So you're a butch lesbian, and you still don't support trans issues but instead actively work against acceptance? That's just incredibly narrow minded and short sighted, even from a selfish perspective.
what exactly are my opinions on trans issues?
Well, since you managed to end up on that huge TERF block list, I thought you'd know, but I'm talking about the fact that you don't seem to respect that people may identify as a sex they are not assigned to at birth. Since we're both butch you may have the same experience of oppression as me and that a trans person experiences, for example getting thrown out of the women's bathroom just because of the way you look.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what our values are.
A huge part of radical feminism is about establishing that gender roles are completely bogus, and that anyone can dress or act or like however/whatever they want and still be male or female, and that there’s no way to be male or female “correctly” or “incorrectly” aside from, you know, not being male or female.
Radical feminism seeks to push acceptance of the idea that a woman can (not all of these things are necessarily about butches specifically but are simply considered things women shouldn’t do) have sort hair and wear baggy clothes and not shave and not wear makeup and be confident and outspoken and work as a plumber and enjoy videogames and football and still be a woman, because her hobbies, interests, personality, job, and appearance do not have an impact on her womanhood. She is a woman by virtue of being a female, and everything else is just her unique personality.
The current conservative viewpoint, as I’m sure you’re aware but I’ll describe regardless, is that women and men should stop doing things that are not “for” women or men, and should stick to their expected roles.
The current viewpoint of the trans community appears to be predominantly that if a man or a woman does something expected of the opposite sex, then that means that they may be the opposite sex. This is a regressive way of thinking in the same vein as that of conservatives, even though the execution is slightly different. The idea is still that short hair & no makeup = man and dresses and long hair = woman, it’s just that, instead of forcing people to do what is “assigned” to them, they are encouraged (sometimes even pressured) to call themselves something different in order to do the things that are comfortable to them in an acceptable way
Radical feminism encourages women to reject femininity but to acknowledge that, because femininity is socially constructed and not inherent to being female, the rejection of femininity is not the rejection of being female, that you can be female and do whatever you like, completely unrelated to your sex.
Radical feminism encourages women to accept that they can cut their hair and be loud and have hobbies typically associated with men and still call themselves women. They don’t have to be anything else for it to be okay.
If you have any more questions about this I’d be happy to answer
[empress is entirely correct]
interestingly enough, I DO know exactly what my views are on trans matters. what a weird thing to say, "I thought you'd know." everyone knows what their opinions are. my point was that YOU do not know my views, @vidrig
do you really think you're the first one to hop on my (or any radfem) blog and demand we explain to you the very things we post about day after day? can you see how these asks come off entitled when yall never learn what we actually have to say first? at least ATTEMPT to learn my views, and then we can talk. I will always, always engage in good faith with people who do the same. did you even read my bio and item #1 on my Pinned before sending this? are you even aware that I medically transitioned? that I actively fight against unjust anti trans laws in my state? did you bother?
can you imagine what it's like to write dozens of deeply vulnerable, well-thought-out essays on a topic, only to have the people who actually need to read them only hit your ask box day in & day out expecting you to -- goddess only knows what yall even want if you won't even learn what we're about. we are human.
I was being ironic. Now, before posting my question I didn't find any pinned posts where your're explaining your views - either the pinned posts have gotten a lot harder to find or there's something else going on. In any case, what I did find before posting my question were your bio and your top posts, and they were not very flattering. I'm also pretty sure either you or empress-hancock tagged your reblogs to me with "moron". This tag seems to have been removed, so I can't be certain, but you may see how I'm not very confident about your claim to meet people in good faith. At the same time, I realize that my original ask wasn't very nice either, so there's that.
Regardless, your reply to me was a lot better than empress-hancock's even if it didn't address my original concern, so I'll make an honest attempt to have an open minded discussion with you. Based on what I've seen you reblog, I'm going to guess that you're agreeing with this post. If you have another link that explains your views better I'm open to reading it, but it was a daunting task for me to go through your entire blog in my search for your explanation.
