The RPOJ comes for thee.

Greetings fellow blog travellers, today we have a special treat as we get to look through the looking glass of the misogyny that masquerades as queer theory. Hypocritical, obtuse, with a generous side of bloviation make for a prime field day for the RPOJ. Let’s watch how attempting to justify violence against women, the rewriting of gay history, and making the case for having men in feminism come together in one extruded steaming mass of horseshit.

Let’s begin, shall we?

—–

“There is not a writer from The Queerness who would disagree on how wrong it is to make threats of violence, to use violent words and violent actions. We do not condone those on the Twittersphere who participate in violent words or actions aimed at anyone, and particularly women, who are often the target.”

The higher the goal, the further to fall.  I would just like my careful readers to keep this point in mind as we go through this particular RPOJ, because the hypocrisy quickly ramps up to 11 and then manages to increase from there. 

“We don’t however believe that the acronym ‘T.E.R.F’ in itself is a violent term. “

Well dayum!  See!  I told you! It didn’t take long for the hypocritical bullshit to start oozing.  Fun fact: ‘terf’ like the term harridan, witch, slut, cunt, whore (et cetera) are all terms used to describe females who have the audacity to stand up against males and defy the patriarchal stereotypes society has mandated for them.

  1. Just a small window into how the term ‘Terf’ is used – https://terfisaslur.com
  2. Elizabeth Hungerford remarks on TERF – “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.”
  3.  TERF is used as a label for ‘uppity women’ who do not accept the patriarchal male narrative and normative attitudes. 

   So, the usage of the term ‘TERF’ is almost always accompanied by insults and threats of violence (see #1).  Yet we have this statement:

“‘TigTog’, a blogger coined the term during discussions on a blog post, which if you think about it, really isn’t outside the realm of possibility, “

I could care less about who coined the term.  It is being used to target and harass females on the internet and in the real world.  Said targeted group – feminists – would prefer not to have to deal with the term. You know, common decency mutual respect that sort of thing.  But rather than acknowledge female linguistic preferences – Annette, the author of this hackneyed literary drive-by, would rather attempt to justify the usage of the term. 

    (skipping prolix and shitty ‘justifications’)

“She’s right, any group identifying word can and will be used against that group as a slur. For example: ‘queers’, ‘gays’, ‘lesbos’, ‘dykes’, we’ve all heard them, we all know what they sound like. “

Precisely.  So should we make the case for normalizing a derogatory term?  Or perhaps, maybe, just maybe, use the terminology the particular group would like employed.  But nah, let’s continue to use slurs for these despicable TERF’s, the faster we can ‘other’ them, the easier it is to hate them. 

“Imagine if Katlyn had said “I continue to hate these fucking lesbians what else is new”, or Antonio saying “kill every fucking queer”. It’s not new is it, we hear this all the time. I’ve been subject to a few death threats, and we can see, absolutely, how it can be upsetting.”

Yes.  Violence and death threats are bad.  Maybe not attempting to justify their usage would be a good thing.

“Without getting into an academic discussion about how violent words are used to silence women and how this is misogyny, lets remember that men aren’t the only perpetrators of this.”

Because the male epidemic of violence against women is sooooo fuuuucking booooring.  I mean really, do we have to go over the fact again that the class of males overwhelmingly commit the majority of acts of violence toward the other class of people females the world over, pretty much since forever?

     Like fuck, this little tidbit seems to be at the root of most radical feminist analysis of the problems our society faces – maybe one shouldn’t gloss it over and skip directly to personal anecdotes about how mean those evil terfs…err females are.  

“In my time as a trans ally I’ve been subject to horrific abuse from cis-het women on twitter, even some cis-lesbians laid into me for standing up for my trans friend’s appearance in Diva Magazine.  I’m a cis-lesbian and I’ve been called a ‘misogynist’ and a ‘homophobe’.”

Make no mistake, transactivism is misogynistic and homophobic by nature.  Sorry about your luck. 

“We at the Queerness firmly distance ourselves from this type of violent language, and we have no time for trolls like this on the internet.”

