Trans people marched for abortion rights, marched during the Women’s Marches and dominated Twitter posts calling out sexual violence, harassment and misogyny.

Rowling and her acolytes didn’t tweet about Roe V Wade being overturned for three weeks and even then it was only to complain about trans people. They also didn’t tweet about prominent cases where women were raped by male guards and police officers but instead invented trans boogeymen to take the blame.

Educate yourself before you comment.

OK terf

Y'all just don't have the courage to own your own term now that it's a dirty word because you all look like bigots without a new term to scurry under.

TERF isn't a slur, you dumbasses coined the phrase yourself.

And besides that, there is no such thing as a slur against an ideology. Slurs are words that are used against people based on innate traits, like orientation, gender, race, ability. Your GC/TERF ideology is a learned hatred. You sound like a White Nationalist throwing a fit for being called a Nazi, and calling Nazi a slur. It's not a slur.

Racists tell us all the time they aren't racist.

TERFs tell us all the time they aren't TERFs.

Deal with it TERF

1. This article is about a single author who does not self-identify as a TERF. Nowhere does it raise the claim that no one self identifies as a TERF. The term only even appears twice, once in the first paragraph and once in the last paragraph

2. The author does identify as a "radical feminist," (the RF of TERF) and merely states that they do not identify as trans exclusionary.

Importantly, they don't identify as cis, despite being a man who is biologically male and "identifies as having an XY chromosome." - which is what the term cis describes. The reason they reject this nomenclature is because they feel that a man identifying as male can only do so by adopting patriarchal attitudes about what masculinity is, and Feminism as a movement ought to be post-gender.

3. And TERF is a pretty weird-ass thing to identify as. It's a description of a person based upon the effects of their actions. People are welcome to disagree with that description - this person appears to do so - but whether or not you identify as a TERF does not determine whether you are, or are not, a TERF. Lots of characteristics are socially conferred upon individuals, like "being cool" or "being mean." Whether you are or are not cool is not up to you. It's up to literally everyone else. It isn't up to you whether or not you are respecting other people or their boundaries. It's up to them.

If everyone you know says that you aren't cool, you aren't, no matter how much you protest. Unlike "being cool," trans exclusionary politics has some very specific and objectively verifiable measures. "Are trans women women?" is a fairly easy litmus. And the rejection of the question with "identifying as a woman (under patriarchy) is to identify with patriarchy-determined social structures and therefore I identify as an individual with XX chromosomes" - as this author seems to be doing - is frankly such bullshit.

Just because you reframe the question so that it no longer mentions trans people, that doesn't mean it doesn't, practically speaking, exclude trans people, or put their civil and human rights in jeopardy.

4. This article lays out a very vague defense about how some unspecified other people like to criticize the author on unspecified points regarding policies and the author does not even state where they fall on a number of policy positions regarding trans people.

One might expect, in an article trying to argue that the author is not a TERF, an explanation of how the author's stances and actions don't in fact exclude trans people.

We don't get that. Instead we get a very "just asking questions" vibe and a list of topics that the author thinks is worthy of concern like bathroom use, gendered athletics, "publicly funded surgical removal of healthy tissue," etc. And then a vague and general complaint about how unspecified other people sometimes treat the author's viewpoints as not worthy of discussion or consideration.

Racists don't need to identify as racist to be one. And if I read a comment that said "No-one self-identifies as racist" I'd be inclined to agree, given the morally-laden weight of the accusation. For the same reason they don't identify as xenophobic; they disagree with the terminology, especially the superficial characteristics of the word (I'm not afraid of immigrants), not the behavior which the term describes.

But if that comment, to support the fact that no-one identifies as racist, linked an article about how one specific individual doesn't self-identify as racist for specific personal reasons, and then used that time not to argue why their position isn't racist, but instead to complain about how other people are using words inaccurately....well, I wouldn't take that poster very seriously either.

In any case, this publication doesn't appear to be an unbiased source. The founder and editor of Feminist Current "self-identifies" as exiled in Mexico , a move from Canada to what she describes as a move to "freer pastures" (Mexico!) in...wait for it... 2021.

The actual author, Robert Jenson, doesn't appear to be a TERF in the way that people mean it when they describe someone like Rowling as a TERF. So I can understand why the author is upset.

This is like far-right conservatives getting upset when they're called Nazis because there were actual Nazis at their rallies despite they fact that they don't, personally, identify as a Nazi.

It's a problem of association.

But please don't come on Reddit and try to launder one university professor's personal beliefs on gender as if it supports the claim that TERF is a slur, or that no one identifies as a TERF.

Of course they don't. It's not a good thing to be. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't exist.

Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe

Nobody identifies as bigot either and yet the term very accurately applies to many.