#people who use t exclusionary acronyms like lgb

[nothorses]

I’m not going to reblog the posts for reasons but I wanted to weigh in on the “queer community” vs “lgbtq+ (and other variations) community”: lgbtq+, and it’s variations, will always be exclusionary by nature because it isn’t a term, it’s a list. And heaven forbid you aren’t one of the first four letters (or worse, three) you sorta get excluded by default, shoved under the plus or behind the more recognizable letters.

Yeah- I don't mind the term generally speaking, because I think it's used in good faith the vast majority of the time, but it's also a term that signals immediately how much someone really know about what they're talking about, and how much they give a shit about certain groups of people.

I know that anyone just using "LGBT" is either fairly ignorant, or excluding the "+" for a reason. I know anyone using "LGB" is most likely a TERF. I know anyone using "LGBT+" is also fairly ignorant, and even "LGBTQ+" signals a certain lack of knowledge or care. You are making a choice about what letters to include and what order you put them in, and you are making a choice about what letters get put behind the "+" and what letters are named upfront.

You are making a choice about who you view as representative of the rest of the community, and who you think defines it.

The acronym started as "GL"- "gays and lesbians"- and was later changed to "LG" because lesbians felt they deserved to be prioritized. Adding the "B" was a fight. Adding the "T" was a fight, and didn't even take place until the 90's.

Like, this isn't about how right the people making those arguments were, or what letters should be first; the history of this term itself is enough indication that people absolutely view the order of the letters as an order of importance.

Not to mention that each new letter added is an argument and a fight; you have to prove you deserve to be here. And there is still contention over each individual letter, what it stands for, and whether it belongs.

People don't like "queer" because it operates on a definition, not a Member List. If you fit the definition, you belong.

With the acronym, you have to get yourself on the Member List in order to be allowed inside, and even then, you'll be on the other side of the velvet rope. And some people like to be the bouncers and the list-makers; they like that you have to appeal to them first. It's power.

[art-is-art-is-art]

but people use that version of the acronym, without the T, very very intentionally. it is to exclude trans people, because they do not like/believe trans people and do not want them in their community. they believe transness is not a real thing, or it's a mental illness, often that it is dangerous. that a trans person's existence is a threat. it's common to use LGB in favor of LGBT in trans exclusionary radical feminist circles. saying you have no problem with it, intentioned or not, signals you have no problem with transphobia. no problem with others excluding trans people intentionally, being "gender critical", whatever else have you that these people use as regular talking points. if that is not your intention and you are against these beliefs then your wording did not convey that. if it's really an honest mistake, alright, as long as you see where people are coming from asking you this. the friend you reblogged from has reblogged from radical feminist (read: vast majority of the time, trans exclusionary radical feminist) blogs, and/or posts made by people in that circle. also.. it's different than LGBT vs LGBTQIA+. LGBT is the most common and longest standing version of the acronym for a reason. i do not understand your point there. and that's saying as someone who by far prefers it to not go beyond "LGBT+" at most, or just LGBT.

I think it's their right to use this acronym if they feel like it, to identify only with the people they can identify with and share something in common with, and to care only about other same-sex attracted people and not any kinds of other groups and identities. I myself usually use "LGBT", but in my mind it makes sense to use "LGB" while addressing only those people who experience homosexual attraction and nobody else, it's like a smaller group within a larger one

[andromedasummer]

since ive seen a few more radfems in the community and dont want them getting confidence in sharing poorly formed opinions that can and will pose a risk to the many trans people in the tumblr motorsport community, this is a reminder that my blog is for people who love racing and trans people and that any of you cryptoterfs crying about trans men and women while following sports dominated by cis men should fuck off.

[aropinions]

So What Is Exclusionism, Anyway?

As I've looked through inclusionist circles, I've come to a startling realization that most of them have an extremely skewed understanding of what exclusionism is (along with its various offshoots, subtypes, and related beliefs). They equate it to hatred of whatever group is being excluded, and they don't think people part of the excluded group could ever support exclusionism.

So, I've decided to write a long post to clear up some of those misconceptions. This post is mainly targeted to inclusionists and people wondering where they stand on the inclus/exclus sides of various types of discourse, but if you're exclusionist already, please feel free to reblog or boost it. <3 Thanks in advance for reading!

