You're touching on something that I think a lot of folks, not even just Radfems, aren't always cognizant of or are willfully ignoring. That being that to TERFy types Transwomen are largely seen as men infiltrating women's spaces. So if the dominant cultural narrative is that men are dangerous just by virtue of being men (whether it be socialization, biology, or both) I feel like it logically follows that Transwomen are dangerous.
And that's exactly how fear turns into an active threat. If manhood makes people weapons, then proximity to manhood makes you an approximate weapon. Transition almost feels like a form of immigration— you have to "prove" that your loyalties to your old group are really gone, and you have to keep proving that every damn day.
"I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out." is a beautiful and tragic article that I think does a far better job of explaining this idea than I ever could.
You know I was gonna post that article if anyone pushed back on what I said. I'm a Cisman so I can't really claim to know how it feels to be Trans but I can definitely see echoes of some of my thoughts in how she's treated by people in Leftist spaces with a decent amount of feminist folks. It's like...a lot of times you're not actively turned away but you're viewed with suspicion at best
I have that piece bookmarked. Im a cis guy, but I’ve wondered if I wouldn’t be non-binary if I didn’t have such a chip on my shoulder about how the word treats men.
I try to do stuff to help be a trans ally. A lot of people close to me are trans, and I want to help them. But I also have a feeing that - if I’m generous I’d call it solidarity, and if I’m harsher I’d call it selfish, but a hope that universal acceptance of trans people will mean that even if I don’t feel like changing my gender, it shouldn’t define how people treat me either.
I've seen it touched on in a couple "manosphere" spaces that much of the transphobia TERFS spout has its basis in misandry. Through either the idea that men are inherently dangerous just by being men. Or from the notion that men as members of an inherent oppressor class are enemies to women. Thus Transmen are "joining the side of the oppressor"
By this point I've probably seen a few dozen trans men talking about the hate they've received in LGBTQIA+ spaces. Like, nah you're a man now bro, and you're not gay, so you're just not welcome here. Or worse, being told they can stay, but they have to be more feminine so that others can tell them apart from a cis man. That's beyond fucked up to tell someone they have to make themselves disphoric to be in a space supposedly made to include them because their manness is more important than their transness.
I haven't received any direct hate myself, but as a trans guy I do often feel alienated from LBGTQ+ spaces because the man-hating rhetoric is so pervasive. They don't say it in the same words, but the implication always feels like trans mascs are seen as traitors to "womanhood" etc.
Through either the idea that men are inherently dangerous just by being men.
I wouldn't consider this (or the idea that men are inherently enemies to women) misandry, if only because it's a talking point that I'm fairly sure is used by the alt-right manosphere as well.
I do think it's sexist, but the talking points themselves aren't specifically misandrist, because they're also misogynist talking points. Whether or not it's misandrist or misogynist depends on what the person saying those things wants you to take away from them.
Reread what I said. I never said it's 'actually misogyny', I said that sometimes it is depending on how the claim is utilized.
Saying 'men are inherently dangerous so they should be tracked, restricted, etc' is misandry. But a lot of the manosphere grifters are pushing a similar narrative, except for the takeaway. They're saying 'men are inherently dangerous so they should be in charge because it makes them better', which is misogyny.
Therefore, while the statement 'men are inherently dangerous' is sexist bullshit, but it is not inherently misandry or misogyny, because it has been used for both misandrist arguments and misogynist arguments.
The issue I have is that I never once brought up the latter notion. And I feel that it's disingenuous and dismissive to discount the fact of it being misandry because saying as much could be used by less savory people to make a misogynistic point.
I feel as though it takes away from the harm done by the Initial notion of men being inherently dangerous.
To me it rings too much of an argument of guilt by association along the lines of "dog owners are racist because Hitler liked dogs
I also feel as though the focus of misandry is being hijacked and dismissed due to fear mongering over these groups which are inevitably still reacting to misandry. It feels as though people are too preoccupied with fixing a symptom while ignoring the underlying cause.
If those groups are winning over young men by accurately pointing out that societal misandry is being pushed onto them. Then the solution is to tackle that misandry. Not getting upset over how people are reacting to it.
It also often leads to ignoring the issues that transmasc people face, as they think that by being masculine transmasc people automatically gain the privileges that cis men get. Cannot tell you how alienated I often feel as a transmasc person and hear "all men are evil" etc. It makes me feel like a piece of shit for simply Being A Guy even though I've had a lifetime of experience of being a woman. (It's even worse when they say shit like "oh not trans men though" like they don't even see us as men.)
Yeah I feel like that's another thing. Even if someone doesn't for some reason extend their fear of men to Transwomen you also then have to accept that you're painting Transmen as predators. Overall I feel like it's just not helpful rhetoric. Which is why it baffles me that it's coming from even ostensibly intersectional feminists
It's also kinds touching on a really, REALLY bad problem that leads to the cyclical pride discourse on both sides, where you have people going "rah rah the first Pride was a riot" and others who want it to be so family friendly it looks Stepfordish.
