#because it ignores the role misogyny has in lesbian discourse

[peridyke]

here's my most controversial opinion regarding gay discourse. get ready for this one. I think a lot of the fearmongering about "straight women who fetishize gay men" comes from trying to make a male parallel to when lesbians talk about the horrible lesbian porn industry and completely fails because the problem with lesbian porn isn't that men watch it its that it is a horrible misogynistic lesbophobic industrial complex built on the dehumanization of gay women. and by freaking out about the supposed straight women/"non men" who are fetishizing gay men it ends up weirdly gatekeeping transmasculinity and creates an artificial separation between the women who are fetishizers and the "real men" who were consuming stuff like yaoi as a way of connecting to gay masculinity before coming out. like there isn't a comparable yaoi industrial complex run by evil misandrists and you are not going to successfully find the difference between the real men and the bad women

[herbeloveve]

hello!! I’ve seen you post a lot about the idea that butch and femme relationships come with roles that both butches and femmes have to fulfill, and thought off the top of my head that you might be a reliable person to ask to elaborate slightly on that concept? Like, what defines these “roles” and how are people meant to interact with them?

I feel I may fit into one of these categories, however I am relatively “newly liberated” in my self expression so I havent really navigated either one. That’s mostly irrelevant, but just for context in case it helps. I’m fully aware you’re most likely not a walking historical database so if you’re not up to answering, (obviously) absolutely no pressure!! It seems to be a very important aspect of femme/butch identity that’s being erased to an extent by modern discourse and expression, and I don’t want to solidify my external identity in a way that participated in that kind of erasure. Though, again, feel free to ignore this completely.

Cheers!

it has been way too long and i am so sorry for not answering this sooner, i really wanted to get this Right, yknow?

First of all, I just want to say thank you for coming to me about this, I feel very honoured that you trust me with your questions — with that being said I feel it is important for me to tell you that I’ve only identified with the femme role for around 3 years. I by no means consider myself a ‘baby femme’ but in terms of longevity, I am still new and learning and coming to terms with what femme means and what it means to identify with that role. Alongside this, I recognise that butch/femme is not necessarily lesbian-exclusive, though I am coming at this through the lens of being a lesbian myself.

Another thing- this might get long, and I may also come back to add anything I think of later, so if you would ever like to DM me, please feel free. 🩷

For ease, I will be referring to butch-femme as BF. 

While there are no criteria in terms of set ‘rules’ for being butch or femme, there are general ideals and roles that are typical within BF relationships and their respective individual identities. Not only that, when experiencing these roles and living them, they’re not supposed to feel restrictive; and they do feel that way, then these labels might not be for you- which is okay, but I’ve recently seen a lot of comments suggesting that BF culture is restrictive and doesn’t feel freeing. This isn’t the case for those who are BF- I found such freedom when I learned and grew into the femme identity- and I know this is the case for the majority of butches and femmes I see online. 

I wish I could find the full quote, but I once saw someone refer to butches as being ‘the helpful one’. Which, in my opinion, is absolutely true– to me it feels adjacent and much alike to the concept of butch chivalry! 

". . . a butch is someone who has taken on the best gendered characteristics of both woman and man, left a lot of the stuff born of misogyny and heterosexism behind, and walked forward into the world without apology." – S. Bear Bergman, "Butch Is a Noun"

I am femme. I find comfort in butch lesbians and protecting them. I love being on my butch’s arm. I love being confusing to cis and straight people because they look at me and don’t understand me. Exploring my femininity through being femme has brought liberation in a way I didn’t know was possible.

I think a big misconception about BF identities is that only butches can fall into ‘gender non-conforming’ and femmes only fall into it because of their relationship with butches, this can be the case for some femmes but, certainly not all. While femmes are typically feminine presenting, we can and are still be gnc, non-binary, trans, etc. Many femmes will present feminine, but it is often a different kind of feminine and one that is rooted in their gender and sexuality– we will choose not to shave our armpits or legs while wearing our skirts and dresses. Femme is exaggerated and rooted in queerness and LGBT identity.  

You are right, in saying important aspects of BF culture have seemed to be erased; I don’t know if this is solely due to modern discourse, but I feel a part of this is a lack of BF-specific spaces. I find this, especially in smaller cities and areas where BF culture - and lesbian subcultures as a whole - are virtually non-existent. For example, my country, and by effect, my city, has very limited BF-specific events, clubs, etc. Whereas if you went to NYC, you might find more of the culture there. 

In my experience, a lot of the BF subculture has been found online, through literature, and through art. If you haven’t already, I really do urge you to read the likes of Stone Butch Blues, The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, Persistence: All Ways Butch and Femme. I haven’t read Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, but I hear it’s also a good introduction on the history of BF identities. 

I think what can be daunting about BF identities is there are more identities within them - Stone Butch, Stone Femme, High Femme etc. and exploring these are also quite scary- especially when it comes to trauma and past experiences. I don’t want to get into this too much, but if you have follow-up questions, I will absolutely do my best to answer, though, Stone Femme [tops] and stone butch [bottoms] exist and are loved. 

Final thoughts before I go on separate tangents… There is no one size fits all when it comes to BF identities. You are well-within your right to try different labels and see how they fit, and if they don’t fit then that’s okay! It’s all a learning experience.

[ummadum]

Why José Mourinho is problematic

I’m not a fan of José Mourinho and whilst I can come around to his tactics, I really doubt I will ever like him as a person.

Football is a very misogynistic, homophobic, racist and generally disrespectful place where people, especially powerful people, are not held accountable for their actions and words. This post is an accumulation of some of the very worrying things Jose has said and done over the years, that he has never acknowledged nor apologised for. I think that it’s important to keep these things in mind especially now, because the “José is a great person” idea is on the rise again. Whilst someone like Sergè, who also said some really disrespectful things, but someone who apologised for them and was willing to learn from his mistake, has his mistakes constantly brought up again, we are ignoring and burying all the things that are really wrong with our manager. 

And if the club have asked Sergé to acknowledge and apologise for his statements (the right move), then we should do the same with Mourinho, who was much older when he said those things and had and has a lot more power and reach. 

Homophobic

In 2012, as Real Madrid manager, Mourinho was caught on camera using “marocones” (which means faggot in English) to refer to the referees pre champion league match agains CSKA Moscow. 

This is a link to the video [x]  it’s about 20 seconds in.

The European Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation (EGLSF) released a statement [x] calling for action, which includes this:

Louise Englefield, Co-president of the EGLSF, an organisation representing over 17,000 lesbian gay bisexual and trans (LGBT) athletes across Europe, said: “Homophobia is unacceptable from anyone in football, much less from one of the game’s most senior figures. We are deeply disappointed that Mr Mourinho is casually using homophobic terms of abuse in his workplace. It is especially sad that these comments have been made during the International Football v Homophobia campaign week. This is a time during which the European football community should be joining forces to tackle discrimination and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people . As long-standing partners of the FARE network, we call on UEFA to take action and impose appropriate sanctions.”

And yet nothing ever happened, no apology, no acknowledgment and no sanctions.

Racist

Josés stance on racism is an interesting one, because he has publicly stated that he is opposed to direct racism, yet does apparently not believe that there is an underlying structural racism problem in the world and in football.

About coaching opportiunities for black coaches

In 2014, when questioned whether football needs a Rooney rule, which in the NFL ensures that ethnic minority candidates are adequately represented in the interview process for head coaching positions, he said this: 

When asked if he felt football was doing enough to bring in black managers and whether he felt a quota should be introduced, Mourinho said: “There is no racism in football. If you are good, you are good. If you are good, you get the job.” “If you are good, you prove that you deserve the job. Football is not stupid to close the doors to top people. If you are top, you are top.” [x]

At the moment of publication of this article, only two of 92 clubs in the top four divisions in English football had a black manager. And only four black managers have ever worked in the premier league. 