I'll start by introducing myself. Hi, I'm Ivy, or at least that's what I go by on here. I am a heterosexual, aromantic female. I am neurodivergent (ADHD, so forgive me if I ramble or write in a scatterbrained way) and have several other mental illnesses that I don't wish to talk about online. I do not have gender dysphoria, but I do not "feel feminine," and my personality has been described as rather masculine. In fact, many people in the inclusionist trans community have tried to convince me that I'm nonbinary because I don't feel a strong connection to a female gender, and I'll talk about that more later in this post.

I'm going to put all my relevant discourse opinions on the table right now. (In the next paragraph, I'm going to explain what all these labels actually mean and why they don't automatically make someone a horrible person.) Contrary to popular belief, I am not a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), an aphobe, a transphobe, or a bigot. I am ace-exclusionist, aro-exclusionist, trans-exclusionist, transmedicalist, pro-LGB, and gender-critical.

Now here's the fun part. Bear with me -- we're about to debunk the myths about these opinions, explain each term's real definition, and talk about some of the reasoning behind the beliefs.

Exclusionism, as a blanket term, is the belief that gatekeeping is necessary to make any group or community meaningful and safe. Various types of exclusionists fight against the lumping together of various marginalized identities or groups, because they believe that letting different types of people into spaces meant for more specific groups will detract from the safety and functionality of those spaces. They do not hate the groups they are excluding, and they typically want to exclude both ways. For example, ace exclusionists don't want allosexual LGBT let into ace spaces any more than they want asexuals let into LGBT spaces. Many exclusionists in LGBT discourse support the exclusion of groups that they themselves are part of, because in addition to the idea that it's harmful to the main LGBT community to lump them into it, they also think their group deserves its own recognition as a separate thing from the LGBT community. Exclusionism is not hatred.

Time to get into more specific terms. Let's start pretty simple, with truscum and transmeds. Someone who is truscum believes that people must have dysphoria to be trans. Someone who is transmedicalist believes that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and that transness is a medical condition synonymous with gender dysphoria. All transmeds are truscum, but not all truscum are transmeds. Most truscums and transmeds are against MOGAI, neopronouns, gender microlabels (e.g. genderflux or demiboy), and xenogenders. Most truscums believe in nonbinary people. There are some transmeds who don't believe nonbinary dysphoria is real, but they're not the majority.

The direct opposite of truscum and transmed is "tucute," which denotes a belief that dysphoria is not required to be transgender and gender identity is completely unrelated to biological sex or medical disorders/conditions. Tucutes also generally support MOGAI, xenogenders, neurogenders, microlabels, and neopronouns.

Next, we have bio-essentialism. Bio-essentialism is the belief that oppression is based on biological sex, not gender identity, and that identifying as a different gender than your birth sex doesn't automatically mean you are oppressed. This doesn't necessarily mean bio-essentialists believe that gender doesn't exist or that you can't identify as whatever you want, just that your social oppression is based off your biological sex. Not all bio-essentialists are truscum or transmeds, but most are. Bio-essentialists prominently use the terms "male" and "female" to describe biological sex rather than gender identity, and non-radical ones will use "man" and "woman" as blanket terms that include transmen and transwomen while maintaining "male" and "female" as words for biological sex only.

Then, we have the big bad term, TERF. I've seen a lot of people misuse the TERF label, so I'm going to try to clarify its actual meaning. The acronym stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." It's important to break that down into two main parts -- TE and RF -- because trans-exclusionists are often called TERFs when most of them don't fit the "RF" part of the acronym at all.

Trans-exclusionism (TE) means that you believe transgender issues/discourse/activism should be separated from LGB issues/discourse/activism because they are fundamentally different. L, G and B all have one thing in common: being attracted to people of the same sex as you. T is about someone's gender, not their sexual orientation, so trans-exclusionists believe that the LGB and the T should not be lumped into the same community. It doesn't mean they think trans people deserve less respect or are not real. Most trans-exclusionists are also truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are. Many trans-exclusionists who are also feminists are gender-critical, but not all are. Pro-LGB is a synonym of trans-exclusionist, but in my experience, people who describe themselves as "pro-LGB" are more likely to also be gender-critical than those who identify themselves as "trans-exclusionist."