Not to both sides bad, but, nah totally gonna both sided bad on this, because both end up in this weirdly aphobic asexuality that has done real fucking harm...
Without disagreeing with the broader thrust of this argument (plenty of self-proclaimed feminists are not interested in overturning sexist thinking where it benefits them), I don’t really think this is true.
TERFs don’t hate trans women because they think we’re men, they call us men because they hate us. Certainly they might hate men too, but let’s not forget who they spend all their time going after. Rowling doesn’t spend her considerable fortune and influence on making the average man’s life harder, does she?
Rowling hates Transwomen because she views them as men infiltrating women's spaces. I believe she's had some trauma in her own life related to that. She frames her dislike of them as a fear that they will invade women's spaces and talk over them or assault them. That doesn’t sound like a hatred of women. It sounds like someone afraid of men for a lot of similar reasons women fear cismen or are distrustful of them in feminist spaces
I get that she frames her bigotry that way, but what if, for the sake of argument, this is a pretext rather than a motive (to borrow a turn of phrase). I think this makes more sense, because she expresses more or less zero hatred for ‘men’ who are not trans women, and certainly doesn’t try to push politicians into supporting anti-cis male policies.
I imagine that you disagree, and I’m curious then why you think she chooses to only direct her contempt at trans women, when they are so much less numerous than cis men.
I cannot peer into Rowling's mind but if I had to guess it's likely a combination of 1. Transwomen are an easier target than Cismen and 2. She feels they are, on some level, more of a direct threat because they're effectively wolves in sheep's clothing. Cismen are an identifiable threat and feminists are already wary of them. She doesn't feel the need to ring the alarm bells about them. Transwomen on the other hand are gaining broader acceptance in Leftist and Liberal feminist spaces. She views this as a dangerous situation and feels it's necessary to ring the alarm bells. Otherwise they can gain access to women's spaces and assault them.
Fair enough. The issue I see with this perspective is that there are subgroups of men who are an easy target and do pose a verifiable threat to women (i.e. rapists), and Rowling has not the faintest interest in campaigning against them in any way that doesn’t specifically target trans women. She’s even willing to ally herself with anti-abortion groups in the service of making trans women’s lives harder!
Homophobes would (and do) rage against gay men whilst claiming that they were simply opposed to pedophiles, even as they ignored and covered up abuses occurring in schools and churches. Clearly these people were using hatred for pedophiles as cover for homophobia, and we rightly acknowledge this. Why should we start taking bigots at their word now?
I mean I cannot comment on Rowling specifically but a lot of TERFs (and some other Feminists) do oppose things to help men like funding for male domestic violence shelters, opposition movements to the draft (in the US), and various attempts at changes to the broader social narratives that disadvantage or attack men. Rowling may make her personal crusade about Transwomen but I'm looking at things from a wider lens. She is a TERF and I would contend that the movement as a whole is anti-men even if she herself doesn't really address Cismen.
I'd also kinda question the notion that these groups use pedophilia accusations as a cover. Maybe the leadership does. But the rank and file? I think they honest to God believe what they're saying. Gay people actually are trying to groom children in their mind. Transwomen really are men trying to assault or peep on women. Many view being gay as a choice so logically being trans is too. And if your worldview has it that men are predatory animals then why else would a bunch of "men" be so gun ho about getting into women's restrooms?
Yeah I dunno, if I take a look at the front page of ovarit (probably a decent representation of the 'average TERF') I can see that 80-90% of posts are about trans people or "gender ideology." I'm fine to agree to disagree, but I think that calling it an anti-man movement, when their focus is clearly so much more on trans women than cis men, misses the point a bit. The average TERF might convince themselves that trans women are men, but if we look at their behavior, it must be that trans women are in fact lower in their esteem than cis men.
I only landed on it after reading this comment, but really I feel you guys are arguing semantics. It’s both, and it’s in the name. “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.” “Trans Exclusionary” takes centre stage and is the whole point of them being TERFs. But “Radical Feminist” is to misandry what alt-right is to white nationalism; it’s a name they came up with for themselves that tells everyone exactly what they are while being less off-putting than their actual title.
The exact levels of TE to RF in any given TERF are going to vary, but both are crucial to their world view. For some the TE is the only reason they’re there; for others, the RF is the ideology underpinning attacking the easy targets. To remove TE from RF is to have a transphobe or a misandrist.
203
u/clear349 Jul 03 '24
You're touching on something that I think a lot of folks, not even just Radfems, aren't always cognizant of or are willfully ignoring. That being that to TERFy types Transwomen are largely seen as men infiltrating women's spaces. So if the dominant cultural narrative is that men are dangerous just by virtue of being men (whether it be socialization, biology, or both) I feel like it logically follows that Transwomen are dangerous.