Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

I hate to break this to you, but words do mean what people use them to mean. That's how the English language, as a living language, works.

The humpty dumpty theory of language is that the speaker gets to define words however they want to.

Most people don't subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language. Most people think that speakers should use words in the way that they are commonly understood. That common understanding can and does drift over time, but an individual who chooses to use a personal definition which differs from the current common understanding is communicating badly, if one does not subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language.

Do you subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language?

And in case you're not getting the reference, it's from Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

True. And I'm pretty sure that TERF still means "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It's what the majority of people in this thread seem to think it means.

That's literally the debate that's being had right now.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The humpty dumpty theory of language is that the speaker gets to define words however they want to.

Most people don't subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language. Most people think that speakers should use words in the way that they are commonly understood. That common understanding can and does drift over time, but an individual who chooses to use a personal definition which differs from the current common understanding is communicating badly, if one does not subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language.

Do you subscribe to the humpty dumpty theory of language?

And in case you're not getting the reference, it's from Alice in Wonderland.

And this, folks, is exactly how straw-manning is done. Patronising straw-manning, at that.

 

[theprestige]

NVM

 

[theprestige]

Someone here recently cited an essay that I found helpful. I wish I'd saved the link. The thesis was that instead of getting into an argument over definitions, it's more productive to set the disputed words aside and just lay out your case in plain terms. If TERF to you means some form of anti-trans bigot, then drop "TERF" and just say "anti-trans bigot" where necessary to make your point.

 

[Ziggurat]

And this, folks, is exactly how straw-manning is done. Patronising straw-manning, at that.

Funny, not once did I describe your position. I described *A* position, and then asked if you agree with it. That isn't straw-manning, and you were always free to simply say no, that's not your position.

Unless (and here's where the first irony kicks in) you're using a humpty dumpty definition of straw manning.

The second irony is that you were straw manning lionking. He specifically referenced YOU (not anyone else) changing what terf meant. You could have defended yourself against that accusation by saying that no, it wasn't just you, other people were using this new definition too. But you didn't. Instead, you substituted his actual claim (that you alone changed the meaning) with a different claim (that he was arguing that the definition can't change).

Indeed, that's how it's done.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wikipedia clarifying on TERF.

"Radical feminism" was a label ascribed to a subset 2nd wave feminists. The name doesn't really fit anymore as "radical" feminism is now decades old, and there are now 3rd and 4th wave feminists.

If you believe Wikipedia, anti-trans feminism seems largely to be mostly a property of these 2nd wave radical feminsts, hence the terms TERFs. 3rd and 4th waves of feminism are overwhelmingly trans inclusive.

Thanks to the sticking of a name, you now have a strange scenario where "radical" feminists are actually the older breed of feminists who are out of step with the younger, more modern waves. Ironically enough, the "radical" feminists are sometimes stereotyped as old-fashioned elitists by the newer waves, which really makes the term "radical" seem inapt. On first glance, the name TERF seems a bit odd, but given the proper historical context, it's quite appropriate.

It's not an ambiguous term. Any derogatory inference is a result of the honest and irreconcilable differences between these various branches of feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Early_history_(before_1989)

The Wikipedia article makes the claim that TERFs are much more common in the UK than in the US and Canada. Given the pages here spent on such UK personalities such as Rowling, Graham Lineham, and others, I don't doubt it.

 

[Lithrael]

Only if one is asserting that one gender is "less" than another.

No. Many people just don’t like being (in their opinion) misidentified. The offense taken doesn’t have to have anything to do with being misidentified as something ‘worse’ or ‘better’. Though many people also don’t like being misidentified as a member of a group they consider lesser. It’s like the difference between a Chinese person being pissed that they’ve been called Japanese during one of their conflicts, versus any East Asian being annoyed that they’ve been misidentified as coming from one of the countries that they like just fine but just isn’t actually theirs.

Similarly if it’s an honest mistake it’s just annoying; if someone’s doing it intentionally and repeatedly it starts to feel very disrespectful.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wikipedia clarifying on TERF.

"Radical feminism" was a label ascribed to a subset 2nd wave feminists. The name doesn't really fit anymore as "radical" feminism is now decades old, and there are now 3rd and 4th wave feminists.

If you believe Wikipedia, anti-trans feminism seems largely to be mostly a property of these 2nd wave radical feminsts, hence the terms TERFs. 3rd and 4th waves of feminism are overwhelmingly trans inclusive.

Thanks to the sticking of a name, you now have a strange scenario where "radical" feminists are actually the older breed of feminists who are out of step with the younger, more modern waves. Ironically enough, the "radical" feminists are sometimes stereotyped as old-fashioned elitists by the newer waves, which really makes the term "radical" seem inapt. On first glance, the name TERF seems a bit odd, but given the proper historical context, it's quite appropriate.

It's not an ambiguous term. Any derogatory inference is a result of the honest and irreconcilable differences between these various branches of feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Early_history_(before_1989)

The Wikipedia article makes the claim that TERFs are much more common in the UK than in the US and Canada. Given the pages here spent on such UK personalities such as Rowling, Graham Lineham, and others, I don't doubt it.

It just seems a not very useful term. Is anyone here a feminist of any variety? I suppose they might be, but the subject hasn't really come up. There's nothing about the debate about transgender policy that requires reference to any form of feminism, much less trying to count waves of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

???