Radical feminism (RF) is a subset of feminism that -- in addition to general feminist beliefs -- is anti-porn, anti-kink, against the makeup industry, and very often openly misandrist. Radical feminists are not always trans-exclusionist, and trans-exclusionists are not always radical feminists (in fact, most aren't). Most radfems are anti-capitalist, and all are against pink capitalism and rainbow capitalism (the commercialization of feminist ideas, gay rights, etc.) Most radfems are truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are.

All TERFs are also gender-critical. "Gender-critical" people are bio-essentialist, but they go a step further to say that gender identity is a meaningless term, and that biological sex is the sole basis of oppression. However, one can be gender-critical and still support trans people if one is a transmedicalist. GC transmeds believe that trans people are still oppressed in society according to their biological sex, not their gender identity, but that social/physical transitioning is acceptable as a treatment for the mental disorder known as gender dysphoria.

Neither trans-exclusionism nor radical feminism is inherently transphobic or hateful toward transgender people. To differentiate a regular trans-exclusionist from a TERF, ask yourself if the person fits the radfem beliefs outlined above. If not, they aren't a TERF.

Now that all of that is covered, we can talk about the last couple types of exclusionism I want to touch on -- asexual exclusionism and aromantic exclusionism. These almost always come together as a package called aro/ace-exclusionism or aspec-exclusionism, but it is technically possible to be ace-exclusionist and not aro-exclusionist (or vice versa), though I've never personally met someone with such beliefs. Aspec-exclusionists believe that aspec people should not be included in the LGBT community because the lack of sexual or romantic attraction is a completely separate struggle and involves separate experiences than having attractions that exist, but are not heterosexual. Some more extreme aro/ace exclusionists strongly gatekeep aromanticism and asexuality. These ones don't believe in microlabels on the "aro spectrum" or "ace spectrum" such as demisexual or grayromantic. They maintain the belief that if someone has sexual attraction (regardless of whether they actually pursue people sexually) then they are not asexual, and if someone feels romantic attraction at all (even if they don't pursue romantic relationships) they are not aromantic.

Aro/ace-exclusionists, regardless of their beliefs on aromantic and asexual spectrums or microlabels, are not inherently aphobic. They only want aromanticism and asexuality to be separated from the rest of the LGB or LGBT community, and treated as their own distinct identities.

I hope this post was informative, and if anyone has feedback on anything I should edit, they should let me know in replies. Regardless of your beliefs, if you actually read this whole post or even just scrolled to the bottom, I'd like to offer a sincere thanks for bearing with me thus far. If you are an inclusionist or otherwise disagree with the things in the post, but you read it anyway, I have a lot of respect for your willingness to hear opinions other than yours rather than blindly blocking out everything you disagree with.

No matter who you are, I hope you have a great day. <3

[all-things-lgbtqia]

JK Rowling continues to spout TERF ideology, continues to say she’s not a TERF.

JK Rowling, best known as author of the world-renowned Harry Potter series and the decider of who is and isn’t gay, took to Twitter within the past 24 hours to make what I can only assume was supposed to be a joke in response to a Tweet about efforts to help create a more equal world “those who menstruate” in a post Covid-19 world, saying that “I’m sure there used to be a word for those people.”

When called out for her erasure of trans men, non-binary, and gender-nonconforming people - all people who can be assigned female at birth but do not identify as women - Rowling went on the defensive, criticizing the idea that “sex isn’t real”.

Here’s the thing, Rowling: sex is real. Trans people know this. That’s kind of what makes most of us trans. Their biological sex, which is a real and tangible thing, does not match the identity they see for themselves, which is also real although it can be a lot harder for us outsiders to see. This is why many trans people opt for modified clothing (such as binders and gaffs), hormones and surgeries to make the exterior body match the internal sense of gender. Granted, many trans people will not do this, and they are not obligated to do so, but the vast majority of us will opt for such measures, not just to make ourselves more comfortable in our skins, but also so people like you don’t keep misgendering us and then pretend to be the victim when we call you out on it (which you’re doing right now). Absolutely no one is arguing that biological sex isn’t real.

She then goes on to say that saying women like her, “who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades”, hate trans people “because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense”.

