Guest blog: TERFism, or why trans women should matter to youth-lovers

[Morning_Lily]

Trump is a radical feminist? Give me a break.

My girlfriend never once calls Trump a TERF. She simply explains that his executive order "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" comes from TERF rhetoric. Those are two different things and that's why reading comprehension is necessary. If you weren't so wrapped up in your hatred of trans women and had taken a minute to try to truly understand the text in front of you, you might have gotten that.

2. Don't, at least don't single it out as a group in need of special attention

They want to do their own trans thing, fine, whatever. Not everyone and everything needs to be included in everything. I don't see discussion about how we need to incorporate Islam or Buddhism or communism or nationalism or whatever into "the community", so why should trans be treated as the special child?

Recognizing the ways in which the oppression of trans people and of youth-lovers intersect is an important part if we want to mount an effective defense strategy for both of our groups. None of the groups you mentioned face an intersection of oppression as blatant with youth-lovers as trans people nor do they share as much history with the youth-lover liberation movement.

[Liana Lial]

Seeing as this thread is open, I may as well make a few notes on my article.

I want to emphasize that I am not speaking in platitudes. This is not merely a matter of empathy to me. Organizing which does not take into account the full breadth of the struggles which its potential membership may experience is doomed to have problems. They may not notice these problems, just as many gay and lesbian groups have historically ignored their own exclusionary practices towards trans women. However, this lack of cohesion and inclusion is liable to cause splinters, dissatisfied membership, and open us up to attacks from potential allies who can now point to our prejudice as fodder against us. We do not need to look palatable to the lowest common denominator of society - we need to look worthwhile to potential allies. Attempts to exclude the most vulnerable members of our community will backfire, and I find it pressing that this acknowledgement become widespread amongst ourselves.

I say this because I want to very staunchly refute the perception that writings of this sort are theoretical drivel. One need only a mere glance at the organizing efforts of the seventies to discover that this was a real problem even for past individuals. I can't help but recall a recording from a 1973 pride event, wherein Sylvia Rivera was booed upon her arrival on stage. She refused to leave. She poignantly told the crowd that when some of the most vulnerable trans women of the community were arrested and imprisoned, they never to the groups which should've included them as well. "Not the women's group, they do not write women, they do not write men, they write STAR [Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries]."A solution is imperative - and those who chose exclusion as theirs ultimately pushed away valuable allies and participants.

Reading through the responses, it also seems necessary to explain my description of TERFs and TERFism. Rolo has claimed that my definition would classify figures like Trump as a TERF. What is being misunderstood here is the specific niche TERFs occupy within broader politics. As I pointed out, their views are not cohesive or coherent. Their ideas are stolen and borrowed from the conservative playbook, and vice versa. What makes a TERF is their misappropriation of the aesthetics of feminism and its language to disguise their demonization of trans women. The only reason I can imagine Rolo's question might even occur is if they are missing the fact that while TERF rhetoric has spread far beyond its circles, its basis was in pre-existing transmisogyny. TERFs simply altered and re-proliferated it.

I reckon there will be more to say on the matter as time goes on, but that is all for now.

[Fragment]

I don't know if this is conscious or not, but I do wonder whether there's a sense in the BL community especially, that trans issues have kind of usurped the position BL had as the "next logical fight" after things like gay marriage. Obviously drag queen culture was always a part of the gay movement, but in terms of people transitioning, that was about as far down the ladder as NAMBLA. There definitely seems to be a sense of "why them but not us?" amongst some members of the BL community, but I find it unfortunate that it seems to be an issue that divides our community so starkly.

Not even Democrat vs Republican discussions seem to generate as much heat as discussions of trans issues, particularly trans youth.

[Rolo]

Trump is a radical feminist? Give me a break.

My girlfriend never once calls Trump a TERF. She simply explains that his executive order "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" comes from TERF rhetoric. Those are two different things and that's why reading comprehension is necessary. If you weren't so wrapped up in your hatred of trans women and had taken a minute to try to truly understand the text in front of you, you might have gotten that.