I quoted the entirety of that post

You are correct, you didn't snip it. They were two separate posts. One in which she said it's obviously not immutable, and another in which she elaborated in a way that clearly indicates empathy.

I still think you're doing her a disservice by implying that she doesn't think it's worth protecting, which is evident by your highlight.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It just seems a not very useful term. Is anyone here a feminist of any variety? I suppose they might be, but the subject hasn't really come up. There's nothing about the debate about transgender policy that requires reference to any form of feminism, much less trying to count waves of it.

It's a useful term for explaining the seeming divide within otherwise ideologically aligned people (feminists) on the matter of transgender rights.

Civil wars are often the most vicious. The animosity surrounding TERFs is probably best understood as an internal clash among people who might otherwise be highly ideologically aligned.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But, would women not normally think of these as assaults or harrassment? It's the dichotomy that I'm wondering about. Maybe it's a difference in cultures here.

I don't think it's a difference in culture, so much as just becoming inured to something unpleasant, because 'that's just the way it is'. It's kind of like living near a train track. If it goes by often enough, the noise is no longer noteworthy. Someone visiting from out of town might ask "how do you stand all the noise", and the homeowner might say "Well, the kids next door aren't usually that rambunctious" and not even think to address the train. It's already been accepted as part of the fabric of life.

Something like what I have described, and which you agree is pretty much assault has happened to every single woman I know. Most of it has happened to girls over the age of about 13 (not necessarily by adult men). And in the grand scheme of crap women are exposed to... those sorts of events end up paling and simply being accepted as 'how things are'. Many women have experienced things that are much, much worse than that, much more violent and painful and traumatic. If it hasn't happened to a particular woman, I guarantee it has happened to someone she knows. And in comparison to that... what's a boob grab? It's not that big a deal compared to rape. It's only been relatively recently that the topic has garnered a lot of attention. Once the topic as a whole got brought up, and we start comparing notes, and looking at frequency... and we start really truly realizing that in general men don't experience this kind of thing... then we have something to say about it.

I'll add a couple of borderline analogies here.

My step sister had a spouse who was physically abusive to her. He beat her up, threatened her, raped her. We didn't know it at the time, and it was many years ago when I was much younger. But once it came out, the whole family knew about it, and it was horrific. Much more recently, it came to light that my other sister's spouse had slapped her a few times during arguments, had made a habit of breaking her belongings, and was emotionally abusive. When that came out during the divorce, my mom and I asked her "Why didn't you say something sooner? Why did you tolerate such abuse?" Her response was that compared to what our step-sister went through, it hadn't even occurred to her that it was abuse until toward the very end when she started talking about it to other people.

As a less emotionally fraught example... My sister and I both get migraines, but for a long time I didn't realize that was my problem. See, my sister gets migraines that cause significant visual aura, and are so intense that she loses consciousness. Compared to that, which I had witnessed for years, I just had annoying headaches that wouldn't go away and made me sick to my stomach. I suffered through them for years before I ended up seeing an ENT for something else and mentioned it off-hand. He told me they sounded like migraines and that I should see a neurologist. But because my basis of comparison was so much worse than what I had experienced, it simply didn't occur to me that my headaches were also migraines.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We don't give good people drivers licenses. That is discrimination. But it's justified.

I can't stop giggling at this mis-type...

 

[Emily's Cat]

According to their own statements, they think trans women, by virtue of being born and raised male, are incapable of experiencing the full extent of female oppression.

I don't think that's an unreasonable or false statement. I'm curious how you could envision it to be otherwise, would you please elaborate?

 

[theprestige]

It's a useful term for explaining the seeming divide within otherwise ideologically aligned people (feminists) on the matter of transgender rights.

If it were actually useful, we wouldn't be arguing over what it means and whether it should be applied. We'd all just be using it. "Rocket" is a useful term. "Horse" is a useful term. "Transsexual" is a useful term. "TERF" is quite obviously not a useful term in this discussion.

Instead of getting bogged down trying to force your usage, why not abandon the term and make progress by using other more useful terms instead?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It matters to understand the motivations for certain conclusions. When we're splitting hairs about admittance to women's shelters based on practical concerns, it's useful to know that an ideology that supposes all trans-people are inherently "the other" and dangerous is in the mix.

TERF ideology places a pretty heavy thumb on the scales of judgement.

Nobody in this thread has espoused that view.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Funny, not once did I describe your position. I described *A* position, and then asked if you agree with it..

Just asking questions? Okay, then.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you also tip-toe around calling a white supremacist racist?

Depends on whether they're ACTUALLY a white supremacist or whether they simply disagree with a particular aspect of race relationships.

For example, I know people who are not at all white supremacists, but who also think that the idea of the SAT being racially biased is utter nonsense, and who think that Affirmative Action is inherently unfair.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If it were actually useful, we wouldn't be arguing over what it means and whether it should be applied. We'd all just be using it. "Rocket" is a useful term. "Horse" is a useful term. "Transsexual" is a useful term. "TERF" is quite obviously not a useful term in this discussion.

Instead of getting bogged down trying to force your usage, why not abandon the term and make progress by using other more useful terms instead?

I suspect the objection to the use of the term is not due to misunderstanding of definitions, but rather an attempt to launder ideological foundations.

 

[Belz...]

Just asking questions? Okay, then.

He literally just asked you whether you subscribe to this particular theory of language, man.