Alright, so from what I can gather from that particular reblog and others, you seem to share the opinion that there is no such thing as "female" behavior or looks and as a consequence, that one cannot be a woman based on anything other than biology. Also that oppression towards women is entirely tied to biological sex rather than behavior or looks. Further, that trans peoples' fixation on surface gender actually makes them more sexist because they focus on gender essentialism and gender roles rather than actual identity (and identity comes from biological gender alone). Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
I fully agree with you that being a woman has nothing to do with looks or behavior - a person should be able to call themselves a woman or a man regardless of their gender expression. Further, I also agree that gender essentialism is sexist at its core. My views on TERFs and your movement is actually not based on whether trans peoples' views are actually correct seen from a philosophical perspective, but rather how we're treating people and what the result of that treatment is.
As a radical feminist, my views are firmly based on abolishing oppression caused by the patriarchy, and I'm also firmly a supporter of intersectionalism in this regard. I actually believe that our goals are the same, but I also believe that those calling themselves TERFs have strayed from the path.
So, here's a question that's perhaps a bit deeper than my last one: do you see any practical reason why we should exclude trans people from the feminist discourse? Note that I'm not asking about philosophy (whether trans people are right or wrong in their gender essentialist outlook or not). Do you, as many TERFs do, believe that people transition in order to invade separatist spaces and undermine the feminist movement?
Feminism is for females. "Excluding trans people from the feminist discourse" is meaningless. Radfems aren't silencing anyone. There is no shortage of trans people's opinions on feminism. 'Terf's don't exist
Hi, random TERF! Just for information, just because something doesn't fit your narrative you can't stop it from existing in the world. Even if you're gatekeeping the term "woman" that doesn't mean that the rest of us do, so you'll just have to get used to being called what you are.
I don’t think trans people really want you to endorse “being called what [they] are,” so I’d be careful where you go with that attitude.
No one “gatekeeps” the word “woman” except Mother Nature and time. If you’re not an adult human female, you’re not a woman.
How do you feel comfortable calling yourself a radical feminist when you’re willing to believe that males can just claim to be women? What part of that speaks to you of destroying the patriarchy? Letting males in - be they trans or not - destroys feminism and feminist discourse. It’s not for them, it doesn’t need their input.
I know you say people “identify with” a sex other than theirs observed - not assigned - at birth. What are they identifying with? And why does it always seem to be gender stereotypes?
I think you may have to look up what the word "gatekeeping" means, because that's exactly what you're doing when you're excluding trans people like this.
I actually doubt that you have managed to avoid every single discussion about trans issues in the last decade, but just in case - your "Mother Nature" argument is invalid. We've created models based on observations of nature, but those models will always be flawed and simplified. The classic example is this:
Look, because of my gender expression I've been told a lot of my life that I'm not a real woman, so I know intimately what that kind of gate keeping leads to.
And yes, a real radical feminist knows that the problem is not physical appearance, but rather the societal structures that oppress those it identifies as female. It has nothing to do with our own identity in the end and everything to do with what we as a society identify as a woman, or let's face it, everything that's not a cis man. Trans women get consistently lower pay (sources here, here, here).
Fighting the patriarchy includes fighting for these groups. If you don't, you're simply not a real radical feminist.
Regarding your question about identity - I can't speak for trans people since I am not one, but if someone asks to be addressed with different pronouns and chooses to change their gender expression in a way that makes society perceive them as another gender than they were assigned at birth, I support them whole heartedly. Because the freedom to choose, if anything, will crush patriarchy in the end.
So you slid from “sex” to “gender at birth.” But you know that gender is just stereotypes, and I’d hope you know that the vast majority of us do not have a sex *assigned* - it’s observed. Personally I don’t exclude or “gatekeep” males from being female, I find that’s already been done for me.
Fighting the patriarchy doesn’t involve fighting for men who choose to identify as “special men.” They are still part of the patriarchy - they still benefit from being male. Society doesn’t oppress people it “identifies as female,” it oppresses people who *are* female, which is why trans women are not affected by abortion bans but trans men are.
The “freedom to choose” will crush patriarchy? Interesting, since it’s males “choosing” to opt into a group then claiming they’re the most oppressed members of it… and billions of women who can’t make basic choices for themselves. And feminism as a movement has chosen to support and pander to those men, rather than figure out how to open choices and opportunities for women.
I can only surmise that you're being willfully obtuse about this subject. And no, gender identification is not being done for you. Thankfully, neither modern trans laws nor modern feminism share your lacking perspective, and I hope they never will.
No, trans women don't benefit from being male. Read the links I sent you. Start taking in the facts. Until then, don't claim you're a radical feminist and have a good day.