Why is it called RADICAL feminism??

[aaarrrggghhhh]

ie in the whole TERF thing?

My understanding is the basic position is:

sex = biological fact = reason for all sorts of bad stuff done to women (e.g. sexual assault, inadequate medical care) = need for interventions/policies to address bad stuff because of biology = need for women to be identified as women in a number of circumstances so biological related bad stuff can be addressed

gender = social construct and cultural stereotypes (e.g. relevantly makeup and dress wearing) = reason for all sorts of bad stuff being done to women (e.g. women are easily distracted by pink unicorns so can't possibly run business, men aren't able to clean so women must do all the cleaning) = need for gender stereotypes to be uncoupled from identification of "women" as women. Indeed, often this means the use of sex specific terms is to be avoided to avoid gender stereotypes (e.g. chairperson).

dominant transgender position/self- id = women = gender construct not biological fact = women to be identified as 'cis' women on the basis that they are one subset of a broader category of women based entirely on gender = the complete opposite of basic feminist principles.

Am I missing something? How is this radical??? My understanding is that this is really uncontroversial feminist logic that is accepted in the mainstream??? For the life of me I can't see how this logic is radical.

My own view is that i am entirely happy for men to wander round in dresses and lipstick and more power to that for challenging gender stereotypes. Very happy to support clear rights for people who don't feel they fit within established gender constructs to not be discriminated against in the workplace etc.

VERY unhappy to get changed at the swimming pool with ANY person with a penis in the room whatever they identify as. Very happy to support the provision of other areas for such people to get changed were they feel safe.

How is any of this radical? How did that become the accepted term??

[SexMatters]

Radical refers to the 'root'.
Liberal can seem like rearranging the deckchairs on the sinking titanic. Radical is - we need to re-think this whole boat.

[Stillscreaming]

Trans exclusionary radical feminists are only a small subset of radical feminists. Radical Feminists were full of ideas, have a look at the SCUM manifesto.

[SimonBridges]

Because it makes a nice acronym.

Tef isn’t as good as terf.

[SexMatters]

I think naming men as the oppressor is pretty central stillscreaming

[HomeTerf]

Good video here, by the brilliant Peach Yogurt.

[Bluntness100]

Ffs. What's wrong with you? I actually clicked on this idiocy thinking you wished to discuss radical feminism. The changing of society to remove the patriachy, but no you just want to discuss trans issues and con folks into clicking on this shit.

[Icantreachthepretzels]

I think they are trying to invoke the idea of extremism in the position - like 'radical islamist'. It makes it sound bad. Either they are unaware of the Latin root, or they know but they are simply hoping others won't. They are taking a neutral label and using people's ignorance and prejudice of a word to turn it into something unreasonable.

[Stillscreaming]

I think naming men as the oppressor is pretty central stillscreaming

It is, as it not having sex with the oppressors, even if you fancy them.

[aaarrrggghhhh]

Hi Bluntness - not sure how I've offended? It's a genuine question? i.e. why is it commonly described as a "radical" position when it seems to me that its not at all radical but rather follows quite a mainstream feminist logic?

(and I would have thought this was one of many issues relevant to removing the patriarchy?)

[SexMatters]

Good link Home Terf

[SexMatters]

Mainstream feminist logic is one that doesn't challenge men or Patriarchy, it speaks of equality.
Women should be equally able to exploit and oppress other women/groups as men are. Women should be able to produce porn just like men - etc. There isn't a deeper analysis of power and how it works to extract from 'others'.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Trans exclusionary radical feminists are only a small subset of radical feminists

Some people who have this label applied to them are radical feminists, but many aren't (either trans exclusionary or radical, just feminist!) - many people labelled TERF really don't know what 'radical feminism' is, hence this thread.

[Stillscreaming]

@ aaarrrggghhhh

Not at all, some of the trans exclusion stuff really plays into the hands of the patricharchy. Some, maybe most, women have genuine political concerns but there is a rich seam of visarel dislike show by some, those women are really playing into the patricharcy's need for gender conformity.

That anyone would use the term 'bloke in a dress' with contempt shows that they feel that there is an appropriate way for men to dress and, by extrapolation, for women to dress. That's colluding with your own opression.

Saying you only want to share a changing room with someone of the same sex, is a tad more feminist.

[aaarrrggghhhh]

HomeTerf - great video thanks! That answers the question I was asking.

I think though that TBH most people don't distinguish along those sorts of theoretical lines or use that sort of "theoretical" language and I think lots of people would have a blend of liberal/radical views when it came to this.

Very interesting though. For me the thing is that the term "radical" is so loaded and, as said, I really don't think it is such a radical idea.

Interesting.

[Snowjoker]

Because liberal feminists seem to be able to be more “on board” with the trans movement, therefore to identify the ones who won’t/can’t they say radical?

[NotTerfNorCis]

That anyone would use the term 'bloke in a dress' with contempt shows that they feel that there is an appropriate way for men to dress and, by extrapolation, for women to dress.

No, they are pointing out that a man in a dress is simply that. He doesn't become a woman by co-opting a traditional symbol of womanhood.

[LangCleg]

Not at all, some of the trans exclusion stuff really plays into the hands of the patricharchy.

No, Mimi, it doesn't.

[aaarrrggghhhh]

@Stillscreaming

yes its an uncomfortable common ground.

(ps i didn't use the term "bloke in a dress" did I? I can't see it?)

[Stillscreaming]

No, they are pointing out that a man in a dress is simply that. He doesn't become a woman by co-opting a traditional symbol of womanhood.

No, focusing on appearance is never feminist. By all means, you can point out that the person is not of the same sex as you or hasn't been raised with the same gender constraints but the focuse on the dress is collusion.

Calling a dress a 'traditional symbol of womanhood' is also decisive, it's a Western symbol of womanhood; there are women in the rest of the world too, who deserve to be acknowledged.

[SexMatters]

Come on screaming really!?!

[BMacklin]

aaarrrggghhhh I think that was a good question for people like me as I'm still relatively new to feminist theory. I didn't understand where the term came from either. Thanks! Thanks also for the video HomeTerf
And sexmatters your point that liberal feminism:
Women should be equally able to exploit and oppress other women/groups as men are. Women should be able to produce porn just like men - etc. There isn't a deeper analysis of power and how it works to extract from 'others'.

Is very interesting and helps clarify it to me more.

[Stillscreaming]

I think its slightly more gender conforming to suggest a man in a dress is actually a woman, as if the wearing of a dress is what makes us real.

I'm not convinced by the argument that it's okay to support the partrichacy a bit becasue someone else might be supporting it more, is a truly Radical Feminist one.

I don't think that a bloke in a dress is a woman. I assumed by bloke in a dress we were talking about blokes.in.dresses.

Trans women are a whole different kettle of fish.

[Stillscreaming]

Women should be equally able to exploit and oppress other women/groups as men are. Women should be able to produce porn just like men - etc. There isn't a deeper analysis of power and how it works to extract from 'others'.

Yeah but in terms of accuracy it's right up there with 'all radical feminists are humourless, man haters who have hairy legs'.

[nooka]

Are their active transactivist campaigns in the non-western world? I'd be interested to learn more about any campaigns to have men be recognised as women in societies where women have little autonomy or independence and struggle with basic security or access to healthcare. Part of transactivism seems to be about slapping women (as a class) down because of their temerity to try to 'have it all' and the perception that women are actually the ones with power (hence sis privilege). This might to something western men can persuade themselves of but surely even they can see that this would be a ridiculous position to take for much of the world.