5 ms·

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

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.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I explained at the end why this is not remotely the same. The color of your skin is not a charcateristic that describes your deeply held beliefs, and it is not something that you could change about yourself. Not to mention, the n-word has a long history of being used explicitly to demean and de-humanize and oppress the people it describes. Few are demeaning, dehumanizing, and definitely not oppressing TERFs. There are not, and have never been, laws that declare a TERF to value 3/5 of a man or be forbidden from drinking water from the same water fountain. Please don't compare a word describing someone's explicit beliefs to the n-word.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      - dang 4y ago
        Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? You've been doing it quite a bit lately, unfortunately, and if you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        dang 4y ago
        > If you don't want flame war comments ban flame war topics better. This thread is the definition of Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, The article seems obviously intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for HN. Banning all articles with political aspects is not an option here. I've written about this many times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you read some of the past explanations and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is. In the meantime, if you want to keep commenting here, we need you to stick to the site guidelines, regardless of how political or flameprone a topic is. Note these ones: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.

thrown_22 4y ago
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I explained at the end why this is not remotely the same. The color of your skin is not a charcateristic that describes your deeply held beliefs, and it is not something that you could change about yourself. Not to mention, the n-word has a long history of being used explicitly to demean and de-humanize and oppress the people it describes. Few are demeaning, dehumanizing, and definitely not oppressing TERFs. There are not, and have never been, laws that declare a TERF to value 3/5 of a man or be forbidden from drinking water from the same water fountain. Please don't compare a word describing someone's explicit beliefs to the n-word.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? You've been doing it quite a bit lately, unfortunately, and if you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        dang 4y ago
        > If you don't want flame war comments ban flame war topics better. This thread is the definition of Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, The article seems obviously intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for HN. Banning all articles with political aspects is not an option here. I've written about this many times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you read some of the past explanations and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is. In the meantime, if you want to keep commenting here, we need you to stick to the site guidelines, regardless of how political or flameprone a topic is. Note these ones: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html