His statement warranted this lengthy response from the then FIFA Vice-President Jeffrey Webb. [x] Who points to a much larger problem of lack of enthnic people in power in football in general.

About Hair

“I want to push the young players on my team to have a proper haircut, not the Rastafarian or the others they have.”

I don't have the exact source but it’s mentioned in multiple “best of José quotes articles [x]  [x]

Misogyny

Dr. Carniero

The most obvious place to start talking about Mourinho and his issues with misogyny is his treatment of Dr. Eva Carneiro who was the Chelsea first team doctor from 2009 until september 2015. During the first Game of the 15/16 season against Swansea Dr. Carneiro and chief physiotherapist Jon Fearn were called into the pitch by the referee to attend to Eden Hazard who had gone down. It was towards the end of the match and Chelsea had already had Courtois sent off and were therefore down to 9 men. Under the laws of the game, the medical staff is only allowed on the pitch if the referee summons them and once they have been summoned it's their duty to attend to the player. Mourinho took an issue with both of them rushing onto the field, because it left his team temporarily with 8 outfield players and so he allegedly called Dr. Carniero “filha da puta” which translates to “daughter of a bitch/whore”. He says he didn’t use the female version, but that he said “filho da puta”  and that “swearing is a part of football”. This then led to a lot of discourse about whether it was actually abusive language towards a woman or not. 

The more damning thing happened later in the press conference. 

“I wasn't happy with my medical staff because even if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game.If you go to the pitch to assist a player, then you must be sure that a player has a serious problem. I was sure that Eden didn't have a serious problem. He had a knock and was very tired.My medical department left me with eight fit outfield players in a counter attack after a set piece and we were worried we didn't have enough players left.”

“You have to understand the game”, especially when aimed at a woman already comes with enough negative and misogynistic connotations. And there was no lack of “understanding of the game” in this instance, it was their duty to attend to the player according to the rules. Maybe he should have had a word with Eden Hazard about not feigning injuries instead.

But this is not where this ends. Following this incidence, Fearn (a Man) was removed from first team matches and Dr. Carniero was removed from all first team duties such as training sessions, matches and even entering the team hotel. And as Duncan Castles, one of Josés mouthpieces in the british press then reported: 

Mourinho is said to have held reservations about Carneiro’s role within the first-team squad since at least last year. While there is no question about her professional abilities, the Portuguese coach was concerned that the dressing room dynamic was affected by the presence of a female. According to a source, some players had expressed misgivings to the coaching staff about the set-up, arguing that it forced them to alter their usual behavior in a team environment.  [x]

The same women that had worked with Chelsea's first team for 6 years and under 4 different managers just suddenly became a problem with Josés arrival. Maybe there were some players that complained about her, but José should have told them to get over it. Sadly, I can’t link you to the original source of these quotes because the website does not exist anymore but here are some more articles referring to the same quotes. [x] [x]

Her dismissal went to court and she and Chelsea ended up settling the case. 

This whole thing ties into the larger issue of misogyny in football, this is an interesting article about how 2/3 s of the women in football face sexist discrimination. [x]

Montse Benitez

Rafael Benitez’ wife Montse Benitez made a joke, in 2015, about Rafa cleaning up Josés messes because Rafa just got the Real Madrid Job and she said “we tidy up his messes”, but afterwards added that it was understandable because there are only so many top clubs out there. 

The first part of his response is very much ok:

“The lady is a bit confused, with all respect. The only club where her husband [directly] replaced me was at Inter Milan, where in six months he destroyed the best team in Europe at the time.”

The second part however wasn’t:

“And for her to think about me and to speak about me, I think she needs to occupy her time — and if she takes care of her husband’s diet, she will have less time to speak about me.”

He told her to get back into the kitchen and that is such a backwards thing to say to women.  [x]

Generally Women 

In 2013, whilst complaining about Arsenal players complaining to the officials he said

“ you know they like to cry” and then added “Football is for men, or for women with fantastic attitude.”

José mourinho used being a woman as an insult to emasculate Arsenal players. Which is incredibly sexist. 

His post match tirade also includes some lovely xenophobia for good measure, which is a bit hypocritical coming from José. (I want to remind all Spurs fans that there was massive outrage after the United match, when similar criticism was aimed at Lamela)

"You know, they like to cry," Mourinho said. "That's tradition. But I prefer to say, and I was telling it to the fourth official, that English people – Frank Lampard, for example – would never provoke a situation like that. "Players from other countries, especially some countries, have that in their blood. So, if there is contact or an opponent is aggressive, they don't keep going. But this is English football. Foreign players are bringing lots of good things. They come here because they are talented. But I prefer English blood in football. English blood in this situation is: 'Come on, let's go.' Mikel's tackle is hard and aggressive but football is for men or for women with fantastic attitude. It's true."

[x]

Generally problematic things he has said

Him calling Wenger a voyeur is not included but he did end up actually apologising for that. 

2006: "Sometimes you see beautiful people with no brains. Sometimes you have ugly people who are intelligent, like scientists," [x]

Me being a scientist probably makes me even more annoyed with this statement, but honestly can we get rid of this stupid idea.

 2005: “Ricardo Carvalho seems to have problems understanding things, maybe he should have an IQ test, or go to a mental hospital or something.” [x] 

Statements against him that he took to court

A journalist for spanish newspaper Marca wrote about José during his time at chelsea:

“the type of person who would flee after knocking someone down"

A letter from Mourinho's lawyers then read:

"In our eyes this phrase is... degrading and was used in a manner which was completely unnecessary in the critique."

Chelsea also took action against a former Barcelona director after he posted the following on twitter during a match against Manchester City.

"It's lamentable the psychopath celebrating goals as if he was a player." 

[x]

Which is utterly ironic when taking all the things he has said about others into account.

A lot of these quotes are older, but judging from his recent choice of words, the constant emasculation of his players also shown in a documentary meant to make him look good, he might not be saying these things publicly anymore but the subtext and undertones still remain, therefore not really making it look like he has learned from his past mistakes and has become a better person in the slightest. Also, these quotes are just the tip of the iceberg of what kind of a human being José Mourinho really is. He is an incredibly manipulative individual that chooses all of his words, especially those to the press, really carefully and if these quotes are things that he chose to say deliberately, then I’m worried about what other opinions he has that he does not voice to the public. But if someone treats him like he does others he has an issue with it.

He can be an interesting individual to watch and his amount of arrogance can be fairly entertaining, but his general lack of respect for his players and staff shouldn't be overlooked especially in a world which is trying to move towards the future. And a footballing world at least saying that they are trying to remove discrimination from the game. 

I don’t want him to be sacked, but I would really like to remind people of the kind of person he is and for him to acknowledge these statements and apologise for it. But because this is football and Agueros actions with the lines-woman were dismissed because he is “a good person” I doubt that that will ever happen. 

[timeisacephalopod]

You know, I see a lot of discourse on why femslash is less popular overall and I think some of the reasons that are brought up (misogyny, less female characters, female characters not being just ‘boring’ like male characters, but outright misogynistic tropes, which makes them far harder to build than bland male characters on account of needing to completely remake them rather than just imagine more for them) are valid. I’ve often wondered why I gravitate towards almost exclusively m/m in writing and reading fanfic and considered misogyny, which is the most cited reason for the phenomenon. 