2. Don't, at least don't single it out as a group in need of special attention

They want to do their own trans thing, fine, whatever. Not everyone and everything needs to be included in everything. I don't see discussion about how we need to incorporate Islam or Buddhism or communism or nationalism or whatever into "the community", so why should trans be treated as the special child?

Recognizing the ways in which the oppression of trans people and of youth-lovers intersect is an important part if we want to mount an effective defense strategy for both of our groups. None of the groups you mentioned face an intersection of oppression as blatant with youth-lovers as trans people nor do they share as much history with the youth-lover liberation movement.

Where did I say something that's hateful towards trans women? Stop being dishonest. And it's not using TERF rhetoric because TERF is completely marginal, as is radical feminism. It's obviously conservative rhetoric.

[Rolo]

Seeing as this thread is open, I may as well make a few notes on my article.

I want to emphasize that I am not speaking in platitudes. This is not merely a matter of empathy to me. Organizing which does not take into account the full breadth of the struggles which its potential membership may experience is doomed to have problems. They may not notice these problems, just as many gay and lesbian groups have historically ignored their own exclusionary practices towards trans women. However, this lack of cohesion and inclusion is liable to cause splinters, dissatisfied membership, and open us up to attacks from potential allies who can now point to our prejudice as fodder against us. We do not need to look palatable to the lowest common denominator of society - we need to look worthwhile to potential allies. Attempts to exclude the most vulnerable members of our community will backfire, and I find it pressing that this acknowledgement become widespread amongst ourselves.

I say this because I want to very staunchly refute the perception that writings of this sort are theoretical drivel. One need only a mere glance at the organizing efforts of the seventies to discover that this was a real problem even for past individuals. I can't help but recall a recording from a 1973 pride event, wherein Sylvia Rivera was booed upon her arrival on stage. She refused to leave. She poignantly told the crowd that when some of the most vulnerable trans women of the community were arrested and imprisoned, they never to the groups which should've included them as well. "Not the women's group, they do not write women, they do not write men, they write STAR [Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries]."A solution is imperative - and those who chose exclusion as theirs ultimately pushed away valuable allies and participants.

Reading through the responses, it also seems necessary to explain my description of TERFs and TERFism. Rolo has claimed that my definition would classify figures like Trump as a TERF. What is being misunderstood here is the specific niche TERFs occupy within broader politics. As I pointed out, their views are not cohesive or coherent. Their ideas are stolen and borrowed from the conservative playbook, and vice versa. What makes a TERF is their misappropriation of the aesthetics of feminism and its language to disguise their demonization of trans women. The only reason I can imagine Rolo's question might even occur is if they are missing the fact that while TERF rhetoric has spread far beyond its circles, its basis was in pre-existing transmisogyny. TERFs simply altered and re-proliferated it.

I reckon there will be more to say on the matter as time goes on, but that is all for now.

TERFs occupy literally no niche within broader politics. How the hell is "The patriarchy is to blame for everything", i.e. radical feminism, influencing conservatism? The idea of protecting women from men comes way before a niche ideology from the 1970s. And how is conservatism influencing radical feminism, when radical feminists were just political lesbians who were against men? The only connection is "They're both anti-trans" so somehow that makes them the same thing and working together. Let alone the fact that they weren't even influential in the 1970s, let alone today. It's clear dishonesty and just repeating nonsense from some trans echo chambers who always talk about TERFs. It's a commonly used word in those circles, it's also completely wrong and dishonest to use.

[Julia]

I don't know if this is conscious or not, but I do wonder whether there's a sense in the BL community especially, that trans issues have kind of usurped the position BL had as the "next logical fight" after things like gay marriage. Obviously drag queen culture was always a part of the gay movement, but in terms of people transitioning, that was about as far down the ladder as NAMBLA. There definitely seems to be a sense of "why them but not us?" amongst some members of the BL community, but I find it unfortunate that it seems to be an issue that divides our community so starkly.

