Advanced search

Rational Wiki bizarre page on TERFs

(33 Posts)
Wanderabout Fri 25-May-18 08:40:13

What is this site?

It has some very odd views:

StickyStuffRemover Sun 27-May-18 09:15:13

Countess - yes that was my reading also.

Of all the reasons a woman could be forced or manipulated into prostitution, that's the only one they feel strongly enough about to recommend action on.

Says it all, really.

Juells Sun 27-May-18 09:06:06


the testicles of objectivity

So good it deserves to be repeated 😅

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Sun 27-May-18 09:04:59

I think the last sentence is alluding to transwomen who sell sex to fund their sex change operations. It's making it all about the trans as usual.

FermatsTheorem Sun 27-May-18 08:51:47

That bit about SWERFs really comes straight from some crazy mirror universe, doesn't it? Up is down, left is right, right is wrong.

I wish I could take credit for "testicles of objectivity" but I stole it from someone on here so long ago I can't remember who.

LostLesbian380 Sun 27-May-18 08:04:02

There's a really disturbing part about SWERFs, and the last sentence seems like it's advocating doctors or the government providing sexual "care" to people who "need" it ?? Am I reading this wrong?

"Sex worker-exclusionary radical feminism (also known as SWERF) is yet another offshoot of feminism, one that opposes women's participation in pornography and prostitution. The term was coined to match that of TERF, as their memberships overlap.[28] Their ideology also overlaps as both subgroups follow a prescriptive, normative approach to feminism; i.e., telling women what to do — TERFs with their gender, and SWERFs with their sexuality.

SWERFs criticize the objectification and exploitation of women within pornography and the sex industry, as well as the violence and abuse that sex workers frequently suffer.[note 13]

SWERFs typically go completely overboard and dump on sex-workers who chose their profession freely, even in places where it is completely legal and safe, claiming that the sex workers are nothing more than deluded victims (and co-perpetrators) of human trafficking. Much like white supremacists might insist that adoption agencies helping children from the third world find parents in the west are nothing more than deluded extinctionists. This dogmatic hostility to voluntary sex work is known as whorephobia.[9]

Most feminists lie somewhere in the middle - that the issue is not that there are no women who engage in sex work without compromising their personal autonomy, but that such people are not representative of sex workers in general, and that such accounts can be misappropriated by others who have an interest in the ongoing subjugation of women. For these feminists, the issue is not that women should not have the right to voluntarily engage in prostitution, but that more needs to be done to prevent women being forced, manipulated or otherwise obliged to engage in prostitution, e.g. to take just one instance, by providing government funding for medical procedures that are sometimes otherwise funded by sex work."

ReluctantCamper Fri 25-May-18 13:59:49

the testicles of objectivity

yeah, that one leapt out at me too <tucks it in back pocket>

RadicalFern Fri 25-May-18 13:28:44

the testicles of objectivity

Well that's going straight into the phrasebook smile.

nauticant Fri 25-May-18 13:09:04

Just in case anyone is thinking about engaging with Rational Wiki over this page, bear in mind that wiki editors are notorious for being obsessive and so you might find yourself arguing with particularly obsessive TRAs. Who, additionally, might have very good IT skills.

I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Fri 25-May-18 13:02:35

That is libellous on Maria Maclachlan, I'd say, as police reviewed all the video footage and only brought charges against Tara Wolf, not against Maria. There was no suggestion in any of the coverage I saw of the trial that Maria was considered to have assaulted anyone.

Maria herself has written about that site.

NotTerfNorCis Fri 25-May-18 13:01:27

Wow just read it. Absolutely toxic. Seems to have been repeat-edited by a small group of people such as 'Yisfidri'.

smithsinarazz Fri 25-May-18 12:57:44

Haha @FermatsTheorem - "the testicles of objectivity!"
Or: "it's men's bollocks, you wouldn't understand."

Tanith Fri 25-May-18 12:51:19

They appear to encourage challenge and debate, though.

TerfsUp Fri 25-May-18 12:47:27

The 60-year-old woman in question was punched in retaliation for choking a teen at Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London by three protesters while she was waiting to hear about the venue for a meeting to discuss proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act."

Try as I might, I cannot follow the syntax of that statement.

flowersonthepiano Fri 25-May-18 11:59:24

This bit seems particulary problematic,

"Similarly, in New Statesman, Sarah Ditum suggested that the TERF label encouraged pro-trans feminists to "think it is OK — more than OK, laudable — to hit a 60-year-old woman if she thinks the wrong thing, because thinking the wrong thing is understood to be an act of aggression in itself."[32]

The 60-year-old woman in question was punched in retaliation for choking a teen at Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London by three protesters while she was waiting to hear about the venue for a meeting to discuss proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act."

Choking a teen?!

RatRolyPoly Fri 25-May-18 11:58:48

A really enjoyable read, thanks for posting.

Tanith Fri 25-May-18 10:55:02

It was my understanding that you can edit these pages, as well as the wikipedia ones, by creating a log in and editing the page to correct the misinformation.

MRAs often do this to wikipedia pages that annoy them: they trashed Penelope Leach's page in 2014.

R0wantrees Fri 25-May-18 09:47:39

It reminds me of the equally bizarre NUS presentation about TERFs.

discussed here:

Wanderabout the Rational Wiki page seemed to have a lot in common with the site This was recommended by the authors of the NUS Womens 18 slideshow as "a really good guide that outlines common TERF arguments" at the end of the workshop (?) as part of the 'where to go for more info' final slide.

ElenOfTheWays Fri 25-May-18 09:30:56

That was nothing rational about that. It was all bollocks as far as I could tell.

I have come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as a TERF. It's an entirely made up creature. A figment.

At least I've never come across any.

Gender critical does not =Trans Exclusionary.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-May-18 09:28:48

The section on 'The term TERF' in proper grownup wiki is much closer to the truth.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-May-18 09:16:05

OTOH, They may be better qualified to pronounce in the area of men's rights...

nauticant Fri 25-May-18 09:13:24

As a general rule, never listen to a man on the left who is telling you what feminism is and what it is not.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-May-18 09:09:39

Yes... self-appointed experts. It can sometimes serve as a quick counterpoint to 'answers in Genesis' if you want to trade c&ps with a creationist, I suppose.

But on feminism etc.... well, I would really like to know what the male/female split of contributors to this site (and editors/mods if they have them) is in general and on articles relating to feminism in particular.

FermatsTheorem Fri 25-May-18 09:01:12

Batshit but not surprising. I've stumbled across the site before and it's always given me the impression of a bunch of lefty dude bros who're convinced they possess the testicles of objectivity but are in fact the living proof of the maximum "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Wanderabout Fri 25-May-18 08:51:58

It reminds me of the equally bizarre NUS presentation about TERFs.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Fri 25-May-18 08:50:31

We're pretty big for a Westboro Baptist Church.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »