By David Futrelle
One thing I’ve learned doing this blog lo these many years is that hate looks like hate, no matter what kind it is: Misogyny looks like racism; racism looks like antisemitism; antisemitism looks like homophobia. While these different forms of bigotry aren’t identical by any means, they do share many of the same tropes; a misogynist complaining we live in a “gynocracy” secretly controlled by women, for example, sounds a lot like an antisemite peddling some updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I’ve also learned that these various varieties of hate sound remarkably similar even when they’re being promulgated by people who are ostensibly on the opposite ends of the political spectrum: the transphobia promoted by women who consider themselves both radical and feminist sounds a lot like the transphobia promoted by those on the far, far right.
I’d like to illustrate this last point with a little experiment in the form of a quiz.
Take a look at the quotes below. Some are from the Gender Critical subreddit, Reddit’s main forum for trans-exclusionary “radical feminists.” (All of them garnered multiple upvotes from other “Gender Critical” Redditors, with several getting well over 100 upvotes.) The rest of the quotes are from articles in the neo-Nazi internet tabloid The Daily Stormer, one of the most gleefully bigoted sites on the internet. See if you can tell which quotes come from which of these two sources.
The answers are below, or you can just click on the quotes, which are linked to their sources.
I) “If a man cuts his dick off, he’s still just a man.”
Answers: A) Daily Stormer; B) Gender Critical subreddit; C) GC; D) DS; E) GC; F) GC; G) DS; H) GC; I) DS; J) DS
How’d you do?
If it’s any consolation, I had to doublecheck a few of these to make sure I was correctly remembering where they originated.
Hate sounds like hate, no matter where it’s coming from.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@rv97
No one really is a bad person. Just bad actions and bad choices but you get to choose to be better then that. You get to choose to do better. No one is born with this evilness inside them that makes them do bad things or hurt others. Those are choices we make. You can choose to do better.
I got 6/10.
I’m disappointed in myself.
So there are still radical feminists who aren’t TERFs/SWERFs. That’s a relief. I still would be reluctant to label myself as such because of the association with TERFism, but it’s good to know that there are still people under it who aren’t TERFs.
@Aaron
That’s been my observation about a lot of “radical” ideologies: They share the idea that there is One True Axis Of Oppression, and that all other forms of oppression either don’t exist or are just a symptom of the One True Oppression.
Therefore trying to fix anything other than the One True Oppression is either a waste of time at best, or makes you one of The Enemy at worst.
I can understand the appeal – it makes everything very simple. If you have declared that every problem is a nail, then there’s no need to look for anything but hammers. You never have to worry about pesky complications. And best of all, you can always be The Righteous One who knows the solution.
On the No True Scotsman thing…
I’m a Quaker. I’m non-Creedal, non-Trinitarian, and a panentheist.*
I have had people insist that I am “Not a Real Christian” for decades as a result.**
And so I am very hesitant to claim that others are No True Scotsmen for not believing or acting as I do. I will call them bad at being Scotsmen, I will call them bad people, but I will not claim they are not Scotsmen.
This is my choice, obviously, and I’m not going to insist that others follow it.
*The last one is not typical for Quakers, but I found it a natural extension of the Quaker concept of “that of God in all of us.”
**Christian jerks claim that I am lying about being Christian, because I don’t believe exactly what they do. Atheist jerks claim that I am lying about not believing exactly what their preferred stereotype of Christians do, because every religious person in the world is exactly like their parents.
@TacticalProgressive
From what available data are you drawing this conclusion from? Do you know a lot of TERFs IRL? (It’s entirely possible that you do, and if so, you have my sympathy.)
But if your primary exposure to TERFs is for example, people being shitty on Twitter, how do you know that their tweets are the extent of their activism?
There can be women who are deeply invested in reproductive rights and abortion access who are still super fucking transphobic. There can be women working at women’s shelters who are still super fucking transphobic. And so on and so forth.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we’re being too mean to the TERFs for not acknowledging their contributions to feminism. I’m saying that assuming TERF=never feminist runs the risk of people assuming that if someone actively supports a feminist cause, then they can’t really be transphobic and people who are saying as much are just trying to smear their good name.
@Jesalin
That’s not what I wrote, but in the interest of keeping the peace, I shall take your advice and say no more on the subject.
@Catalpa
I know that some TERFs have done real world feminist stuff (IIRC Meghan Murphy has done some stuff). That doesn’t excuse their transphobia, of course, but a few of them do seem to put some effort into some things that aren’t evil.
However, a caveat is that this seems to be the minority. The majority of vocal internet TERFs don’t seem to do any real world feminist advocacy (at least, none that I can find evidence of) and seem to mostly deal in hate. So I agree with your statements, but I think TacticalProgressive has somewhat of a point.
@Katamount
It read the same to me as it did to Jes, just so you know. I’m not telling you this to dogpile or anything, but so that you can see that your tone came across as dismissive and judgmental of people who identify as enbies and/or have anime avatars on Twitter as well as of everyone who took issue with Natalie’s words and actions.
(Yes, I know about the anime avatars that argue on Twitter in bad faith and no, it didn’t make your comment any less harmful to have that context.)
I never said that was what you wrote, I was giving my read on what you wrote, not quoting you.
@Crip Dyke
Mmm fair. And I agree that differentiating TERFism from other forms of transphobia is important.
@Katamount
I’m in agreement with Jesalin and kupo, and FWIW I block anime avatars by default on Mastodon. Contra being trouble was a long time coming – Black trans folks were warning us about her views and attitudes way before white enbys were. Yeah a lot of people are shitty about it, but.
@Naglfar
I thought for a long time that TERF/SWERFs were very effective vs. stuff like human trafficking, but some recent experiences have made me a bit more skeptical. I don’t really know a lot about organizations like Polaris Project, and TBH I don’t know the extent to which they’re anti-trans and not only blanket anti-sex-work.
@All
As far as radical feminism, I don’t consider myself one but my thinking is definitely influenced by radical feminism – the idea of misogyny and sexism as ur-bigotries is a good one I think, even if the modern forms are historically recent.
And also, you can see the underlying truths in a lot of the things that some radfems take to broken conclusions.
e.g. The sweeping definition of rape? Well yeah, seems absurd, but there is a reality of consent being less solid between people of very different social privilege levels. White supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism etc. create a level of implicit coercion in a lot of cases, or at least implicit pressure. And speaking frankly and from personal experience, that implicit pressure does not have to rise to the level where a relationship is literally rape to cause some level of lasting trauma.
I see it as a bit like the thing where there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are more and less ethical forms of relationships under patriarchy, but the power structures poison all of them on some level.
@Cyborgette
Every time this kind of thing breaks, it turns out that minorities (POC, LGBTQIPA+, etc) were talking and warning about it long before white cishets noticed. Listening to their voices is important.
I don’t specifically know that organization, but I can see how anti sex work stuff could spill over into transphobia. This is why it seems there’s a lot of overlap between TERFs and SWERFs. In some cases, people are more willing to publicly be anti sex work even if in private they’re also anti trans*.
@Catalpa
Admittedly most of the data I was able to glean was mostly second hand from other pro-feminist groups, from friends and acquaintances who are either themselves Trans or Non-Gender conforming and who are politically active feminists who have had unpleasant experience with TERF’s and SWERF’s, and for myself personally; having to deal with a special needs support staff who was shockingly, disgustingly and militantly homophobic and trans-bigoted.
For the cases of More active Feminist advocates and the friends and acquaintances I know in such categories: they have shared their experience and interactions with such groups, given that while I am pro-feminist; I am admittedly low activity as one so my personal experience is lower than average, but given the experiences of those who are much more active in feminist advocacy and women’s rights moments and LGBT activism: the overall impression they seem to convey, and it’s a consistent one: is that the average TERF and SWERF typically at best; doesn’t really, usually, work towards any sort of women’s rights or systemic reformation of problematic systemic issues in society or systems that operate within it, or actively engage in actions and movements that run directly counter and in antithesis of actual feminist thought, ideology, and even operational actions.
Though, and admittedly this is a bit of a tangent, (and also a warning due to a lot of experience of bigotry, religious fundamentalism and emotional distress in the following) in the case of the problematic support staff I had: while he wasn’t actually a TERF or SWERF, but a good deal of his notions and ideas regarding Trans people seemed to be near identical to the arguments of TERFS, so my initial impressions are telling me that TERF rhetoric was able to proliferate beyond TERF circles into general Conservative circles where this particular staff was able to ingest it and take it as verified fact despite it not even meeting the basic criteria as such.
This particular support staff was frankly the most bigoted fundamentalist I have even had misfortune to have interact with me in person at a face to face level. My old special needs support staff was a kind and worldly bisexual man who was happily married to his husband; and I owe a lot of my personal grown of self confidence and direction in my life to him over the course of over 7 years; sadly due to health issues he was unable to continue supporting me or any other individuals so I had to have a new support staff to assist me work out some of my more challenging day to day activities (mostly emotional and anxiety issues).
This support staff however, despite my attempt to give him a shot; was the worst support assistant I have ever had. Over the course of 8 months, he had revealed himself to be not merely just a Conservative Christian, but an admitted Creationist and Christian apologist, and a staunchly, militantly Homophobic and Transphobic bigot. So much so that he believed that the psudohistorical lie that was “The Pink Swastika” as actual factual truth (which needless to say; it’s ain’t). He also shown himself to be a White Chauvinist who bought into racist lies regarding crime statistics and Black Americans (I imagine everyone here would be familiar with such ad nauseam racist propaganda) and saying that I, as an Italian-Canadian Cis Gendered Male, should “stick to my own” (which was a major red flag of racism and other bigotries he held despite his weak claims otherwise), a Western Chauvinist, a Male Chauvinist, a Christian Chauvinist along side his fundamentalism and apologist position, Puritanically sex negative, deeply gender normative, and fiercely psudorational and psudoscientific (heck he even thought that “Science is a religion”; a stance that my kindly, Liberal Christian home-share providers find to be an absurd claim and they are rather pro-science in contrast) and who believed that only the religious have morals and that such religious morals and the only ones that matter (which he liked to assert and rub in my face since I was a “apathetic agnostic with atheist leanings”). And frankly most of the conversations I had with him felt mostly like arguments made in intentionally bad faith, or were so divorced from reality that they may as well have been. It got to the point where frankly I grew to loathing my time meeting up with him.
My experience with this particular support staff was beyond frustrating, exhausting and repulsive, although it did give me insight into the mindset, reasoning and POV of such folk that is shared between TERF’s and SWERF’s and general Conservative bigots and Neo-reactionaries. Despite all this 8 month period of emotional and mental toll on myself, I did make a report to the special needs assistance organization I’m supported by and whom I am also a Board of Directors “Supported Individual Liaison” to and explained the situation, and expressed concerns that this support worker, due to his bigotries; would not be a good fit for the program given it supports individuals who are within the demographics of individuals that he holds bigotry towards; which frankly I felt would come into conflict with the values and duties required by the organization and frankly the risk of negative impact on the individuals being supported by the program who his bigotries were directed towards and would adversely effect.
My family and I had no idea how such a person managed to find work in an otherwise Liberal and progressive and generally accepting organization helping a diverse demographic of special needs individuals; but the consensus of myself, my family and the organization members, is that this individual, with the values he held; was not in the right line of work given what the organization was supposed to fulfill and carry out for all demographics of special needs individuals.
My new support staff I not currently have; is a much better fit.
Also I’m sorry for an earlier SNAFU in my last inital post: I meant to say: “I strongly doubt that TERF’s and SWERF’s WOULD meet the definitions of feminism, wither in practice or in theory.
I hate it when I make flubs like that.
@Allandrel –
Yuck, that myth SO does not fit with the aims of working against sexual violence. :/
@Opgga –
I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I also see why the wording put people on edge.
For example, I don’t know what, if anything, would be “deceitful” not to disclose. To me, it seems to be a conversation that should go both ways. E.g. if someone finds X thing an absolute no-no for a future sex partner, it seems up to them to ask. Of course, there might be things someone doesn’t think of that might be harmful, e.g. if the other person has a communicable STD, but I can’t see how being trans* would fall under that category.
About disclosing things, it also depends on the relationship the people want. For me, I told my boyfriend about my past instances of violence (hitting people in my family when I was younger and a classmate during an argument in my early 20s) before I kissed him, because I could imagine someone not wanting to kiss someone who’d done things like that.
But would this matter for casual sex (however that’s defined)? Again, I think it depends on the people and what level of emotional intimacy they want.
And about prejudice against bisexual folks – I just want to say it really sucks that this has been a problem for you and I hope it stops being one. Going back to the above, I also asked the said person if he was cool with me being bi (we’d been in the same creative writing group and it came up before, but I hadn’t asked him explicitly). Thankfully, that was fine. I’m lucky! He doesn’t seem to have weird stereotypes about bi women like some straight men do AND he isn’t grossed out. This seems like a low bar to clear, but…
Anyway, as for my past, he understood that it was something I regretted. And I’m sorry for going on for so long, but I hope you see something here that’s useful.
I think that what Aaron said is both accurate and a pretty good summary of why seeing people explicitly identifying as “radical feminists” has become less common lately than it was in the past.
I want to stress that Aaron was talking about perceptions rather than inherent truths though. When Aaron said that RFs “are idenitified” with an ur-oppression model of sexism, that’s very true. But of course, the definition of radical feminism doesn’t include the necessity of treating sexism as an ur-oppression.
I’ve identified as a radical feminist in the past, and I still think that the minimal definition of radical feminist describes me. But it’s a bit like saying that one is an orange fruit while being a mango. Yes, you’re a fruit, and yes, you’re orange (and yes, oddly able to speak english), so of course you’re an orange fruit. But because there’s an orange fruit whose name is actually “orange” it’s going to be really hard to communicate what you are by calling yourself an “orange fruit” when you’re a mango, because people are just naturally going to think of a medium-size citrus fruit first, and then you’re going to have to explain – “Yes, but I’m not round, and my skin is smooth, and my internal structure is not lobed, and….”
Sure, I’m a radical feminist – I was one decades ago and still am one today. But saying I’m a radical feminist out loud frequently makes it more difficult to communicate who I am and what I believe. So why bother saying it? There are really few contexts in which announcing that I’m a radical feminist is productive even though the statement is true.
=========
On a separate topic, I can understand the transition described by Ohlmann:
But understanding how it happened is different from endorsing it. My problem with this is that I and others have argued that twitter shouldn’t ban use of the term “TERF” in reference to specific individuals since it’s just a neutral, accurate description. But if we accept that TERF does not accurately describe those individuals and instead is a toxic label, then we’ve bought into the very argument that TERFs are using to prevent us from being allowed to use the term on the internet: that it’s just a slur (“toxic label”).
For people that aren’t actually feminist, I’d prefer something like FART (Feminism-Appropriating, Reactionary Transphobe). For people that are actually feminist, TERF remains a good and valid description.
Of course, I do have another concern as well: when we say that X isn’t feminist therefore people who do X aren’t feminists, we make a false promise that feminist spaces will be free of X.
Feminists have been shitting on trans* people for 50 years, and they’re going to go on shitting on trans* people for a long time to come. Yes, it’s less common now, yes, trans* positive space does exist now. But I’ve been in enough trans*-shitty feminist spaces over the years that when someone says that cissexism isn’t feminist I laugh the laugh of great despair.
Cissexism has been feminist since the beginning of feminism. Just because we’ve been getting better lately doesn’t mean that’s not true. I feel the history of anti-trans* feminism is being whitewashed by the casual assumption that doing cissexism must mean someone isn’t feminist.
And, of course as always, none of this is my wisdom. I get it from feminists of color who point out similar arguments against whitewashing feminism’s racism away, or giving the appearance of promising anti-racist space at feminist gatherings only for WoC to show up and get turned off to feminism because that promise was a lie.
I don’t want trans* people to get turned off to feminism because of a false promise. Feminism is what it is, and it’s had a lot of fuck ups. It’s had a lot of racism and ableism and classism and heterosexism along the way, and yes, cissexism too. I’d prefer people embracing feminism with open eyes.
@Oppga
I made the wrong assumption about your intentions, and I apologize for that.
We disagree about the what one should feel obligated to disclose before having sex with someone. In a vacuum, maybe we could have discussed that disagreement calmly.
However, in this case you brought it up specifically in relation to statement B, a statement in favour of straight cis men who feel a threat to their sexuality handling the resulting fear by violently attacking trans women. You linked the two concepts; therefore, you created the implication (though evidently not deliberately) that disclosure or nondisclosure of trans status is relevant to whether or not it’s okay for men to beat up women for the crime of being trans and attractive to them. I can’t have that conversation calmly because it’s fucking evil.
I would maybe suggest that you question what relevance your beliefs about disclosure to would-be sexual partners had to statement B.
Welp, I learned a whole lot about feminism reading this comments thread. To badly translate a Québécois expression, I’m gonna go to sleep less stupid tonight, which coming from me is definitely a great compliment.
Thanks, all you wonderful people, and have a nice day!