Not even Democrat vs Republican discussions seem to generate as much heat as discussions of trans issues, particularly trans youth.

When we perceive a hierarchy of struggles, we often create an "us versus them" mentality, which only serves to deepen the divides within our community. This sense of competition for recognition and legitimacy can cloud our understanding of the shared human experience that underlies all struggles for identity and acceptance.

The question of why one group may seem to receive more attention than another is rooted in our conditioning — our need to compare, to judge, and to categorise. But in doing so, we overlook the fundamental truth that every individual's journey is unique and deserving of compassion. The struggles faced by the trans community are not a threat to the progress of the BL community; rather, they are part of the same journey toward understanding and acceptance.

It is essential to recognize that the fight for rights and recognition is not a finite resource. The advancement of one group does not diminish the struggles of another; instead, it can illuminate the path for all. When we allow ourselves to be divided by our differences, we lose sight of the greater purpose: the pursuit of love, understanding, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their identity.

We should move beyond the confines of comparison and embrace a spirit of solidarity. In doing so, we can foster a community that uplifts every voice, recognising that each struggle contributes to the broader fight for justice. By cultivating empathy and understanding, we can transcend division and work together toward a future where all identities are celebrated and respected.

[Rolo]

"It is essential to recognize that the fight for rights and recognition is not a finite resource."

It obviously is a finite resource. People have finite amounts of time, attention, money, etc. The focus on one thing necessarily precludes the focus on another thing. It might sound good to say otherwise, but this is obviously incorrect. Let alone the fact that different "rights and recognitions" can be inherently contradictory to one another. Identity politics is necessarily divisive, which it has historically been promoted by the CIA, NED, USAID, etc. The problem is that Anglos are so brainwashed by this shit over decades that they don't realize that they're just repeating CIA talking points.

[Julia]

Hi there! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this. It’s clear that you’re passionate about these issues, and I’d like to offer some reflections that might help deepen the conversation.

It obviously is a finite resource. People have finite amounts of time, attention, money, etc. The focus on one thing necessarily precludes the focus on another thing. It might sound good to say otherwise, but this is obviously incorrect. Let alone the fact that different "rights and recognitions" can be inherently contradictory to one another. Identity politics is necessarily divisive, which it has historically been promoted by the CIA, NED, USAID, etc.

While it’s true that resources like time and money can be finite, the struggle for rights often coexists in ways that allow different movements to support one another. Focusing on one issue doesn’t necessarily mean neglecting another, and many activists embrace the idea of intersectionality, recognising that various forms of oppression are interconnected. This perspective can really enrich our understanding of social justice.

You mentioned that different rights can be inherently contradictory, which is an interesting point. It might be helpful to explore specific examples of this, as it can vary widely depending on the context. Engaging in dialogue about these complexities can lead to a more nuanced understanding.

The topic of identity politics is indeed contentious. While some see it as divisive, others argue that it’s essential for marginalised groups to assert their identities. Considering both sides of this debate can foster a more inclusive conversation.

I also noticed the claim about identity politics being promoted by certain organisations. That’s an intriguing assertion, but it’s important to approach such topics with care. Providing evidence or examples can help clarify these points and encourage a more informed discussion.

Lastly, I think the language we use can greatly impact how our message is received. While it’s great to express passion, a more measured tone can help engage others and invite them into the conversation. It’s all about fostering understanding and connection.

I hope these reflections are helpful! It’s important to have open discussions about these topics, and I appreciate your willingness to engage. Let’s continue to explore these ideas together with compassion and understanding.

The problem is that Anglos are so brainwashed by this shit over decades that they don't realize that they're just repeating CIA talking points.

PS: I am terribly sorry to disappoint you, but I am actually from Belgium. English is only my third language.

[Rolo]

I'm 99% sure that was a LLM-generated response.

[Julia]

I'm 99% sure that was a LLM-generated response.

Are you sure that it isn't a CIA-generated response?