6 ms·

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

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?

cuteboy19 4y ago
usually offensive, agreed
Chris2048 4y ago
I refer to the group to which the term is applied.
- wikfwikf 4y ago
  Yes, this is how most words work.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    You wrote: >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?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The OP claimed that the word TERF is clearly offensive, citing as evidence that "very few TERFs call themselves that". 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.
      - Chris2048 4y ago
        > Essentially, it would be like saying 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".
        Akronymus 4y ago
        > it's offensive in any context What about black people calling each other that? What about it being used in rap?
        Chris2048 4y ago
        those wouldn't be forum posts
        Akronymus 4y ago
        So, you are excluding certain contexts? In your own words it was any context.
        Chris2048 4y ago
        any context in the context discussed ie hn posts. 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.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        For me, any seemed to imply ANY, as in without limitations. But it seems I misunderstood your original comment.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    No it isn't, and it's specifically what you asked - the group that the term is applied to in 3rd party, as opposed to a self label, is the group I'm referring to.
coffeeblack 4y ago
The term is originally intended to be offensive. To split the “good lesbians” from the “evil lesbians”. But I’m not surprised that people try to rewrite history on this one too.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  I don't believe so, the term has often been used in self-description.
  - coffeeblack 4y ago
    For example?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  It takes 30 seconds on Google to disprove this: > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF (which references https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/91781/Radical-InclusionRecounting-the-Trans-Inclusive?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/9...)
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I don't understand how a term which almost perfectly describes the group it describes can be offensive to that group. 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.

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?

cuteboy19 4y ago

usually offensive, agreed

Chris2048 4y ago

I refer to the group to which the term is applied.

wikfwikf 4y ago
Yes, this is how most words work.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  You wrote: >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?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The OP claimed that the word TERF is clearly offensive, citing as evidence that "very few TERFs call themselves that". 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.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      > Essentially, it would be like saying 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".
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        > it's offensive in any context What about black people calling each other that? What about it being used in rap?
        Chris2048 4y ago
        those wouldn't be forum posts
        Akronymus 4y ago
        So, you are excluding certain contexts? In your own words it was any context.
        Chris2048 4y ago
        any context in the context discussed ie hn posts. 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.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        For me, any seemed to imply ANY, as in without limitations. But it seems I misunderstood your original comment.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
- Chris2048 4y ago
  No it isn't, and it's specifically what you asked - the group that the term is applied to in 3rd party, as opposed to a self label, is the group I'm referring to.

coffeeblack 4y ago

The term is originally intended to be offensive. To split the “good lesbians” from the “evil lesbians”. But I’m not surprised that people try to rewrite history on this one too.

DoctorOW 4y ago
I don't believe so, the term has often been used in self-description.
- coffeeblack 4y ago
  For example?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cmeacham98 4y ago
It takes 30 seconds on Google to disprove this: > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF (which references https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/91781/Radical-InclusionRecounting-the-Trans-Inclusive?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/9...)
tsimionescu 4y ago
I don't understand how a term which almost perfectly describes the group it describes can be offensive to that group. 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.