3 ms·

Whilst it's generally applied to self-identified feminists whose concept of feminism excludes transpeople as a matter of fact, and even the "radical" bit is mor

Whilst it's generally applied to self-identified feminists whose concept of feminism excludes transpeople as a matter of fact, and even the "radical" bit is more a nod to how second-wave feminists approached politics rather than mockery, if a term is pretty much exclusively applied to an outgroup by people who really don't like that outgroup (and the acronym itself is pretty much exclusively pejorative) there's a pretty good case for it being offensive. Especially in a debate over identity. Don't see any reason to use euphemistic terms they'd prefer like "pro-women" over the more accurate "trans-exclusionary" or "anti-trans" to refer to their politics, but when a position gets converted into a four letter noun to shout at people it's definitely intended to offend. There are variants of the neutral/positive descriptor "trans" which are unambiguously insults too.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> when a position gets converted into a four letter noun to shout at people it's definitely intended to offend Would you say that Bernie Sanders should feel offended when he is called a socialist by Ron Paul? Ron Paul definitely means it as an insult - to him socialism is abhorrent. But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist (well, a social democrat would probably be a better description, but it's close enough), and he has no reason to feel offended that he is being called something that Ron Paul finds offensive. > if a term is pretty much exclusively applied to an outgroup by people who really don't like that outgroup (and the acronym itself is pretty much exclusively pejorative) there's a pretty good case for it being offensive I can agree with this to some extent, but only if there is a better common word to describe that group, and one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure. How would you call TERFs, or what would you say describes, say, JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word? I have heard "gender critical" thrown around, but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs, it's a meaningless combination of words in itself. At face value, it could easily describe some postmodernists who believe the whole notion of gender is a fantasy that should be abolished. It could describe non-binary people.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  > But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist and calls himself one, making the situation non-comparable. The burden is on you to prove the analogy makes sense. > only if there is a better common word to describe that group what is the alternative to "SJW"? In this case "gander critical" is the alternative. > one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure says who? why do you get to decide the criteria for some out-groups' labels? > JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word "gender critical", disregarding the arbitrary constraint on needing one word. > it's a meaningless combination of words in itself so is TERF, given "exclusion" is as vague as "critical.". > but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs It doesn't matter, a term needn't be self describing. Also TERF isn't a clear description, much like "anti-trans" isn't either. The clarification, it seems, is b/c users of the term want is to reduce the topic to two sides (trans, anti-trans), and make it clear which side TERFs are on. This fight over control of the context, versus "feminists" vs trans-women framing, seems to be the point of these descriptors - each side want the power to "describe" their opponents.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> when a position gets converted into a four letter noun to shout at people it's definitely intended to offend Would you say that Bernie Sanders should feel offended when he is called a socialist by Ron Paul? Ron Paul definitely means it as an insult - to him socialism is abhorrent. But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist (well, a social democrat would probably be a better description, but it's close enough), and he has no reason to feel offended that he is being called something that Ron Paul finds offensive. > if a term is pretty much exclusively applied to an outgroup by people who really don't like that outgroup (and the acronym itself is pretty much exclusively pejorative) there's a pretty good case for it being offensive I can agree with this to some extent, but only if there is a better common word to describe that group, and one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure. How would you call TERFs, or what would you say describes, say, JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word? I have heard "gender critical" thrown around, but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs, it's a meaningless combination of words in itself. At face value, it could easily describe some postmodernists who believe the whole notion of gender is a fantasy that should be abolished. It could describe non-binary people.

Chris2048 4y ago
> But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist and calls himself one, making the situation non-comparable. The burden is on you to prove the analogy makes sense. > only if there is a better common word to describe that group what is the alternative to "SJW"? In this case "gander critical" is the alternative. > one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure says who? why do you get to decide the criteria for some out-groups' labels? > JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word "gender critical", disregarding the arbitrary constraint on needing one word. > it's a meaningless combination of words in itself so is TERF, given "exclusion" is as vague as "critical.". > but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs It doesn't matter, a term needn't be self describing. Also TERF isn't a clear description, much like "anti-trans" isn't either. The clarification, it seems, is b/c users of the term want is to reduce the topic to two sides (trans, anti-trans), and make it clear which side TERFs are on. This fight over control of the context, versus "feminists" vs trans-women framing, seems to be the point of these descriptors - each side want the power to "describe" their opponents.