Like I said Rowling, sex is real and absolutely no one is saying otherwise. You’re the one who keeps saying it. You said it during the Maya Forstater debacle and you’re saying it now. “Woman” is not a term that refers to someone who is biologically female. An overwhelming amount of the time it does, but not always. “Female” and “female-bodied” are somewhat controversial terms when it comes to afab transgender people, but they always refer to someone who is biologically female. “Afab” is an acronym for “assigned female at birth”, which can even refer to cis women. So as you can see, there are better terms to refer to someone with female reproductive organs than “women”. And believe it or not, a lot of those “lived consequences” are often the same for a lot of afab people. Not everyone has the privilege to transition at 6-years-old, before the horrors of the real world affect most of us. Many afab trans men (I would like to quickly acknowledge that some trans men may be biologically intersex), non-binary and gender-nonconforming people will have lived as females or a somewhat “female experience” up until they come out of the closet and begin their transition, if they do so at all. Pre-transition afab people are still subjected to the same amount of sexism, misogyny, sexual harassment and general dangers that come with being a woman because even though they are not women, society sees them as women. And yes, these people will even menstruate, because they have a female reproductive system (although it is worth noting that some people born with these parts may not menstruate at all, because biology is weird and sometimes things don’t function the way they’re supposed to). And on top of all that, trans women will also face the same hazards during and after the main stages of their transitions. In fact, statistically speaking, transgender women are even more likely to experience male violence than cis women, so let’s not pretend they aren’t involved in this whole conversation at all.

And just a quick sidebar, like I said, some people with female reproductive parts don’t menstruate because their body just never kicks that system into gear. If a cis woman never menstruates because she’s one of those people, is she no longer a woman, J?

I would also like to take the time to comment on how she pretends trans people don’t exist when she wants the spotlight and only references them when she gets called out for it. This is a lot like the, “I can’t be racist, I have black friends” “argument”. We’re not tools that you can use and then put back in the closet when you’re done (only we can decide if it’s time to go back in the closet, and I would rather not do that again, thank you very much). We’re not accessories you can flaunt to show how accepting you are. We exist even when you’re not making exclusionary remarks and pretending that the issue at hand is exclusive to cis females only.

She goes on to claim she would support trans people if we are discriminated against. I don’t have a Twitter account so I can see only very limited Tweets online, but so far I haven’t seen her comment on the proposed UK bathroom bill that would force trans people to use the bathrooms that correspond with the sex marker on their birth certificates. If she has commented, let me know and I will update this section of this post appropriately.

She tries to justify herself by saying she is well-read in scientific journals and transgender experiences, so she knows the distinction between sex and gender. But if this was the case, she wouldn’t still be using “woman” to refer strictly to cis women, and she certainly wouldn’t be using it to describe all  people who menstruate.

She says, “Never assume that because someone thinks differently, they have no knowledge.” And she would make a good point, if saying that only women menstruate and implying that if you menstruate you are a woman, plain and simple, wasn’t TERF rhetoric. Listen, you can know all about a subject as complicated and relatively new as gender identity, but knowledge and acceptance are two different things. Just because you major in Africana Studies and can name just about every major figure in black history doesn’t make you less racist when you clutch your purse tighter when you see a black man jogging down the street. Having a degree in Women’s Studies doesn’t make you any less sexist when you tell a woman to make you a sandwich because you disagree with her opinion. And reading scientific papers about transgender people and what it all means doesn’t make you less transphobic when you make sweeping claims that only women menstruate, and that transgender people don’t understand the struggles of being a woman.

In what is her most damning move so far, Rowling then Tweets out, “‘Feminazi’, ‘TERF’, ‘bitch’, ‘witch’. Times change. Woman-hate is eternal.” One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong...

I get it, there are plenty of terms and phrases used with the intent of shutting up women you don��t agree with. TERF is not one of those terms. TERF is in the same category as racist, misogynist, neo-nazi, etc. NOT the same category as women-silencing words like ‘bitch’ or ‘feminazi’. A TERF is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, someone who discredits the existence and experiences of transgender people (primarily trans women) because they feel like it (the transgender experience) doesn’t belong in discussions of women’s rights, or even that it threatens their identity as women. Sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it? Calling someone a TERF is not a silencing behavior, and you’d figure a feminist would understand this. Calling someone a TERF is calling them out for behavior, while also letting the transgender community know that this is not a safe person to be around. If anything it’s a warning label. 