Here’s the thing though- if its original writing my leads are almost always women or female coded, and if they’re not there’s a strict split in genders (unless I’m writing something that has nonbinary characters). When I read original fiction I almost never read stories about men written by men- my entire library is female authors writing female characters. Obviously misogyny and not enjoying lady characters isn’t my problem, so what’s the deal? My proposed reason, or rather a partial reason on account of the reasons for why femslash is less popular depends on individuals and the fandom at large (ie, fandoms with more women characters have more femslash). But I think a lot of it is that there’s not much of a model for female sexuality outside of men. Culturally speaking, we don’t talk about women’s sexuality and when we do its almost never within the context of just women- ie the male gaze. Shit, even lesbian porn is meant for men. We know this, so it doesn’t entirely seem surprising that there’s less femslash because of it.

One might mention that there’s not a huge model for gay men either, but men’s sexuality isn’t exactly something we shy away from. We know how men work, its easy to imagine how they might look together and when all else fails we can stick them into a heteronormative framework (that top/bottom discourse that often falls into thinly veiled misogyny that relegates the smaller therefore more ‘feminine’ one to the ‘bottom’ and therefore submissive role. To be clear penetration is not a form of power or dominance, its just sex. Hop off it). Lesbians face this too, like the weird assumption that femmes only date butches, but its also really difficult to shove someone into heteronormative assumptions when penetration, the biggest part of heteronormative assumptions in sex, is often synthetic. 

All our models for sex and sexuality treat penetration as the ultimate form of sex, and lesbians don’t fit neatly into that narrative. That’s where you get wild assumptions like lesbians using realistic dildos means they’re secretly attracted to men- we as a culture have a very hard time with accepting that women have a sexuality that’s completely independent of men whether or not men are involved. (And to be clear it doesn’t matter how realistic that dildo is, its not a man and never will be. Lesbians are lesbians regardless of what fucking toys they use jfc). I think this plays a large role in how and why fanfiction looks the way it does, just the simple difficulty people have imagining women’s sexuality with each other. Which is a bit upsetting considering most fanfic writers are women, but culturally we don’t give women their own space to express their sexuality either. And if they try we often punish them for it (ie straight women being sluts, lesbians being into men actually, they just haven’t found the right one yet, etc). Then there’s the way women’s love is often written off or ignored, ie. the Gal Pal garbage we see all the time. Women don’t often get the luxury of existing sexually outside of men, and thus we don’t have a lot of models on how to depict women loving women because their romance is written off as friendship, and their sex is written off as secretly for men or experimental.

Point is, women don’t get a place to express their sexuality independent of men pretty much ever, even if they’re lesbians just existing like that. We often do a lot of work to reframe female sexuality as for men, actually, including in instances where lesbian women are having sex with each other for each other. To me, its not entirely surprising that some of that cultural fallout might have landed in fandom spaces too, especially where so many women in canon works are clearly male fantasies (yes, this is a Joss Whedon callout). Once again it results in fans separating out women from male fantasy, which makes them a lot more work than male characters. Which, more than likely, is why you see more femslash in works with more women- there’s a good chance women were involved with the production of those works and suddenly a lot of the work around dealing with female characters disappears. The dynamics come easy and fast because they’re abundant and well written, plus they come with the added benefit of not having to pull a bunch of misogyny or homophobia (lesbophobia specifically) out of the fabric of their creation.

I’ve never seen anyone mention this, and technically it falls into the misogyny explanation, but its a real specific brand of it that’s highly lesbian specific. I think there’s a reasonable chance that this has something to do with less femslash, especially in canons where there are less lady characters or where they’re already flimsy male fantasies. Recreating that into something that doesn’t read like bad mainstream lesbian porn is a lot more work than well written male characters romancing each other, or even taking a couple bland male characters and building them up some more to make them romance each other. But women are almost never just bland, they’re sexy lamps, and that makes giving them sexualities independent of the misogyny they were created into a pain in the ass.

[not-terezi-pyrope]

TERFs: What you (don’t) want to know

CW: Overt discussion of transphobia, homophobia, racism, and acknowledgement of sexual topics.

So, for better or worse, I’ve found myself spending a lot of time observing (through chance encounter of via indirect commentary) TERF communities. TERF communities and rhetoric are something of a problem in-vogue right now, as, while TERF communities are generally fairly small, they are very vocal, and have managed to insidiously insert themselves into mainstream queer and feminist discourse through surface-level mimicry of progressive rhetoric. This is especially becoming an issue in my country, the UK, which is unfortunately now garnering a reputation as a hive-bed for TERF groups, something which has attracted some media attention as of late.

Given this, and because terfs thrive on misinformation campaigns, I thought I’d write up a sort of Q&A cheatsheet breaking down ideas about the “terf” movement and dispelling myths, malicious or otherwise. I think that confronting these people for what they are, and not letting them control the terms of the conversation by misrepresenting themselves and their opponents, is important as we strive for trans equality, and as a trans woman it’s a cause fairly close to my own chest. I may be putting a target on my chest a little by making a post like this, but then that’s par for the course. Also, keep in mind that this is all based solely on my own observations, experiences and reading, and you should probably seek out perspectives from other trans, feminist and queer people for a more diverse set of views. I am not an expert, and have probably made at least some mistakes as I’m not super knowledgeable in all these areas, so keep that in mind (and feel free to message me if I’ve made any really glaring errors).

So, here’s what you (don’t) want to know about The TERFs. (Long post under the cut: be forewarned).

What is a “TERF”?

TERF is a term used to describe a loose collective of conservative-leaning transphobes who couch their transphobic ideas within the framework of radical feminist rhetoric. The term “TERF” stands for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist”, and was popularized over a decade ago by a cis feminist to distinguish these transphobic individuals from more mainstream and intersectional feminists and radical feminists (a common lie spread by TERFs is that the term was create by trans women to attack them -  this is not the case). TERFs often self-term themselves “gender critical feminists” as a euphamism for their particular brand of transphobic ideology.

TERF ideology has its roots in second-wave feminism, including the writings of people like Germaine Greer (now fairly infamous for her transphobic views), and the work of long-since discredited pseudoscientist Ray Blanchard, known for his characterization of transgender people as motivated by sexual perversion in the 80s and 90s (and who now spends his time complaining about trans people watching anime on twitter).

The core tenets of TERF ideology are that gender is synonymous with gender assigned at birth, chromosomal type, and one’s physical genitalia. TERFs believe that sex is a strict binary, and that the role of women in society and the origins of misogyny are defined by one’s genitalia, and/or one’s capacity to reproduce. As such, TERFs believe that trans women are men who are “appropriating” the experiences of “real women”. This is a view fundamentally incompatible with the consensus in the scientific fields of genetics, reproductive biology, gender studies, and with almost all mainstream intersectional feminist discourse. Despite this, TERFs tend to ignore all evidence that contradicts their claims, as their primary motivation (as with most bigots) is to justify their pre-existing prejudices and avoid self-examination that contradicts their prior beliefs and assumptions. As well as transphobia, the implications of terf rhetoric are frequently variously misogynistic, homophobic, and racist, despite attempts by terfs to decry this (more below).

While gender roles are a social construct, and gender is definitely informed by societal context, the nature and expression of gender is in reality unique psychological experience and identity that may be related to one’s sexual characteristics but is not defined by it. The human experience of gender is a broad spectrum, with different ideas and experiences of gender existing in different cultures and communities across the globe.

Are TERFs feminists?

“No” would be a simple answer, but at the risk of falling prey to “No True Scotsman”, I will say that it depends on how you want to define the term. TERFs justify their ideology with the rhetoric of feminism, and claim that their perspective is based in a radical feminist deconstruction of gender. Their basic logic can be boiled down as such; “1. Gender, as a psychological experience, does not exist. 2. As such, the terms “man” and “woman” derive solely from one’s genitalia (or, depending on the context of the argument, chromosomes), and the axis of misogynistic oppression solely derives from one’s genitalia. 3. As such, trans women are not “true” women, and claiming that they are is misogyny and/or erasure of women”.