See, I’m not too sure what you’re referring to, the accurate description of what transactivism is or the use of violent language, of course which terf is a part of.  I’m guessing though, it seems like it is only violence when applied to *you*. 

    “Yet it’s those like this that make it harder for those who are trans positive to defend their trans friends and colleagues, and end up getting lumped in with this group of trolls, because they use one acronym in a more appropriate way than these trolls,”

Discourse with transactivists is almost always fraught with threats and violence.  Male resort to violent behaviour when their arguments and ideas are shown to fall short.  Nothing new under the sun here. 

“So let’s discuss trans exclusionary radical feminists without using the term itself. “

So after 500 hundred feckless words of abysmal pseudo-justification now let’s not use the word that I’m trying so hard to prove is OKAY and JUST FINE for radical feminists. 

    The term ‘terf’ is either problematic, or it isn’t.  

    Clearly, for a large segment of the radical feminist population, the usage of terf -whether it is intended to or not (oooooooh, intent isn’t magic is it?)- isn’t cool.  Respectful people, interested in furthering rational argument would acknowledge this and move on. 

   The Our Queerness author quotes Rebecca Reily-Cooper it is one of the few breaths of fresh air in this piece so for interests of my sanity I choose to quote it. 

“From writers such as Rebecca Reily-Cooper who states the definition of radical feminism as:

“an approach to analysing the oppression and exploitation of the class of female people by the class of male people. It seeks to uncover and challenge the root causes and origins of that system of oppression, which it labels patriarchy.” RRC’s blog

That’s fine, I can get on board with that.

She states that the term ‘T.E.R.F’ is ‘not a meaningful description of feminist politics’. But different people clearly have a different view of feminist politics.”

Ahhh…thank you RRC.  So at least we have a viable definition of what radical feminism is, and what its goals are. 

“There were several cis-het radical feminists who sent a flurry of abuse at one of my trans members this year. “

One statement contains the kernel of radical feminist theory, and thus the basis of radical feminist praxis, the other statement contains no refutation or counter-argument – rather mere anecadata – essentially saying those bad feminists were mean to one of my friends – how dare they?!? 

This suggests a lack of a reasonable counter argument and no, your feelings are not an argument. 

“And there were plenty of LGBTQ+ and cis-het allies who, having read the screen shots from that discourse, would NOT have described those comments and views as ‘feminism‘. They’d have described them as ‘hate speech’.”

Me and my good buddies were offended!  Still not an argument.  This is the meat of transactivism, right here folks:  Accept my personal subjective reality or else! 

Sorry (not sorry)!  Material reality takes precedence over subjective personal feelings and respecting material reality (biological sex) is not a crime and is certainly not ‘phobic’ in any reasonable way.  

“So are both sides as bad as each other ?”

Well no actually, as transactivists online and in person threaten and physically attack women who speak against their particular delusion (see terfisalur link above).  Transactivists support deplatforming radical feminists from speaking at public engagements.   Transactivists illegally occupy and deface female only spaces.

   Yeah, and the radical feminist side…. *crickets*.    So no, both sides are not as bad as the other, stop with false equivalencies (side note: attempting to equivocate this male violence with radical feminist’s *CRITICISM* of transactivism is really quite beyond the pale).

” Or can we simply not ever agree ?”

Fuck no.  Feminism is the struggle to liberate females from patriarchal structures and normative attitudes in society.  Gender – a hierarchical patriarchal concept – exists to oppress members of the female class and must be dismantled, not celebrated.  

Why are gender and gender roles a good thing, and how do women benefit from the preservation of traditional gender roles?  What exactly does trasnactivism have to say about that? 

*Crickets* because transactivsm isn’t a feminist project, it seeks only to promulgate the status quo and continue with the oppressive gender hiearchy that benefits the class of males in society.  

“When you appear on a website that lists your twitter handle and allows a single user to block all 800+ of those names simultaneously to avoid abuse, it suggests you belong to a ‘hate group’. “

Because Transactivists (FETA’s – Female Exclusionary Trans Activists, if we like the snappy four letter acronyms)  don’t allow criticism of their ideology and have a block list to stop interactions with those who would question it is much more a reflection of the insular, cultish nature of the trans community.  You can’t argue with radial feminists because your arguments are shit, so plugging your ears and labelling people ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobic’ are the only plays you have. 

