You used the term when saying 'very few TERFs call themselves..'. Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?
> It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF (which references https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/9...)
What specifically is offensive about being called a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? The idea that they are radical feminists? Or the idea that they are seeking to exclude trans women from female discourse (and often forcibly seeking to include trans men)?
Now sure, if I used this term to refer to someone like Donald Trump, I would understand why he would be offended at being called a radical feminist, but the people who are seeking to label this "a slur" are exactly radical feminists like JK Rowling who happen to also hate trans identities.
This reminds me of the billionaire who was claiming "billionaire" has become a slur since people use it with a negative connotation. If you're a billionaire and people happen to not like billionaires, they're not being offensive when they're calling you that.
It doesn't even have the mocking grandiose tone of the "Warrior" in SJW used to describe people who are commenting online...
Note: this is not the same as slurs like the infamous n-word, since those were designed as insults, often referring to a hated/perceived as inferior natural characteristic or a mocking comparison. They were not descriptive terms referring to beliefs of a group that the speaker disagreed with.
Don't see any reason to use euphemistic terms they'd prefer like "pro-women" over the more accurate "trans-exclusionary" or "anti-trans" to refer to their politics, but when a position gets converted into a four letter noun to shout at people it's definitely intended to offend. There are variants of the neutral/positive descriptor "trans" which are unambiguously insults too.
Would you say that Bernie Sanders should feel offended when he is called a socialist by Ron Paul? Ron Paul definitely means it as an insult - to him socialism is abhorrent. But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist (well, a social democrat would probably be a better description, but it's close enough), and he has no reason to feel offended that he is being called something that Ron Paul finds offensive.
> if a term is pretty much exclusively applied to an outgroup by people who really don't like that outgroup (and the acronym itself is pretty much exclusively pejorative) there's a pretty good case for it being offensive
I can agree with this to some extent, but only if there is a better common word to describe that group, and one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure. How would you call TERFs, or what would you say describes, say, JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word?
I have heard "gender critical" thrown around, but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs, it's a meaningless combination of words in itself. At face value, it could easily describe some postmodernists who believe the whole notion of gender is a fantasy that should be abolished. It could describe non-binary people.
and calls himself one, making the situation non-comparable. The burden is on you to prove the analogy makes sense.
> only if there is a better common word to describe that group
what is the alternative to "SJW"? In this case "gander critical" is the alternative.
> one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure
says who? why do you get to decide the criteria for some out-groups' labels?
> JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word
"gender critical", disregarding the arbitrary constraint on needing one word.
> it's a meaningless combination of words in itself
so is TERF, given "exclusion" is as vague as "critical.".
> but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs
It doesn't matter, a term needn't be self describing. Also TERF isn't a clear description, much like "anti-trans" isn't either.
The clarification, it seems, is b/c users of the term want is to reduce the topic to two sides (trans, anti-trans), and make it clear which side TERFs are on. This fight over control of the context, versus "feminists" vs trans-women framing, seems to be the point of these descriptors - each side want the power to "describe" their opponents.
>Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?
Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear.
If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) was offensive?
If you in particular didn't find what they wrote offensive but believe that others might find it offensive, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) do you believe that others would find offensive?
The GP was pointing out that the OP's own use of the word "TERF" is counter-evidence to their original claim, unless OP was indeed meaning to bring offense.
Essentially, it would be like saying "the n-word is obsiously offensive, most n-words don't call themsleves that".
If you truly find the word offensive, you just don't use it to refer to the people it is meant to offend. The fact that OP didn't use another word to refer to this group is evidence that this is one of the best words we have for describing the group that it describes.
except the n-word is considered so offensive, it's offensive in any context, hence why you said "n-word", which is not at all true for "TERF".
> GP was pointing out that..
is this different from "claiming"? because I disagree with this point; burden is on you to demonstrate that this constitutes "counter evidence".
What about black people calling each other that? What about it being used in rap?
In an alternate universe it wouldn't be offensive either, yet this isn't a "gotcha" over my use of "any".
At some point it require of you common sense, unless you are purposefully trolling.
While I can discuss the word "fag" without feeling a need to censor it, I would never use it to refer to gay people explicitly *. TERF is not the same - even for you, it was the term that came easiest to use, because there is no other word that describes feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation.
It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive. It's most similar to "socialist" as used on the right - intended to indicate someone holds offensive beliefs, but not offensive when used about someone who is, in fact, a socialist.
* except perhaps in jokes, with someone who knows me well enough to know I can't mean any offense, but that is a completely different discussion
I disagree, gender critical is also appropriate.
> it was the term that came easiest to use
it was easiest for describing the group to which the term is applied, yes, this proves nothing else about that group eg about people who are not TERFs but to whom the label is applied.
> feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation
I don't think the term is self explanatory (what does "exclude" mean) nor that this description is correct (feminists that don't consider trans women as women don't necessarily oppose separate trans rights).
> It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive
that's not how slurs work.
> It's most similar to "socialist"
except socialists self describe/label, where many TERFs do not.