While this breakdown may entice cis people who haven’t examined concepts of sex and gender any more deeply than they did in their school biology lessons, this definition of manhood and womanhood is deeply reductive and is in and of itself misogynistic. Particularly concerning is the insistence of TERFs that womanhood is defined solely by one’s genitalia, or, as it is sometimes framed, one’s possession of a womb or ability to bear children. TERFs will often complain that describing people’s bodies in neutral, ungendered terms (e.g. “a person with a vagina”) is somehow objectifying, yet one of their core beliefs is fairly degrading idea that the be-all and end-all of womanhood is one’s genitalia, and one’s “role” in the reproductive cycle. This sort of Victorian era conception of gender is deeply rooted in misogynistic ideas about the role of women in society, and it is the sort of rhetoric responsible for legislation such as the recent horrific bill introduced in Utah which defines a woman as somebody with ovaries and who have “external anatomical characteristics that appear to have the purpose of performing the natural reproductive function of providing eggs and receiving sperm from a male donor.” It should be fairly clear that this sort of definition of womanhood as being defined by one’s “purpose” to reproduce is deeply reductive, sexist, and would be harmful (and erasing of) intersex people and cis women who are infertile or who have surgeries such as hysterectomy, even prior to considering the impact of these ideas on trans people.

On the topic of intersex people, it should be noted that their mere existence is a refutation to the TERF conception of gender as an absolute binary set before birth and static throughout life. TERFs tend to reject intersex people as “outliers” or aberrations when this point have brought up, and more recently have switched to the tactic of claiming that any trans person who tries to discuss intersex people during debates about sex and gender is “co-opting intersex narratives”, which is in essence an excuse used to stall debate on the subject and avoid addressing it.

More broadly with respect to feminism, in addition to the misogynistic implications of the TERF worldview, their brand of feminism is widely denounced by more mainstream feminists as being outdated, offensive and non-intersectional, as well as harmful to feminism as a whole. Here are a few articles talking about this; 1 2 3.

Is “TERF” a slur?

This is one of the most widespread myths spread by TERFs in order to delegitimize criticism, and to provide a pretext upon which to report and silence people who are attempting to discuss TERFs and their ideology. TERFs will claim that the word “TERF” is a slur created by trans women to persecute them. Usually, they will claim that the word is a derogatory term for women in general, or sometimes for lesbians.

This is blatantly false. Firstly, TERF is a neutral acronym that was popularized by a cis feminist to distinguish TERFs from other, non-transphobic feminists. It is an abbreviation of a description of their movement; self-described radical feminists who campaign for trans exclusion from women’s spaces and womenhood as a whole, as such, they are “trans exclusionary radical feminists”. TERF is often an insulting term, but it is such in the same way that being called a homophobe or a racist is “insulting”; it is insulting because it has accurately descriptive negative connotations.

The insistence that TERF is a slur, that TERF just means “lesbian” or “woman”, is a weapon used to shut down discussion, and a shield used to hide the fringe nature of their views. TERFs will often claim that all women are terfs, or that all “real” lesbians are terfs, and so that people using the term TERF are using it as a general slur for lesbians or women. This ignores the meaning of the word, and the reality at whom it is aimed. Not all women are terfs, not all lesbians are terfs, not even all transphobes are terfs. TERF describes a very specific subset of anti-trans activist, and the idea that it is a slur against other marginalized groups is to terfs simultaneously a useful lie and also a comforting self-deception that allows them to believe that their beliefs and community is far more widespread than it is, and that criticism of their ideas is rooted in some external bigotry rather than in the flaws in their own rhetoric.

Does “TERF” mean lesbian?

No. As explained above, this is an offensive lie spread by TERFs to further their own ends. Lesbians who I have talked to about this are generally disgusted with TERFs trying to associate themselves with them and misrepresent their community as being transphobic. While some TERFs may be lesbians (although they far from all are), they do not speak in any capacity for the lesbian community, no matter how much they may pretend to.

It is worth noting that TERFs have a history of erasing lesbians. TERFs claim that the only “true” lesbians are cis women who are solely attracted to women who were assigned female at birth. As well as (inevitably) denying the identity of trans lesbians, they erase the identity of cis women who identify as lesbian by claiming that any lesbian who is attracted to any trans woman is not a “real” lesbian and is instead bisexual. This, once again, is a nonsensical and abhorrent attempt to redefine terms to fit their own worldview.

Are TERFs conservative?

TERF rhetoric aligns very closely with conservative ideology regarding sex and gender. Although TERFs describe themselves as as feminists and as such see themselves as being “progressives” in a sense, they tend to have a distaste for the left as generally rejecting of their views, and ally themselves with right-wing conservatives in order to pursue their goal of marginalizing the trans people and seeking rollbacks of trans rights and equality. It is common to see TERFs “lament” that far right figures with deeply misogynistic perspectives on gender equality and other social causes are “the only ones” who agree with them, without stopping to reflect upon what implications this may have for the nature of their own beliefs.

As right wing sources and media are usually the only sources which backup their views on trans people, TERFs frequently share right wing or even far-right articles and writers to fuel their transphobia or to be used as “evidence” when arguing against trans rights. TERFs will often collaborate with right wing groups in order to further their fight against trans rights, even when such groups also pursue agendas contrary to the causes of gender equality, body autonomy and LGBT+ rights that they claim to support. A prominent example of this was exposed recently wherein a major TERF group was found to be engaging in legal action in partnership with ultra-conservative evangelical Christian group “Focus on the Family”, known for their opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion access, and women’s equality, in order to lobby against legal protections for trans people in the US. In another recent example, conservative group the Heritage Foundation paid for two prominent British TERF “activists” to be flown to America in order to interrupt a meeting between Sarah McBride, national press secretary of the Human Rights Campaign, and a colleague, in order to harass McBride for being transgender.

The nature of this relationship, wherein TERFs collaborate with, exchange funding with, and base their ideology on the publication of right-wing figures and groups, means that despite their cries to the contrary, TERFs as a movement should for all intents and purposes be considered right wing.

Are TERFs racist?

Writing this, I am a white trans woman and as such do not want to speak over trans women of colour who will have more nuanced and better informed perspectives on the links between TERF ideology and racism/white supremacy. You should definitely seek out the views and writings of trans people of colour who will be far more qualified to talk about and knowledgeable about racism in TERF circles than this one white trans girl. However, for the sake of this post I will provide a brief overview of some of the trends I have seen both in person and pointed out by others.

TERF’s feminism is by definition non-intersectional and tends to have a poor relationship with and understanding of how racial oppression intersects with feminist issues. A recurring theme in TERF politics is a condescension towards Muslim women and the stereotyping of actions of men of colour. TERFs also erase the particular intersection of transmisogyny and racism that trans women of colour experience by merely blaming their oppression on their actions as “men”. Moreover, TERF views about the gender binary are also ignorant of the diverse cultural conceptions of gender that have existed and continue to exist around the world that do not fall into their narrow binary. As did their colonial cultures before them, TERFs seek to apply their own binary conceptualization of gender to anyone and everyone they come into contact with. TERF-brand feminism is conceived therefore from a white, Western perspective and makes little effort to break free of this.

It is difficult to find articles discussing this aspect of TERF ideology specifically, but here are a few links in which instances of this are discussed. Examples are not difficult to find in documentation of activities undertaken by TERFs. I will also link this twitter thread that discusses TERFism as a gateway to white supremacy via the entry-point of transphobia.

What do TERFs think about trans men?

While a lot of discussion of TERF viewpoints centers their transmisogyny as the most visible manifestation of their transphobia, TERF ideology is also hostile towards transgender men, albeit in different ways to their hostility towards trans women.