@Viscaria
No need to apologize, I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear about my meaning, and that I upset you. Please accept my sincere regret! 🙁
FWIW, after some thought I think we’re interpreting B differently. I clicked through to the original thread (warnings about doing that‐ the OP is somehow even more gross and triggering), and the full text of B is;
It’s still a gross statement filled with A LOT of wrong things, but given the context of the thread, I do think it’s referring to finding out the partner is trans after having sex, not before. Which is what I think what we may be reading differently?
@epitome
Yes, you are 100% right!
However, I think some people would be offended at being asked if they were trans, (or gay, or whatever), so I think that some people hesitate to ask their partner about certain topics. Not that they shouldn’t ask it somehow if it is a dealbreaker for them! But sometimes it’s just easier for everyone if a person brings up a topic about themselves themself, if you know what I mean. 🙂
I’m doing this for myself as much as the other person anyway. I don’t want to sleep with a bigot as much as I never want someone to actually regret sleeping with me, casual one night stand or not.
Maybe “rape” is a strong word, and it does get murky because people don’t always know their gender or sexual orientation either. But this “rape by deceit” thing has been prosecuted in some countries for as little as one partner lying about their career.
Yes that was a interesting and wonderful post to read, thank you for sharing! ?
Oppga:
In part of my professional life, I do not work with clients who fit certain criteria. For instance, I don’t work with someone who is a supervisor or a subordinate of mine at work, or who is or has been involved in a legal process with one of my current or former employers. However, in this context I have no right to ask people to disclose their private legal dealings to me.
So, what I do on my intake form is name the categories of people I don’t work with, and require a signature under a statement which says that the person does not fall into any of those categories. They can decide not to work with me for any reason, and they can decline without saying why.
In the context of the current discussion, it would be easy enough for people to own their preferences and ask the prospective partner if any of those apply. The partner could then say, “I don’t think we’re a good match, thanks” without having to disclose why.
The preference could be related to what trips your trigger (for instance, some people can’t get excited about hairless genitals), or it could be related to a conflict of interest (you might not want to inadvertently get involved with someone who is in an exclusive relationship), or it could be related to political principle (I’m not interested in any way in someone sufficiently bigoted, short-sighted or confused that they voted for Trump), or it could be straight-up bigotry (some people have issues with the thought of trans people, even if this particular trans person could body-double for someone who would otherwise rev their motor).
A further advantage to this system: if bigotry is the reason behind the preference, the bigot has to display their bigotry, and if such bigotry is a hard pass for the other person, they get to pass.
Grace
By your reckoning, how much is one expected to disclose about their life before having sex, in order to not be guilty of “rape by deceit”?
If I used to live in a different country, does that need to be put on the table before my partner can give informed consent? What if I changed careers? If I dye my hair? Do I need to tell people my full legal name beforehand; would only providing a nickname be considered “deceit”?
The information I would expect to be required to be provided for informed consent to be that which is directly relevant to the sex acts being performed. So impersonation of another known person, lack of agreed-upon protection, unagreed upon additional acts, and exposing of one’s partner to unknown STIs would all fall under violation of informed consent. The genitals being involved not having always been the same shape in the past? That isn’t directly applicable to the acts happening at the present.
Mt explanation to why hatemongers seem to blur into each other is thus: reactionaries, no matter their political stripe, are more interested in reactionary politics than whatever ideology they use to justify them. This is evidenced by the fact that, time and again, they will readily team up with each other against their other political equals. It was true in 1930s Germany, when reactionary socialists joined the Nazis to fight the other leftists, and it’s true now when TERFs and fundies shake hands to attack trans people.
Anything that has a liklihood of effecting the decision making of the person involved, whether ot not I would care about the same thing, whether or not I remotely agree with caring about that thing, or whether or not I deem such person an ass for caring.
If, I don’t know, dying your hair , or singing Kpop, or whatever is commonly a big enough deal in your neck of the woods that it had a realistic potential to sway someone’s decision to sleep with you, then yes, it should be disclosed.
@Oppga
So, how many women would you say are guilty of this for e.g. failing to announce their clinical depression to a cute guy before taking him to bed? Even if it’s been managed successfully for years?
What about women with eating disorders? An STD that was successfully treated years ago and is long gone? Surgery to correct a hare lip? Silicone boob implants? PCOS and other intersex conditions? Straight men are as picky as they are horny, if you hadn’t noticed.
You’ve barely even started here and you’re already arguing yourself into a corner.
@Oppga
If a bi woman in an area like, say, Saudi Arabia, doesn’t announce to her husband that she is bi and risk being murdered for it, is she considered to be raping her husband, then?