much because it doesn’t do very much to liberate women from patriarchy.
Really. So how is reifying gender ‘deconstructing’ it? Gender is a hierarchical system that is designed to oppress females and elevate males in society. Nothing good comes from this oppressive system, and yet this is the hill you’re intending to die on. Radical feminist theory rightly sees gender for the oppressive construct that it is, and moves to abolish it from society.
Wow. It would be nice if you actually had a argument rather than a laundry list of accusations and thought terminating cliches. Feminism is the struggle for the female emancipation from patriarchy, it is by and for women because they reside in the class in society that is oppressed. Not including the oppressors in your movement is realistic and necessary for the movement to be effective.
And there go the oppression olympics again. Try harder with an actual argument.
You seem stuck on this point. Feminism is for all women. Respect the definition – women = adult human female and you will see that Radical Feminism is indeed inclusive to the correct degree.
There is nothing stopping the transactivsts from forming their own movement – well actually they have – the problem lies when they want to centre themselves and co-opt the movement that is about female liberation. Sorry, no space for dudes in the movement.
Based on what? Male feelings are more important than female safety? That perhaps other peoples subjective personal states should be imposed on others, that we should deny material reality because others say so…? Ah, I think not.
Some parts of your post were less egregious than others.
In your post and here, you do a great deal of ‘telling’ and basically no ‘showing’. Essentially you say a bunch of stuff and expect your audience to take you seriously. I, and others, have no obligation to give more than a flying fuck (and really, I have, because I’ve taken the time to deconstruct your bullshit) about your opinion. Telling me your opinion is facile, tedious, and uninformative. It appears you may be part of a post-secondary institution, the goal of said institution (hopefully) being to encourage the use of critical faculties and analysis. FFS, demonstrate how you’re more right and stop telling me that you are.
Wow. Biological sex is material reality. Gender is patriarchal, hierarchical social construct that oppresses women. One of the primary axis of oppression for females is their biological sex, the means of said oppression are the gender roles women are forced to inhabit in society.
From the Standford Paper:
1. ““Sex differences are important from the cellular level up,” says Stefanick. “We really need to investigate the genetics and cell biology to truly understand the implications of these differences.”
2. “By studying both sexes and reporting on the results for women and men separately, scientific questions will be more fully answered, driving the development of sex-appropriate treatments,” says the NIH’s Clayton.
3.“Sex is a biological trait that is determined by the specific sex chromosomes inherited from one’s parents. In humans, male sex is determined (with a few exceptions) by the presence of the Y chromosome. A gene on the Y chromosome directs the differentiation of the fetal gonads into testes, resulting in the production of testosterone — which affects many of the body’s tissues — early in development. People with one X and one Y chromosome, or variants like XXY or XYY, are typically male, while those who have solely X chromosomes are usually female. People have a sex; animals have a sex; all tissues, including the fetal placenta, have a sex; even individual cells have a sex. Gender, on the other hand, is socially, culturally and personally defined.”
Conclusion – This paper is about the fact that women are often underrepresented in scientific studies and that, biologically speaking sex differences matter. Did you even read the paper, or is this one of the times where you throw a boatload of random ass sources at me and expect me to “educate myself”.
You haven’t even read this fucking paper because it clearly defines sex and gender as I do, and it underlines the conflation of sex and gender which is precisely where (effective) feminism and trans ideology is at loggerheads.
From Planned Parenthood:
“The factors that determine our assigned sex begin as early as fertilization.
Each sperm has either an X or a Y chromosome in it. All eggs have an X chromosome.
When sperm fertilizes an egg, its X or Y chromosome combines with the X chromosome of the egg.
A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically female.
A person with XY chromosomes usually has male sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically male.
Other arrangements of chromosomes, hormones, and body parts can happen, which results in someone being intersex.”
Again. Biological sex is immutable. Thanks for that. PP isn’t a source for scientific citations. The fact they’ve adopted some of the trans-rhetoric doesn’t change material reality.
Hahahahahahahahah…wooo…ahhhh. Right, you said that unironically. Gotcha.