A common TERF myth is that trans “genderists” are seeking to forcibly turn gender nonconforming cis people trans by “convincing them” (sometimes termed “brainwashing them”) into believing that they are of a different gender. As such, a common TERF belief about trans men is that they are simply GNC cis women, often characterized as “butch lesbians”, who have been “tricked” into thinking they are men by “transgender ideology”, or who seek to become men because they seek to escape misogyny. As such, a TERFs are often condescending towards trans men, pretending to empathize with an imagined plight of a “deluded woman”, while at the same time aggressively misgendering them and erasing their identities as trans men. While this idea bears no resemblance to the actual experiences of trans men, TERFs tend to have very little exposure to trans masculine people in general, and so, much like their conception of trans women, their ideas about the issues trans men face are largely based in a collection of myths that they themselves have invented.

This is not to say that TERFs will not be more overtly aggressive towards trans men; an alternative narrative peddled by TERFs about gay trans men in particular is that they are “fujoshis” who are obsessed with fictional gay couples to such an extent that they are compelled to try to become gay men. This idea is so blatantly absurd that it practically denies any sensible analysis even from a critical perspective, so I will leave it at that, however in this manner TERFs characterize trans men who they wish to attack with their more traditional aggressive, sneering countenance.

What do TERFs think about non-binary people (and queer people)?

TERFs do not believe that non-binary people exist. TERFs believe in a strict, immutable gender binary, and similarly to many people on the right and the “anti-SJW” crowd, they tend to characterize nonbinary people as all being teenagers who have been “deluded” by platforms such as Tumblr, and by progressive leftist spaces in general.

More broadly, TERFs have a narrow and regressive conception of sexuality and gender identity, and do not generally accept the existence of LGBTQ+ identities beyond Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual, which they view as being “rooted in biology”. Asexuality and pansexuality, as well as other identity labels and any non-binary gender descriptors, are dismissed offhandedly as being fads.

TERFs seek to gatekeep membership of the LGBTQ+ community by erasing the existence of people who do not conform to their strict definitions of “Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual”. This includes reclassifying gay and lesbian people as bisexual if they have any sort of attraction to trans people, and a broader attempt to expunge any terms that might allow people wiggleroom within this rigid categorization. The push to reject the reclaimed term “queer” in LGBT+ communities of late has been largely fueled by TERFs, who ridicule queer people (see this post for a relevant discussion) and try to repopularize the characterization of “queer” as a slur as a tactic to drive out non-cis people and those who identify with sexualities that they do not recognize. This is part of the overarching TERF strategy of attempting to control language and narrative to further their ideas.

How can I recognize a TERF?

Many TERFs advertise themselves as such and can therefore be avoided fairly easily. Common themes found on dedicated TERF blogs include usernames and bios with references to radical feminism (which, while not being synonymous with TERF, is a label that they have heavily co-opted), references to XX chromosomes or genitalia, or even straight up declaration of their own “terf status” in their sidebars or blog descriptions.

That said, there has recently been recognition of the fact that TERFs are actively pushing their viewpoints on “secret” blogs without any overt references to their TERF ideology in order to spread their ideas and draw people who don’t know better into their toxic rhetoric and movement. However, even then TERFs can often be recognized through the collection of specific terms and dogwhistles that they favour in their rhetoric. Here are some examples of red flags to watch out for in discourse:

Trans women/men being referred to as TIMs or TIFs (trans-identified males/females), also sometimes as “Timothies” and “Tiffanies”.

The term “Gender Critical” or “Gender Critical Feminism”. This is a euphemism synonymous with TERF favoured by members of their own community.

Reference to Trans-Rights Activists (TRAs, designed to sound like “MRA”).

Loaded references to “trans ideology”.

References to “genderism”.

A particular focus on crimes committed by a few selected trans people used to smear the entire community.

Discussion of “men trying to enter women’s/lesbian spaces” is often a euphemistic reference to trans women as the “men”.

The same can often go for broad declarations that lesbians “should not let people tell them that they should be attracted to men”. While this is of course true, I’ve seen this in many instances be said specifically with the undertone of excluding trans women as the “men”.

The term “womyn” or “wombyn”, used by TERFs to differentiate their concept of a “real woman” from women including trans women.

Radical feminism being discussed in relation to any of the above points is a dead ringer for a TERF.

This is of course far from comprehensive, and TERFs have become good at hiding their ideas within the wrapping paper of feminist rhetoric and the language surrounding other types of progressive activism. The best policy is just to be sure to pay attention to how people discuss gender identity and transgender people, or perhaps how they pointedly don’t discuss them when they are expressing their ideology. Keep in mind to watch out for ideas that seem to stem from the above arguments.

Anything else I should know (and what can I do)?

I am going to stop here to avoid this post becoming even more excessively long than it already is, but it should be kept in mind that this is a far from comprehensive examination of TERF ideologies and rhetoric. I have, for instance, not touched on SWERFs and the attitudes of these communities towards sex workers, which is an ideology that often goes hand-in-hand with TERF ideas, nor the extent of the TERF communities on platforms such as reddit or Mumsnet, not the prevalence of TERF writers and thinkers in some parts of the news media, nor the actual members of TERF groups themselves, nor have I done anything more than scrape the surface of the extent or implications of TERF beliefs and activism. Others have written at greater length, in more detail, and far more eloquently than I ever could on these subjects and more besides, and I will link some additional resources below for people who want to investigate some of these things in more detail, and get perspectives more diverse than mine (I am only one person, and I am far from an expert on all this!).

Overall, though, the key takeaway from all this should be to spread awareness in the public sphere of the nature of TERF beliefs, the form that their “activism” takes, and the consequences for trans people and other marginalized groups. TERFs thrive on misinformation and control of the narrative, and add to their movement by preying on the lack of knowledge of easily influenced young newcomers to feminist and LGB movements. The best way to combat this is to spread awareness and knowledge, which is especially important as TERF perspectives gain more traction in the public sphere. Transphobia is above all things fueled by prejudice, fear of the other, and ignorance, and all of this can be countered by spreading trans narratives, boosting the voices of trans people and sharing truths about trans lives and trans experiences.

Some more good resources about TERFs and their transphobic activities/movements:

The TERFs

TERF on GeekFeminism

GenderCynical (cw: analysis of some distressing content)

TERFs on the Transadvocate

Trans-exclusionary radical feminism on RationalWiki

[thisdiscontentedwinter]

