Hacker News Reader

Comment by stewx | Hacker News Reader

The irony of the "TERF" abbreviation (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) is that many (most?) of the people being labelled as such are not radical feminists to begin with.

View on HN

That isn't specific to TERF, people just like to throw around insults like that and use them as a basis of their argument these days. You just notice it in this case because it's an acronym that defines itself. It's like incel or nazi/fascist, most people being called those things aren't actually celibate or nazis.

There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg going on there.

If you're a feminist, but trans-exclusionary, you qualify for the "radical" part.

I'd argue that is traditional feminism. The feminists of the 60's and 70's wouldn't be on board for biological men in women's sports or spaces.

What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome, since they used to test Olympic athletes but found that the presence of a Y chromosome was not sufficient to identify men and women. (There are multiple genetic conditions that can cause this.) Many athletes had an unpleasant surprise at the hands of the IOC resulting in at least one suicide.

History and relevant link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports#:....

>What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome, since they used to test Olympic athletes but found that the presence of a Y chromosome was not sufficient to identify men and women. (There are multiple genetic conditions that can cause this.) Many athletes had an unpleasant surprise at the hands of the IOC resulting in at least one suicide.

that is a non-sequitur. the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises.

What conclusion? I just pointed out one historical attempt to define "biological man", and noted that it ended in failure?

"What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome."

Right. That's the definition the international Olympic committee tried to enforce. The presence of a Y chromosome meant athletes weren't allowed to compete.

The problem is that many women (who are not trans) have a Y chromosome. They are either XXY (Klinefelter), or XY (Swyer), XY mosaicism, or any of the other intersex conditions.

Are those people not women? They may have fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a uterus, but also a Y chromosome.

Pretty sure the question is rhetorical, friend.

I disagree. If you look at someone who could have a female face, female voice, female genitals, hormone levels marked by medical professionals, had massive changes in muscle/fat distribution. This person will be seen to most passersby as a woman, they will face the same systemic disadvantages feminists will have been arguing against for hundreds of years. To argue that oppressive institutions for women should not be removed but rather amended to oppressive for a subset of women is not in any way feminist.

Actually the feminists of the 60's and 70's debated this kind of issue at length and there was a diversity of opinion.

Indeed, the TERFiest feminists out there are observed to often be first wave feminists.

I'm not certain the Suffragettes and their peers put their feelings about trans women on record, but with that generation being entirely dead now I'm not sure they're relevant.

> you qualify for the "radical" part.

why? Do feminists already "exclude" cis-men?

The more extreme ones do, yes.

"Men can't be feminists" is a hotly debated talking point in the feminist community.

This seems self-contradictory. It's not really debated at all except on the extreme fringe. Hard to call that "hotly".

How are you defining "radical" and why would you preclude that term being used on the average so-labelled "TERF"?

If you don't know what "radical feminist" means, and that it does not mean "a feminist that is radical", this discussion is going to be hard fucking work.

I think the point above is that many of the women who get called TERF are scarcely feminists at all, let alone feminists who believe in a radical reordering of society. Many people accused of being TERFs are actually conservative women who believe in traditional sex roles and don't believe that gender is independent of biological sex. It's an insult levied against all transphobic women.

Except it's not an insult, unless it's levied at someone who is not, in fact, trans exclusionary (say, if calling a trans woman who thinks sharing your pronouns is a bit too much a TERF).

I suppose it's also possible that some people who are trans exclusionary would take offense at being called (radical) feminists...

But calling someone who is anti abortion "pro life" or even "anti choice" is not an insult, even if I find their position misguided and monstrous.

It seems like you're trying to make the point that if the term is being used on the type of person it's intended for, it's not an insult. Which is just... nonsense?

No, I'm arguing that a term that objectively correctly describes someone's beliefs or achievements can't be an insult of that person.

If I believe all billionaires are a policy mistake, am I insulting Elon Musk if I call him a billionaire?

> Except it's not an insult

It is if it's said as one. Benign terms can become slurs when used in the right context with a particular tone.

Give me another example that is not a racial, religious or ableist slur.

> Give me an example of a slur, except for all these slurs I don't want you to use as an example

Retarded accurately describes the mental development of certain individuals. Retarded was not always a slur. I'm sure you would agree it is used as one now. Not sure why you think TERF should be some sort of special exception.

I think retarded is a slur when used against people who are not, in fact, mentally retarded. The term mental retardation is still somewhat acceptable, though its use as an insult against people who do not have a mental disability makes it highly problematic when used for the people with that mental disability, so it should be avoided.

On the other hand, TERF doesn't imply any particular disability, just a belief that those it is used to refer typically do hold. If TERF started being used as a generic insult for someone who makes a mistake ("you can't put that there, you TERF"), like "retard" did, then I would agree that it has become a slur - but this is not the case.

Calling a mentally retarded person "a retard" is not going to go well in most circles.

Have fun though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com