I’m excluding trans-women, aka MEN from feminism because they, as MEN are part of the class of people that oppress women.
So how is exactly embodying female gender stereotypes “deconstructing” the system. Do we need to define what deconstructing means, because you keep using that word, but I’m not sure you know what it means. So, please demonstrate how undertaking gender roles (which as defined earlier are toxic for everyone who follows them) is deconstructing a harmful structure of society and not, in fact, reinforcing it?
For people outside of the regressive left, being “transphobic” quite closely resembles respecting biological fact and material reality.
I call out ideals and ideology that are harmful for women and feminism. Whether it happens to be MRA’s and PUA’s and the various levels of red pill batshittery that exist on the net or if its the gender-addled who think that by erasing females, their rights and their boundaries and centring men in feminism is some how **good** for female liberation.
I have. You’ve answered with your very important opinion, slurs (terf, cis), deflections (oohh noes!white feminism!!, oppression olympics) and telling me to ‘educate myself’ with papers that support my position.
I’ll get right on it.
LikeLike
December 4, 2018 at 12:07 am
The Arbourist
@Deborahpeifer
I only had time to respond to one, I may have time for part 2 tomorrow. It’s getting late. :) The hilarity continues.
LikeLike
December 4, 2018 at 9:06 pm
The Arbourist
@alwaysovaryacting
Did you also catch the no show, but only tell bug from your compatriot? How exactly is my statement ironic? Do we need to define what irony is as well?
Gender is the system of stereotypes that are really toxic and negatively affect both women and men (women more so because their oppression stems from the gender roles they are forced into in society).
So how to trans identified males express their personal subjective gender identity? By enacting the gender stereotypes of what they think is appropriate feminine behaviour. This reinforces the gender binary and gender in general.
In opposition to this, abolishing gender would mean that there are no stereotypes to follow and be judged by. A man can be gender non conforming and wear a dress and heels… and that would be fine because there is no stereotype of toxic masculine behaviour that artificially rates his masculinity and possibly shames him for acting too feminine.
Staying true to material reality is not contradictory. Men and women cannot change sex therefore trans women are men, and trans men are females.
Do you people even read the shit you link to? :) There is no conflation of sex and gender on my behalf. I define the terms I use, and am very specific in their usage. I wish the same could be said of some of the positions you seem to hold.
The label ‘trans-identified’ is more accurate and closer to the truth. And not impinging on anyone’s humanity or rights to self-determination.
I, nor anyone else, is required to validate anyone’s personal subjective reality. At least not in a free society.
Errr, no. They can self-identify as whatever they wish. They do not however get to determine what reality is for me or anyone else. The notion that anyone has to play along with another’s gender self-delusion is a totalitarian ideal that should not be fostered in society.
Oh you mean like TERF and CIS. Yeah, no. Labeling goes both ways and feminists that are concerned with the liberation of women from patriarchy need to have accurate descriptive terms that concur with biological reality and the oppression and structural dynamics that form the basis of actual feminist analysis.
If you are part of society then you’re part of the gendered hierarchy. Self declarations are essentially meaningless in light of the categorizing process in society. One does not simply stop being oppressed by a declaration of being NB. If you happen to be read as female, you will be oppressed – no amount of chanting “I’m NB” will change that.
Already answered the question. Gender non conformity would be normalized and people could dress and act as they wanted – with no restrictive and toxic stereotypes to be judged by. Biological sex would simply be that, and personality like gender, would be up to the individual.
Accurately describing biological material reality is not ‘speaking for’ the trans community. The trans community exists within society, and said society places value in making statements and arguments that are congruent with reality. Being taken to task for not acknowledging simple biological truths is not the fault of society, or feminists to be honest, the responsibility lies squarely on those trans activists who continue to deny and obfuscate the issues.
Yeah.. I’m thinking that perhaps some time with google scholar, or really any post secondary library might be in order. When I saw the links provided, they were not the ones typically provided by transactivists, it was a relief of sorts? But you’ll need to up your research game if you wish to be taken more seriously in the future.
LikeLike