And look, don’t take this all to mean I hate women. I don’t. I only hate it when we pretend that an issue such as menstruation is exclusive to cis women. It isn’t. Women’s issues typically aren’t restricted to cis women. Trans women will experience violence and hate, usually at a disproportionately high rate when compared to their cisgender sisters. Trans men will often experience discrimination pre-transition, and maybe even post-transition from people who still see them as women. Not only that, but trans men typically experience the issues that come along with being biologically female (again, those that are afab). Most transgender men will menstruate and experience all the absolutely wonderful symptoms that come along with it. Some transgender men even get pregnant and have babies. No one is arguing that women have it easy. Transgender people - regardless of if they’re trans women, trans men, non-binary, agender, gender fluid, or gender-nonconforming - don’t want to erase women’s experiences throughout the years. We just want to live our lives in peace like everybody else. I just wish Rowling would stop pretending otherwise.

Is JK Rowling a terrible person? I don’t think I can go that far. She has made some serious contributions towards the acceptance of LGB (although notably not T) themes in children’s media, supports the Black Lives Matter movements, and even showcases fan art from very young fans on her Twitter. Although, she did share an article talking about the lesbian experience with discrimination and erasure, which is very important (hell, I admittedly don’t come across a lot of lesbian content on my Tumblr feed so I don’t get a chance to reblog a whole lot of it), but it also says that “ask my pronouns” is decidedly anti-lesbian, and paints the entire LGBTQIA+ community (referred to as “LGBTQ” with the quotes) as greedy, money-hungry, well-supported, and even predatory against children. Is this just a subject I’m not all that knowledgeable in? Perhaps, but I have a really hard time taking your arguments seriously LGBTQIA+ community is decidedly predatory against children, but I digress. I will say, however, that I am just disappointed. I’m disappointed someone who has been all about standing up to bullies and fighting against oppression has been using her platform to side with bullies and take part in said oppression. I’m disappointed she lumps “TERF” in with “Feminazi” and other terms designed to discredit women with opinions. And above all, I’m disappointed that she claims to offer us support when her actions support just the opposite. But, after all we’ve seen over the years, I can’t say I’m surprised.

[genderqueerpositivity]

If "inherently LGBT" was a half-hearted attempt to push back against identity politics, then I might respect it somewhat. But that isn't where the concept originated--it came from exclusionary politics, which I have no time for.

"Inherently LGBT" is not about moving away from LGBT as an identity label and towards LGBTness as an innate characteristic. (Essentially, a repackaging of "born this way". Which I would argue is problematic in itself and not the antidote to identity politics anyway, but that is a-whole-nother essay.)

"Inherently LGBT" is about drawing borders around the LGBT community. It's about moving and keeping the gates.

Sexual and romantic orientation is innate. Gender identity is innate. These are fluid for many people, and entirely static for others, but even that fluidity or lackthereof is an innate characteristic. Innate meaning that these things are a natural and core part of ones Self.

Identifying with the socially and culturally defined groups represented by the LGBT acronym is not innate. Nor it is "inherent". The LGBT acronym is a social construction. Not something that appeared fully formed from nature, but something created over time by social groups with specific intentions.

The LGBT community and LGBT identities are not something that is universal. It does not exist everywhere. It is not the same arcoss cultures. It has not been the same throughout history. It's very modern, very western-centric, a very new creation.

Alternatively, people who have had attractions to their own gender or many genders or no one at all have existed everywhere, in every culture, throughout history. People who have identified with a gender other than the one initially expected of them have existed everywhere, in every culture, throughout history. These folks identified themselves in many ways, and they were assigned many different labels by their cultures during the times that they lived.

Generally, cisheteronormative society has decided who is outside of its bounds. People who lived their lives in ways considered non-heteronormative, non-cisnormative, and gender non-conforming were identified as such and policed by those who did conform.

"Inherently LGBT" is all about attempting to narrow and redefine the "LGBT community" in an essentialist way. It's about breaking us down to a single basic and easily digestible trait. It's the rejection of complexity. It's the motivation behind the push to label all of us as "Same Gender Attracted". Everyone must be either One Of Us or One Of Them.

It is also repackaged gender essentialism borrowed directly from trans exclusionary radical feminism.

"Women are inherently female and men are inherently male, males and females have inherently different characteristics and opposing causes.