“I do see exclusion as an inherently bad thing, yes, and nothing will change my mind on that. Simply because women are not a monolith, and being born with a vagina does not mean we all share the same experiences of how being female relates to the world. I believe in intersectional feminism, and that transwomen are very much a part of that.” And this is the core thing, isn’t it. I actually held this same opinion until a couple of years ago. I started seeing a certain kind of rhetoric from trans activists online - some of whom, upon reflection, probably represent an extreme view that shouldn’t be taken too seriously - that had me doing double takes and started changing my mind. I’ll back up and try to explain how my mind changed and why I struggle with this topic. I agree with you that women are not a monolith and that women in general have different experiences. I also agree that being born with a vagina does not mean we all share the same experiences of how being female relates to the world, but I disagree with what that implies and how you’ve interpreted that - those different experiences are because of the different cultural takes on what that vagina means. The presence of the vagina is inherent and necessary. The fundamental principle of feminism that I grew up with is that the category of woman is given to people with the female reproductive system, and that category was seen and treated as inferior for no good reason in all cultures. What ‘woman’ actually is (gender roles, gender expectations, treatment by wider society etc ie “gender”) is culturally malleable and constructed and varies slightly from place to place; the universal consistency is that this category is placed upon people born with the female sex (distinct from gender) in order to control and oppress them. Like, it’s key to feminism that the sex provokes the ‘woman’ category, and females are socialised into the ‘woman’ role. The oppression women face isn’t due to a demonstrable lack of intelligence or capability or physiology, it’s because someone looked at our genitals as babies and went 'okay, this is what we call and how we treat people with this biology.’ So that’s my understanding. Women are historically oppressed due to abitrary negative stereotypes placed on them because of their biological sex. How that oppression manifests is different according to culture, geography, ethnicity, religion. Where intersectionality comes into it, for me, is acknowledging all those differences in experiences and including them in feminist progress in dismantling these stereotypes and the unequal treatment and discrimination resulting from them. (some) Trans women state that they are women because they essentially 'feel like it’. They claim an internal sense of 'womanhood’ and this means they are women. When I saw this I was like “:/ okaaay, but how do you measure that, what does that actually mean.” This internal sense seems to be explained in terms like “I preferred pink and playing with dolls as a child, and I always got along better with girls, I preferred doing girly things.” This is more of a call on gender stereotypes than a satisfactory explanation - identification with the performance of the arbitrary, cultural construction of gender, something which changes over time and with which many (cis) women do not identify (yet are still discriminated against - their feelings don’t matter to people who look at them and treat them differently). They have this idea of womanhood and identify with that. I know trans people say that cis people don’t understand that internal sense of 'manhood’ and 'womanhood’ because in them it’s all aligned with their sex - I disagree. If there’s this strong of an internal sense of being a woman or being a man, surely a reasonable proportion of all women and men would report experiencing it. Again, I’m falling prone to the anecdote thing, but in my case, I don’t 'feel’ like a woman. I’m a person in a meatsack who is treated unfairly because of stupid ideas about the meatsack that have nothing to do with my qualities as a person. My female and male friends report the same kind of feeling. If I woke up tomorrow in a male body, I’d probably miss some things about my female body, but I’d be able to go through life in a male body without too much concern. I would then be a man and not a woman, despite my previous few decades in a female body; the concept is a nothing concept so it doesn’t matter. I am open to the idea that people have an innate sense of womanhood or manhood, but it’s so subjective it’s not very useful as a key identification measure for a political group. This is a very different definition of 'woman’ and to me, it completely undermines the key principle underlying feminist discourse. What is also confusing to me is that the transgender community seems roughly split into two groups - those, like above, who *feel* aligned with the opposite sex; and those who say there is a physical miswiring somewhere that causes a mismatch between their internal sense of themselves and their sex, this is a medical condition called gender dysphoria, and the best treatment is transition. Ie you’re trans if you think you are, you’re a woman if you think you are, and you’re a man if you think you are, versus you are trans if you have gender dysphoria, you think you are a woman but biologically you’re a man and you can’t expect to be treated as a woman (or a man) until you physically transition, which will ease your dysphoria. These are two quite different experiences underpinning the definition of transgender. To me, all this confusion over what it even means to be transgender doesn’t represent a cohesive front or group to meaningfully discuss this stuff with. The big thing that got me criticising the issue of inclusion of trans woman is the above realisation, that that definition undermines the ideological foundation of feminism that has brought so much progress to women. It’s an ideological difference that’s fundamental. Other things that bolstered it was accompanying rhetoric I saw online. - eg it’s transphobic/exclusive to discuss things like uteruses (uteri?), menstruation, FGM in feminist spaces, if you do it, you’re a bigot. That doesn’t feel like progress to me, to tell women they can’t discuss the bodily stuff that is the basis of their oppression, and still is for girls and women around the world, in the context of their experiences as women and as people in the world. It feels like misogyny by another name. - eg it’s transphobic to have genital preferences. I think this is a horrible thing to say. Some people do not care what genitals are involved in the sex they’re having, that is fine. Some people do, and that is also fine. Dating and who you have sex with is inherently exclusionary - not everyone is attracted to every person in their identified pool - and it involves bodies, it involves hardwired preferences, and these things can’t be changed if you just think about it really really hard. 'Preferences’ is not a good word for the concept, it implies a choice that I don’t think is there. I really don’t think people choose what they’re attracted to and what turns them on in sex. Examining your sexual self to understand how you operate and what you like and don’t like is an excellent thing to do. I also agree that trans people find it hard to date people. But calling people transphobic - especially lesbians, this seems to happen more with lesbians and trans women than gay men and trans men - because of something innate is just shitty behaviour. I was really disgusted by this. No one is owed sex. - eg there are no real differences between trans women and cis women. Any differences noted in discourse are a result of the person stating them being transphobic. A person who says they’re a woman has female biology because of this statement. This is an attitude I see a lot - any criticism of things like the above, any reference to any differences between trans woman and cis women, and suddenly you’re a bigot, a terf, a transphobic asshole, wrongthink in action! This worries me. Because there ARE differences, and shouting them down is not the way to bring people to your way of thinking. - eg gender dysphoric children should be encouraged to transition or go on puberty blockers. There’s a study out there that states something like 70-90% of gender dysphoric children desist by the end of puberty. Telling them they’re trans and putting them on drugs is not the right way to treat these kids, sensitive and appropriate counselling is. This in particular really worries me. - eg detransitioners exist and have a lot to say, but because it’s critical of transgenderism, they’re ignored. This rubs me the wrong way - they have insight into the interplay between self-understanding, sex, gender and culture, that’s valuable to general understanding of the self, sex, gender, and culture. I could go on, but this is so long. So I was originally supportive - I really was. I’m now more critical, because I don’t see a clear cohesive movement that is, ironically, inclusive, or that supports feminist issues, I’m seeing something that aggressively undermines the one movement that has truly progressed women’s rights. It strikes me that women and feminists are arguing about this more than men are, that men aren’t saying 'trans men are men’ in the same way women are expected to say 'trans women are women’. That also says something to me about the overall issue, and it’s not a good thing. It’s entirely possible that I’m hanging out in the trans part of the internet that has the assholes in it. Every group has its assholes. I also acknowledge that radical feminist groups have their hateful assholes too - but the reason I went into radical feminist spaces was to see what those evil terfs are saying and why they’re so bad, and I didn’t find evil, I found them addressing the concerns I had. They’re talking about the above things, whereas in the supposedly inclusive spaces with trans people, those topics weren’t allowed to be discussed. But I haven’t seen many answers to some of the problems trans people face - violence and discrimination in employment and housing is a real thing, and that does need to be addressed. By feminists? I’m not sure. Trans people are more than capable of organising in their self-interests - if they could find a common ground and common interests. I do think trans women face violence in male spaces and can be accommodated in female spaces - within reason. The case of Karen White in the UK is a good example of how that’s not a good rule of thumb. There’s also a domestic violence shelter in Canada that’s being sued by the women who were in it for allowing a trans woman inside, because the trans women acted in a very predatory way that caused the women distress in a place where they expected safety. I also know of one trans woman in Vancouver who tried to have a rape crisis shelter defunded because it didn’t support sex workers - that’s a valid criticism, but defunding it isn’t the action I would hope to see from any woman; it’s pointedly aggressive coming from a trans woman. For me, I do wonder whether people such as yourself are seeing the same stuff I’m seeing. I guess not. I find it very difficult to go back to the whole 'oh yeah, trans women are women and share our oppression’ stance, because I just don’t see that in evidence. In our conversation I notice that we’ve got a really fundamental difference in how we interpret and approach the world, for example the exclusion thing. Perhaps it’s too fundamental a difference and we won’t find much to agree on. I don’t know if you’ll take the time to respond to this, because it’s so long, but if you could articulate why this inclusion makes sense to you, I would actually really appreciate it. If not, that’s fine, we’re both busy people. Thanks for reading anyway, and thanks again for the conversation and for engaging with me. I *am* sorry about the length :S

DW: 

For me, it’s not a matter of “transwomen are women and share our oppression.” 

It’s a matter of “transwomen are women and are oppressed because they are transwomen.” 

Their oppression might not be exactly the same as mine, but neither is the oppression of a 12 year old child bride on the other side of the world. 

Simply put, it intersectional feminism can make room for all the different types of experiences of women–cultural, and economic, and religious, and social, and geographical–then why not widen the umbrella to include transwomen? 

There’s also a domestic violence shelter in Canada that’s being sued by the women who were in it for allowing a trans woman inside, because the trans women acted in a very predatory way that caused the women distress in a place where they expected safety. I also know of one trans woman in Vancouver who tried to have a rape crisis shelter defunded because it didn’t support sex workers - that’s a valid criticism, but defunding it isn’t the action I would hope to see from any woman; it’s pointedly aggressive coming from a trans woman.

There will always be anecdotes, and there will always be assholes, but judging all transwomen by the actions of a few is not helpful to anyone. 

When it comes to women’s shelters, there are plenty of shelters who don’t allow boys to stay, forcing families out onto the streets in cases of domestic violence because a mother doesn’t want to be separated from her son–who is a child. I think that’s unfair and wrong, but I’m not going to claim from that that all feminists are anti-child. 

I’ve taken calls from women’s shelters before where women were being threatened by other women and the workers were requesting the police. The women there also had an expectation of safety, but gender doesn’t come into it, and the implication that the transwoman was predatory because she is trans is drawing a very long bow.   

In the case of the Vancouver rape crisis shelter, why aren’t sex workers supported? That seems discriminatory. Also, why it is more “pointedly aggressive” coming from a transwoman than from anyone else? Given that transwomen are over-represented in sex work, why wouldn’t a transwoman have every right to want to fight this?

And you can bring up Karen White if you like. And I can counter with articles about transwomen who have been raped in male prisons, which I hope you would agree is just as heinous. 

In the end, nothing is going to change my mind on this. I think that being a woman is more complicated than a biological function, and I think that transwomen, while not oppressed in the same way as ciswoman, still face oppression because of their gender. And I think that there is plenty of room to be inclusive. 

[not-poignant]

I really like love stories between two men and I'm worried that I'm..fetishizing homosexuality and if that's actually homophobic, because I don't want to be that. Also, I don't particularly have any interest in lesbian love stories and I feel like I should, because otherwise maybe it's internalised misogyny and homophobia? I should mention that I've never seen any really positive heterosexual relationships so that could be partly why I like gay romance so much and reading about it. I don't know

Well, I don’t know either.

I mean I certainly can’t draw any conclusions from a single anon post. :)

These kinds of journeys of self-reflection are necessary, and are actually the kinds of things that antis seek to shut down (making people choose between ‘one side’ or ‘the other side’ and not necessarily seeing that it’s a very complex process and highly individual). It might be a lifelong journey for you, to listen to the answers that come from within, and change your choices as you go, or not change them, or change them a little, and so on.

(Read More because this is a complex topic and my response got long)

Like, I know for myself, my not reading femslash for a long time was a combination of many things. At first I thought it was only internalised misogyny. This is the most obvious choice, given I’m queer, AFAB and and write queer relationships. Then over time, I realised it was partly a lack of choice and stories role-modelled to me too. And that a larger component of my ‘story’ with my relationship with femslash (after deliberately seeking it out and challenging myself) was that, for me, AFAB bodies (assigned female at birth) had been politicised for so long, I just didn’t want to read about AFAB bodies in fiction for a while. Whether het or femslash (though femslash is much easier). It was like part of the journey of escapism for me, was getting to not be in a body that gets politicised in specific ways, even when fanfiction and original authors don’t intend to be part of that global and cultural narrative.

In fact even when they’re working in opposition of that narrative, I still know they’re positioning themselves in opposition to something shitty, and that reminds me something shitty exists. Because of the way my brain works, it makes reading femslash more difficult, less immersive, and less escapist. I’ve learned I can still love femslash! (I’m way more likely to write it than het, for example). But it won’t be my default, at least for some time to come, because I’m still sensitive to the politicisation of AFAB bodies.

I’m sure in amongst that cocktail of things influencing what I enjoy, there are other things that play into it. I continue to read what I enjoy reading (it’s not making me hurt anyone, and it’s not hurting me), and at times will question what I’m looking at. Why I hate reading anything het. Why I only write queer works. Why I love hurt/comfort so much. Why AMAB characters work better for me and what’s playing in behind that. Etc.

As you can see, it’s not by any means simplistic, even when you’re only looking at one facet. Tumblr and ‘The Discourse’ will try and give you simple answers, and will try and corral you into the ‘Good Side’ or the ‘Bad Side’ and they’ll often write checklists of like: ‘if you do this thing (from squeeing about gay male couples, to simply reading m/m fanfiction), you fetishise gay relationships, and are wrong and shitty and bad.’ Anything that tries to reductively simplify something complex, that changes by culture, person, orientation, and more, is probably not going to be a good compass for you.

Though it might prompt you to ask some deeper questions of yourself. You can ask them without something trying to make you feel bad about yourself as a person.

When you’re engaging in fiction, it’s important to remember that a lot of antis and similar will try and convince you that fiction and reality are the same, or that what you like in fiction means you are some how ‘like that’ or enjoy the thing in reality. I have been called a rapist and pedophile because of this. But you don’t see a lot of these antis calling anyone who’s ever killed anything in a video game (basically all of us who have ever played a video game) ‘actual murderers.’

While fiction can influence reality, it is in complex ways that again, change by circumstance and person etc. It’s difficult to talk about because everyone has a different line in the sand. I’ll read fictional fantasy slavery fics, as I love it as a trope, but I acknowledge that slavery tropes in general can be seen as problematic, especially because in real life people have had their lives destroyed by slavery.

Captive Prince is an area, for example, where some people will never read the story on the basis of Damen being an eroticised slave. Others will blindly love it and say there’s nothing wrong with it. For me, I know that it’s a problematic trope that in this specific case is often misinterpreted or looked at through the lens of American Imperialism, which ignores the lived experience of the author. I still enjoy it. It doesn’t make me any more likely to think slavery was right. Because slavery is shitty. Some people think my viewpoint (that I’m going to read it and enjoy the story anyway) isn’t good enough, and isn’t okay. Some people do. Some people think I’m probably making it too ‘political.’

Whatever you decide about what you’re doing, people are going to disagree and/or agree with you about it. And for me you can imagine it comes up again and again because I’m frank about enjoying dubcon and noncon, including titillating noncon, I’ve enjoyed underage as a category (Sebaciel, anyone?), I’ve enjoyed incest (Thorki) and other very problematic tropes. I’ve thought about all of them at length. 

Which is why it’s deeply personal. Ultimately, no one can tell you why you’re doing or thinking or reading certain things. Sometimes you’ll decide that something is too much for you, and sometimes you’ll realise that maybe you had some internalised hatred somewhere and unpack it. Sometimes unpacking it means you can read more freely and with more ease. Sometimes unpacking it means you can’t read it anymore. That’s stuff you can’t know until you come across it.

Anon, if you’re going through this process gently, with self-reflection, it won’t take you days or weeks to figure out. It will be lifelong. It will be ongoing. The landscape will constantly shift as you change and shift and learn. You may come to a happy conclusion about one thing and see a thing beneath it once the smoke clears, and realise you now need to spend time contemplating that thing instead.

In the meantime, people from the sidelines will scream at you and try and convince you that their way of doing things is Right.

It’s good to not know.

It means you’re trying to figure out what’s right for you.

