So there was an article about British TERFs in the NY Times that was illuminating when I was trying to see why trans people were being harrassed, their very existence seen as anti-woman in some way.
I mean the very idea that transphobic harassment could be “feminist” is bewildering. The most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity. Edie Miller noted “Mumsnet is to British transphobia what 4Chan is to American fascism.”
In Britain, TERFs have effectively succeeded in framing the question of trans rights entirely around their own concerns: that is, how these rights for others could contribute to so called female erasure. I'm glad Sussex is standing up to this crap.
The NY Times noted that TERFism simply comes from a long tradition of British feminism interacting with colonialism and empire. Imperial Britain imposed policies to enforce heterosexuality and the gender binary, while simultaneously constructing the racial “other” as not only fundamentally different, but freighted with sexual menace; from there, it’s not a big leap to see sexual menace in any sort of “other,” and “biological realities” as essential and immutable. Interestingly, many Irish feminists have rejected Britain's TERFism citing their experience of colonialism explicitly as part of the reason. Good for the Irish.
You all are still dealing with the spectre of empire and colonialism. It is so engrained, you cannot see it in front of your face.
That's why I usually don't bother with TERFs. It is a waste of time.