""LGBT people are inherently LGBT, *insert group you wish to exclude here* and Same Gender Attracted people have inherently different characteristics and opposing causes."

"Inherently LGBT" is reductionist. For example, the campaign to erase pansexuality and force all pansexual people to identify as bisexual or nothing at all. Ditto for queer identity. The motivation for this reductionism is gatekeeping, respectability politics, and the desire to reduce the scope of our anti-oppression activism. It's anti-intersectionality. It's "got mine fuck you".

It is anti-historical. "Inherently LGBT" and "The acronym was always LGBT" ignores so much history. Even within USA LGBT history, people attracted to their own gender have not always been called gay or identified themselves as gay. Many historical figures that we call transgender by todays definition didn't use that term for themsleves. So it literally could not have always been "just LGBT" because those identities didn't always exist.

The debate at the root of it all is who gets to be included in the acronym. "It was always LGBT" ignores the evolution of the acronym entirely. From the homophile community, to the gay community, to the gay and lesbian community, to GLB or LGB, to GLBT or LGBT, and so on.

This was not a simple linear process. Our communities have not always used the same terminology at the same time. It takes time for new language and terms to catch on. Do you think that the T was added to thr acronym overnight? We all use the language we've been exposed to the most. Some things catch on and others fall out of use.

In the 90's, an H was often included in the acronym, for HIV+ people, but I rarely see that in new publications today. When I first started interacting with LGBT centric media as an American teenager in the mid 2000's, I saw GLBT still in usage. By 2010 the acronym already often had an A in it, for allies or asexuals. My college GSA still used GLBT in 2014. I've even seen an S included in the acronym, not for straight, but for Supportive--an alternative to Ally.

The acronym, just like identity labels, also varries by country and culture. When I read Canadian LGBT history or media, the acronym usually contains a 2--for two-spirit people. I've seen an H included in the acronym for Hijras in Indian publications.

The tl:dr of this is that the concept of being "inherently LGBT" is a steaming pile of bullshit and that attempting to limit the acronym to four letters for exclusionary purposes is old bullshit and trying to reduce the number of labels that people identify with because you personally don't like or agree with them is reactionary bullshit. Language changes, labels change, concepts change, and our history won't be erased.

[secondwhisper]

Yeah ok I've seen that post on my dash three times now. The one that goes "we lgbt people don't want 'acceptance' by cishets or an 'inclusive' community we want survival" and lists shit that "we" want like marriage equality, the end of the trans panic defense, & antidiscrimination laws.

Let's break down why I never wanna see that post on my dash again! (Making this separate from the original post bc op is 15 years old and I'm not about to fight w a minor however misguided I feel they are.)

I'm gonna make two major points here. Those being - (1) this person is obviously ace-exclusionary and generally committed to some kind of purity of the LGBT(Q+) movement, & (2) gay/LGBT assimilation is being posited as truly "freeing" while queer liberation is indirectly derided.

It should really not be hard to see this post as coming from an exclusionist mindset. The incessant use of "lgbt" instead of "lgbtq" "lgbt+" "lgbtqia" or any language that allows for people beyond the L, G, B, or T to take part in the freedoms being conceptualized. ("lgb" is a similar but way bigger red flag for "drop the t" types which op is not, but I wanted to mention here.) Investigate their about, and you see "cishet exclusionist" "anti-mogai sexualities" and "pro-(most) mogai genders." From skimming their posts, it becomes clear that this means they are opposed to aspec people in the community, opposed to pansexual as an identity at all, opposed to the split-attraction model being used by "real lgbts", and opposed to queer as anything but an individual/private identity. I didn't figure out what they mean by "mogai genders" and frankly I don't want to go that deep. Literally, some of you reblogging this post are ace or pan, please think critically about what language is made to negate your place in the broader community / draw a distinction between you and a "real lgbt."

OP calls for protective government policies that would benefit lgbtq+ people, and they somehow contrast this with a nebulous desire for being accepted by cis/het people. This false dichotomy is between protections ("freedom") gained by winning civil rights, and the inclusion/rights of people who aren't covered under the LGBT acronym. They also list an end to corrective rape here, which doesn't really have anything to do with government policies, and also is definitely a thing that makes it hard for ace people to survive, but, like, ok. I have to say that I'm pretty unimpressed by calls for assimilation to heteropatriarchal norms, and also, as a budding anarchist (similar coincidentally to op's own stated political alignment) I find it laughable that our community's freedom will ever come from state policy. Clearly op doesn't think this is assimilationist but like.. if you claim you aren't seeking acceptance under a cisheteropatriarchal state framework, then don't seek acceptance under that framework?

