J.K. Rowling is using her wealth attained from the Harry Potter series to create an organization dedicated to removing transgender people’s rights "in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces.”
I need some help with this topic.
I never got into Harry Potter; I watched some of the older films, but I’ve never read the books. I was born in ‘83, so it never hit me like the folks in my younger brother’s and little cousins’ generation. I only knew of Rowling’s statements about trans people over the years tangentially and largely dismissed it as background noise. I assumed that she considers herself a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), as opposed to a TIRF (trans-inclusive radical feminist).
On the assumption that I’m correct about her position, what is the true essence of the disagreement between TERFs and TIRFs?
Is it that the presence of the Y chromosome in male-to-female trans people inherently adds a fundamental “maleness” that “true feminists” must inherently oppose due to the overt and implied threats to women that “maleness” represents?
TIRFs are not opposed to maleness. TERFism is a conservative psy-op that started when Mary Daly (who wrote magical divine goddess mother bullshit) and Janice Raymond (who accidentally kicked off trans studies by outing and harassing a trans woman named Sandy Stone - The Transexual Empire leading to Stone’s The Empire Strikes Back)
TIRFism recognizes that there is an axis of oppression that lies at the roots of imposed sex roles. The vast majority of women over history have been unarguably subject to men. Many women live in systems which are focused on controlling their sexuality, and are often barred and restricted from certain activities - due to both explicit and encultured messages.
The ideal TIRF society eliminates gender as a restriction. If anyone had actually read Andrea Dworkin, instead of taking Rush Limbaugh’s pastiche of her work at face value, they would find the TIRF society is one where gender is essentially just self expression. If we got rid of “man” or “woman” - maybe girls in Afghanistan would be able to go to school, or maybe sex wouldn’t be understood as a defilement of women (which I think is deeply connected to the problem of rape - rape is less an act of sexual desire and more a desire for subjugation that is tied to sexual power through this messaging that we desire to eliminate.)
The project of the TIRF is ultimately that the only way to truly end sexism would be to understand all humans as fundamentally ambiguous, to not hold anyone to any kind of sex role.
This is the fundamental irony behind the TERF movement. Rather than reject the gender and sex binary, they reify and enforce it. Daly was a wacky Catholic theologian who turned God into a mom, and decided that women were just special magical spiritual beings. This devotion to some kind of divine womanhood is common among the lesbian separatist types (it’s really disturbing seeing that space have the same deranged arguments of the 70’s…)
The problem is that TERFs are just not feminists. If Rowling cared about women, she wouldn’t be finding these women who realize that they can get their 15 minutes by intentionally throwing a boxing or fencing match. TERFs gleefully team up with the same groups that attack women’s reproductive health care - which I view as the most critical feminist issue at the moment (along the world wide surges in fascistic ideologies - which do tend to be expressions of a threatened male gender role, attempting to reassert those boundaries. The goddamn President is a serial rapist.)
That’s probably confusing and elaborate, there’s a lot of theory behind what I’m saying. I’m happy to answer or clarify, I think a critical part of countering this shit is to stop letting Rowling and the alt right redefine the term feminist.
I have to admit, I had to re-read your response several times to comprehend your points properly.
No slight intended to you; this subject has always been difficult for me to parse correctly and, in turn, respond with any thoughtful or logical relevance. My expression of thought tends to be more clumsy than I would like to admit.
After some consideration of your reply, I think the answer to my question is that TERF position suffers from both of the fallacies I listed in my original supposition, and probably many more that I’m not recalling or aware of.
Considering your two following statements:
TIRFs are not opposed to maleness.
and…
Daly was a wacky Catholic theologian who turned God into a mom, and decided that women were just special magical spiritual beings. This devotion to some kind of divine womanhood is common among the lesbian separatist types
…would it be safe to conclude that TERFs do (in a way) oppose the “maleness” of the Y chromosome as an affront to the purity of their “feminity”? I know I’m repeating my question, but their ethos reminded me of the “single-drop-of blood” policies on ethnic identity from the segregationists of the American South.
It’s certainly an absurdity, and many times a dark one at that, observing upon what proverbial hills people choose to die on publicly these days.
I wonder: does she admit to identifying with or publicly support the Tories, Nigel Farage and/or other “Brexiteers”, or other conservative personalities and politicians within the UK? Generally speaking, I refuse to use the “Alt-Right” label, as contend that there’s nothing “alternative” to naked authoritarian conservatism about it.
I suppose I should just look it up, but I thought I’d ask.
I need some help with this topic.