[colorisbyshe]

@vulcains replied to your post: “The thing that bothers me the most about ace discourse is probably all...”:

i'm ignoring the split attraction stuff and i mean ace as in, doesn't feel attraction/want relationships and all that. i think if that was me it would be a relief to meet others who felt the same u know?

@vulcains replied to your post: “The thing that bothers me the most about ace discourse is probably all...”:

i think like, GOD i don't wanna compare being aroace to being a lesbian lmao but when i came out i really noticed how isolating and alienating it is 2 exist around non-lesbians and how much everything centres around men even when you try to avoid it. so i don't know that i'd agree that ace people don't have much to bond over?

There’s definitely an element of that but unfortunately like... the split attraction model exists and there are aces who are “ace but still want sex” and “ace but still experience sexual attraction in extremely specific contexts” and all this shit, y’unno?

If it were just aroace or ace meant “does not want sex” or whatever, it’d make more sense, but the term ace has been stretched so thin to encompass pretty much EVERY relationship to sex that isn’t “loves sex all the time, would find bugs attractive if you drew a human face and dong n them” that it becomes... hard to bond over?

I agree with the isolation you’re talking about for aroace people but there are aroace peopel who have sex and relationships and it’s like...?? If you like at ace positivity (do noT), you’ll see every other post is “POSITIVITY FOR ALL THE ACES WHO HAVE SEX AND FEEL LEFT OUT OF POSITIVITY” and then the next is “POSITIVITY FOR ALL OF THE SEX REPULSED ACES WHO FEEL LEFT OUT!”

And then like... aces can be of any gender, can experience attraction to any gender, and it’s like... it’s not the same thing?

It’s like if a cishet men tried to join you to talk aout what it’s like to not be attracted to men like?? A man’s experience with being aroace would not be the same as a woman’s experience with being aroace because misogyny plays a huge role in how “aphobia” works, y’unno?

A man can get be relatively unscathed whereas a woman can’t.

And if women want spaces to talk about not wanting sex/romance in general, a lot of feminist’s spaces can accommodate that (to an extent).

I think if things were more straightforward and ace meant aroace and they were willing to concede that it’s mostly just misogyny, there’d be a lot more to bond over. But rn when we have posts like “demiromantic people are REAL aros and they’re oppressed and one of us!!” it’s like... I don’t think there’s a bonding point there.

It’s just about amassing the largest number of different people they can think of, affirming that there’s no Wrong Way to be ace or aro, which in turn leads to very little common ground.

It’s their own politics that have ruined actual meaningful shared experiences. There are cishet aces who run kinky porn blogs... like... I don’t tink a sex repulsed aroace is gonna find lots of room for dialogue there, even though they’re both somehow seen as “the same.”

[the-kennel-blog]

Uma Kotwal, ‘Turfing out the TERFs’

Uma Kotwals’s recent talk for Warwick Pride LGBT+ History Month explored the conflict between trans erasing radical feminism (TERF) and trans women.

Debunking the myths

Many radical feminists are not transphobic; many are themselves trans. However, there is some radical feminists regard trans women as a threat to feminism. Kotwal explored this trope through certain themes.

Gender essentialism

Radical or gender critical feminists often argue for reframing activism beyond the heteronormative gender system (sometimes referred to as gender nihilism). Some see in trans women a form of gender essentialism and reinforcement of gender roles.

Kotwal acknowledged that some trans women are reinforcing gender roles, but so are cisgender women. Gender still has a bearing on our lives. Trans women may have to perform femininity in order to access medical treatment, legal recognition and social recognition. 

Much TERF ideology reinforces binary concepts of gender and is itself gender essentialist. For example, some radical feminists have argued against anti-discrimination protections based on gender identity in favour of anti-discrimination protections based only on sex. Some have expressed discomfort with the term ‘cisgender’, arguing that as gender is entwined with sex it is a moot term. However, Kotwal argues that this risks reducing womanhood to sex characteristics and reinforcing binary gender roles.

Coercion of children

Against the argument that gender (role) non-conforming children are being coerced into identifying as trans, Kotwal argued that trans children are often coerced to act according to their sex assigned at birth.

Male privilege

Against arguments that trans women experience male privilege by virtue of often being born with a penis, Kotwal argued that the experience of trans women is different to that cisgender men. Trans women are often very disempowered in society and experience higher rates of violence.

The penis is not inherently male or masculine; people of all genders have penises. Male power or domination does not arise from the penis, it is socially constructed. Women’s oppression is not based on sex characteristics but on gender.

Lesbian and bi women

Capitalism/nationalism

Lesbian and bi relationships are sometimes seen as a threat to the nuclear family. The reason the nuclear family structure is privileged under capitalism is because, as Christine Thomas writes, “Capitalists also required a workforce that was disciplined, obedient and deferential to authority. The patriarchal family, in which men had control over women and children, including through the use of physical violence, was a useful institution for instilling these values and for promoting appropriate gender roles.”

Furthermore, as Cheshire Calhoun writes, “The construction of gay men and lesbians as highly stigmatized outsiders to the family who engage in family disrupting behavior allays anxieties about the potential failure of the heterosexual nuclear family by externalizing the threat to the family. As a result, anxiety about the possibility that the family is disintegrating from within can be displaced on to the specter of the hostile outsider to the family.”

(However, I would argue that the emergence of rainbow families suggests that lesbian and bi women have a new utility to the capitalist state. This phenomenon has sometimes been referred to as homonationalism.Related to this are nationalist colonial discourses that portray non-Western LGBT+ women as disadvantaged. These discourses ignore the fact that non-binary women are recognised in some non-Western countries.)

Predatory behaviour

Pointing to the trope of ‘queer woman converts younger heterosexual woman’, which appears in novels and films of lesbianism, Ruby Lott-Lavigna argues that “converting the straight girl... is cinema’s idea of how the lesbian relationship functions.” This effectively portrays lesbian and bi women as coercive when, in reality, lesbian and bi women are often frightened of pursuing other women and can be subjected to homophobia or biphobia in shared women’s spaces.

Lesbian and bi TERFs

However, Kotwal noted that some cisgender lesbian and bi women are also TERFs and do use anti-phallus rhetoric against trans women. Lesbian and bi trans women can experience exclusion from other lesbian and bi women and spaces. As Avory Faucette writes, “You’re confused about what it means to be a lesbian, or a woman. I don’t care what your physical preferences are or what gender identity you prefer. I do care that you confuse those two things, and thereby insult trans women. I care that you don’t bother to interrogate the origins of your phallus-based distaste for trans women, and think about whether it’s actually a dislike of the organ that’s happening here or whether transphobia and a refusal to view trans women as women is involved.”

Re-thinking terminology

In an effort to be inclusive of trans and non-binary people, some organisations have started to use the term ‘non-men’ in the place of ‘women’. Some feminists have argued that this is effectively erasing women.

Kotwal argued for a language of womanhood that is not based on sex characteristics, and for a social rather than biological definition of (female) gender. She did acknowledge, however, that female sex characteristics do affect many women - they experience periods and experience discrimination on the basis of their sex characteristics (President Trump’s “grab her by the pussy” remarks being a case in point) - but should not be the sole definitional point for womanhood.

Ways forward

There are, unfortunately, transphobic academics and public intellectuals, including at University of Warwick. There are also, however, risks in no platforming or protesting TERFs as this is commonly raised as an attack on free speech.

Kotwal argued for the importance of talking about and understanding the everyday experiences and issues of trans women. The Museum of Transology is one example of this. Trans women need feminism and feminist spaces due to the misogyny they face. Trans women played and important role in Stonewall and continue to play an important role in the ensuing now global pride festivals; this should be recognised.

It is our responsibility to make feminist activist spaces and language explicitly welcoming to LGBT+ women.