Tying those two together, I think, is what really rubbed me the wrong way under OP - the generalization that "we" "lgbt" people all feel this way.

I seek queer liberation, not gay/lgbt assimilation. I am a queer aligned with queer movements which disrupt and destroy a system which oppresses all LGBTQ+ people. I understand that you may be neither queer nor in favor of queer liberation. Show me the same decency by not claiming that I, by virtue of fitting in the "LGBT," must support assimilation.

And stop platforming people who hate me and my queer community.

[azurowle]

I’ve decided I’m going to try and make a concerted effort not to use the term “TERF” going forward on this blog - if I absolutely must I will refer to it using capital letters only.

This is in no way a defense of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, nor a condemnation of those who still choose to use the acronym TERF; this decision actually came after reading a poster on Reddit who described the reasons they didn’t like using TERF, and more expansion on it based on my own thoughts that followed after that.

1) Precision of language. TERF is an acronym, but one that, for me at least, is slowly losing meaning.  Concepts, rhetoric, and ideas that originated with radical feminists (the demonization of “fujoshi”, “cishet aroace” exclustion, ect.) are starting to get parroted by other groups such as exclusionists, gatekeepers, and ship/anti-kink discoursers. While there is significant overlap in beliefs with these groups, it becomes problematic when TERF becomes the go-to in describing everyone who says something reminiscent of their language. There’s a risk of lumping LGB, trans, and queer people who are also anti-TERF in with their oppressors, and that is not something I am personally willing to do anymore. 

(There’s also the fact that there are radfems - Andrea Dworkin and Margaret Atwood, for example - who are inclusive of trans woman, and my issues with Dworkin aside she did at least support trans people getting necessary surgery to alleviate gender dysphoria.)

2) Terminology transparency. Radfems are beginning to use “TERF is a slur” to redirect legitimate criticisms of their behavior and beliefs. While I don’t believe it’s a “meaningless slur” (it’s an acronym, my dear trans-exclusionary radical feminist friends), I do believe that for me there was an element of abstraction in simply using TERF and calling it a day.  It also ties into the previous point - precision of language.  It cuts right to the heart of addressing what they are and where there’s an issue with them. When I spell out the words, I can understand the meaning - and others observing the conversation can understand the issue I have with them.

3) To quote Albus Dumbledore, “Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself.” The particular context of this quote was one that I initially thought of when I came to this decision. In my case, it was a combination of fear, anger, and desperation. As I described in a previous post, I read trans-exclusionary radfem rhetoric in a combination of emotionally draining and invalidating myself, reinforcing that I’d never be anything but female and might as well accept it, that I was a gross fetishist of gay men, that I was suffering from a “social contagion”...I could go on.

This failed for a lot of reasons, but more importantly, it caused me to hone in on TERFs as a particularly bad, nasty, unique brand of bigot. My desperation to find a non-transition way to deal with my gender dysphoria and the utterly nasty things I saw popular radical feminists say without being challenged created a poisonous mindset that eventually led to me abusing alcohol and self-mutilation in an attempt to escape from the pain it caused. It caused me to hyperfixate on 

And all that time, I ignored the other transphobes who hated me just as much - the social conservatives, the alt-right, the Nazis, and the trolls. I did not give them the same emotional investment I gave to trans-exclusionary radfems.

Spelling out the acronym takes away that anger. “TERFs” aren’t really anything special. I don’t hate them, not really. I don’t pity, empathize, or even really want to understand them that much anymore. I’ve been on T for two months and have never loved myself more than I do now.  It’s the difference between watching TV on an old 80′s model and watching it on a high-definition digital screen. They were wrong, plain and simple, about how transition would make me feel and how much it would alleviate my dysphoria.

At the end of the day, they’re just transphobes who, like every other transphobic group I mentioned above, wants to limit our rights to exist as trans men and trans women in this world. They deserve the same emotionless, logical takedown that social conservatives, the alt-right, Nazis, and other transphobes deserve. Nothing more or less.