I never got into Harry Potter; I watched some of the older films, but I’ve never read the books. I was born in ‘83, so it never hit me like the folks in my younger brother’s and little cousins’ generation. I only knew of Rowling’s statements about trans people over the years tangentially and largely dismissed it as background noise. I assumed that she considers herself a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), as opposed to a TIRF (trans-inclusive radical feminist).
On the assumption that I’m correct about her position, what is the true essence of the disagreement between TERFs and TIRFs?
Is it that the presence of the Y chromosome in male-to-female trans people inherently adds a fundamental “maleness” that “true feminists” must inherently oppose due to the overt and implied threats to women that “maleness” represents?
Is it simply a feminist version of a “No True Scotsman” fallacy or an “Appeal to Nature” fallacy?
Maybe both?
TIRFs are not opposed to maleness. TERFism is a conservative psy-op that started when Mary Daly (who wrote magical divine goddess mother bullshit) and Janice Raymond (who accidentally kicked off trans studies by outing and harassing a trans woman named Sandy Stone - The Transexual Empire leading to Stone’s The Empire Strikes Back)
TIRFism recognizes that there is an axis of oppression that lies at the roots of imposed sex roles. The vast majority of women over history have been unarguably subject to men. Many women live in systems which are focused on controlling their sexuality, and are often barred and restricted from certain activities - due to both explicit and encultured messages.
The ideal TIRF society eliminates gender as a restriction. If anyone had actually read Andrea Dworkin, instead of taking Rush Limbaugh’s pastiche of her work at face value, they would find the TIRF society is one where gender is essentially just self expression. If we got rid of “man” or “woman” - maybe girls in Afghanistan would be able to go to school, or maybe sex wouldn’t be understood as a defilement of women (which I think is deeply connected to the problem of rape - rape is less an act of sexual desire and more a desire for subjugation that is tied to sexual power through this messaging that we desire to eliminate.)
The project of the TIRF is ultimately that the only way to truly end sexism would be to understand all humans as fundamentally ambiguous, to not hold anyone to any kind of sex role.
This is the fundamental irony behind the TERF movement. Rather than reject the gender and sex binary, they reify and enforce it. Daly was a wacky Catholic theologian who turned God into a mom, and decided that women were just special magical spiritual beings. This devotion to some kind of divine womanhood is common among the lesbian separatist types (it’s really disturbing seeing that space have the same deranged arguments of the 70’s…)
The problem is that TERFs are just not feminists. If Rowling cared about women, she wouldn’t be finding these women who realize that they can get their 15 minutes by intentionally throwing a boxing or fencing match. TERFs gleefully team up with the same groups that attack women’s reproductive health care - which I view as the most critical feminist issue at the moment (along the world wide surges in fascistic ideologies - which do tend to be expressions of a threatened male gender role, attempting to reassert those boundaries. The goddamn President is a serial rapist.)
That’s probably confusing and elaborate, there’s a lot of theory behind what I’m saying. I’m happy to answer or clarify, I think a critical part of countering this shit is to stop letting Rowling and the alt right redefine the term feminist.
I have to admit, I had to re-read your response several times to comprehend your points properly.
No slight intended to you; this subject has always been difficult for me to parse correctly and, in turn, respond with any thoughtful or logical relevance. My expression of thought tends to be more clumsy than I would like to admit.
After some consideration of your reply, I think the answer to my question is that TERF position suffers from both of the fallacies I listed in my original supposition, and probably many more that I’m not recalling or aware of.
Considering your two following statements:
and…
…would it be safe to conclude that TERFs do (in a way) oppose the “maleness” of the Y chromosome as an affront to the purity of their “feminity”? I know I’m repeating my question, but their ethos reminded me of the “single-drop-of blood” policies on ethnic identity from the segregationists of the American South.
It’s certainly an absurdity, and many times a dark one at that, observing upon what proverbial hills people choose to die on publicly these days.
I wonder: does she admit to identifying with or publicly support the Tories, Nigel Farage and/or other “Brexiteers”, or other conservative personalities and politicians within the UK? Generally speaking, I refuse to use the “Alt-Right” label, as contend that there’s nothing “alternative” to naked authoritarian conservatism about it.
I suppose I should just look it up, but I thought I’d ask.
her books do allude thier her transphobia, and a little anti-semitism quite a bit, its low key.
Removed by mod
The opposite of a TERF is a Non Exclusive Radical Feminist, because it’s NERF or nothing
TERFs can also be called Feminism-Appropriating Radical Transphobes, or FART
terfs also love to collab with nazis too.