T-slur implies existence of TIRFs?

[TyroSaysMeow]

Purely on a logical/linguistic level, the fact that TE is added to RF implies the existence of RFs who warrant the appellation TI, where inclusive is a synonym for wholly accepting and uncritical of.

But genderism and radical feminism are mutually incompatible, aren't they?

Has anyone anywhere actually managed to reconcile the two and produce a coherent theory of trans-inclusive radical feminism that doesn't beg the question yet?

I'm leaning towards the addition of TE being nothing more than a convenient way of distracting from the RF nature of the target of the slur, but I haven't trawled the whole internet. Are there people who'd fit the label TIRF, and if so, how do they reconcile it?

This post is prompted by someone accusing me of not knowing what a t-slur is, and me being struck by the hypocrisy in The Other Side clinging to dictionary definitions when it suits them. But is there such a thing as a tirf?

That Grauniad article is annoying me, NotTerf. This quote from Viv Smythe in particular:

... it must be said: marginalising trans women at actual risk from regularly documented abuse /violence in favour of protecting hypothetical cis women from purely hypothetical abuse/violence from trans women in women-only safe-spaces strikes me as horribly unethical as well as repellently callous.

It's the same two strands of bollocks we see over and over again - first, the mention of abuse and violence suffered by male-born trans people with no mention of who's perpetrating it; and second the notion that a trans identity is somehow a prophylactic against being violent or abusive.

She says: Which brings me finally to one of the common Terf arguments: what about social/sexual predators who could pretend to be trans in order to exploit the trust of others by subverting novel gender recognition processes?

I must be an uncommon t-slur then, because I get just as shouty about sexual predators who are, for want of a better phrase, 'real trans' eg my rapist#2. So a bit of a misrepresentation of the current position there.

And she's making out that there were never actually any male-born people behaving inappropriately at Michfest, they were purely hypothetical, which is, er, a lie, no?

On to wikipedia, and the rabbit hole!

There were a few TRAs a while back attempting to spin things as "radfems always accepted trans women as women just like them up until some evil witches came along and hijacked radical feminism". To be woman centered, which obviously is a terrible thing to be and particularly confusing as a position for a radical feminist to adopt.

The whole goddesses and witches, cultural aspect of the Second Wave has had male individuals attempting to force their way in since pretty much the beginning, so no surprises there. I suppose it was inevitable that they'd claim that they started the whole thing and women stole it at some point.

See - the very large individual who used to stalk around the borders of Michfest with a homemade spear, performing what they seemed to think was some form of female centered spiritual practice (by symbolically threatening women, yay logic).

Which betrays their lack of understanding of the female experience nicely.

I've always got on very well with transwomen by accepting them as fully human people who'd been shafted by sexism just like me. Not as women, but as real people whose effeminacy should never have been regarded as problematic. Pretty sure that's what radfems of old were doing too.

I've always got on very well with transwomen by accepting them as fully human people who'd been shafted by sexism just like me. Not as women, but as real people whose effeminacy should never have been regarded as problematic.

Which they appear to have interpreted as
"Women have always accepted us as women.
"It was never a problem/nobody ever made a fuss into those nasty TERFs came along."
"I pass."

We were asked to be kind. We were kind. We accepted people as people. What is being asked of us now, under the guise of 'Be Kind', is anything but being kind.

And the particularly annoying thing, Jelly, is if we do treat them as we would treat women, they get offended.

Like, I treat transwomen as people, but I make a conscious effort not to make darkly humorous comments about my menses in their presence. For me to treat them as women, they're going to have to get over this aversion to talking matter-of-factly about the realities of living with female biology.

Interesting that the Guardian comment article is one of the many with comments disabled.