No ideology or movement can be free from criticism.

“If you purposefully and deliberately target trans activists and question the validity of trans people’s existence, it suggests you have some prejudice.”

Textbook play here.  Questioning transactivism is not debating over their existence.  Trans people have the capacity to hold shitty ideas their ideas and those ideas should, rightly, be subject to criticism and rebuttal – especially if they impact other classes of people in society (see members of the female class).

“If you imply that somehow trans women are predators; that there is some hypothetical risk to cis-women from trans women, or simply that you can’t accept them as they are because you: ‘just can’t agree’, and when you dress it up as ‘gender critical’, rather than transphobia, then you probably are trans exclusionary.”

Transwomen – MEN – behave like men.  It is not a particularly shocking fact when one adheres to analysis based on objective, material fact.  

“If you simply ask polite questions this is different. But lets be clear, the questions: “why do I have to accept them in my bathrooms ?”, and “Are they are taking something away from my definition of womenhood?”, are not very polite, and are entirely dehumanising.”

Men, do not belong in female spaces.  Female spaces provide some small margin of protection from the male violence that permeates our society.  Natal sex should be the determinant of which bathroom you use.

Why don’t transwomen use the male washroom?  Most of them still have the plumbing for it.  Let me answer that for you – the very real threat of male violence.   Now why should females be forced to put up with that very same threat? Why is the issue of female safety from violence even a debatable issue? 

What an opportunity for the trans and feminist communities to come together and name the root of the problem – violent male behaviour (enforcement of patriarchal gender norms)- and make that an issue. 

    But that choice was not made. 

   Rather, the choice via dubious legislative attempts, was to make female only spaces accessible to men based on often nothing more than their deeply subjective personal feelings.  And that, is a crock of shit, and is rightly being fought against by radical feminists.

    The definition of woman is adult human female, the gender-feels of entitled males does not change the original definition one iota.  

“Trans women have been at the centre of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement from the beginning, “

Demonstrably wrong, if you happen to be talking about StoneWall.  Trans historical revisionism (the “T” was added in the 1990’s) is poor form and a dubious practice at best.  

“[…]even the LGBTQ+ community needs to recognise that, and feminism is a good thing as long as it doesn’t trample on human beings on its’ way.”

Feminism, by effective definition, is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy.  The misogyny rife in the transactivst movement qualifies it as a force to be struggled against in the fight for female liberation. 

“but trans women are right there with you in that fight. Don’t shut them out because of a word, or an acronym.”

Yes, I look to the tranwomen for their bold positions on female infanticide, female genital mutilation, female sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion.  I see page after page of poignant prose and argumentation for the advancement of female rights by transwomen….

  Oh wait.  I don’t.  

   I see females threatened with verbal and physical violence for not complying with the gendered delusions of men in dresses.   I see feminist speakers deplatformed for having a contrary opinion to the trans-cult.   I see women only events and spaces subverted because people who have problems with material reality some how think that because they belong there – they should belong there (white male privilege and entitlement at its best).  

    If your feminism is not working toward female liberation, then it ain’t feminism.  Full stop. 

    Please (*please*), feel free to form your own movements and organizations – but stop co-opting feminist movements and female only spaces.  

“When people feel marginalised they fight back, they get angry, if you knew trans people personally, you’d get it. “

Fighting back in tranactivism means harassing, threatening, and hurting females.  In other words, standard male behaviour.  Feminists know quite well about the capacities of angry men, this has happened before and it will happen again.  The tide eventually will be turned in this arena as the struggle for female liberation continues. 

“You’d realise that tilting at windmills in this debate is allowing those cis-gender men who are the real culprits, off the hook.”

Something we can agree on, of course my version is without the gender-newspeak because male violence is male violence in whatever guise they happen to present to society.

“Why not educate them to be better men, because predatory cis-gender men don’t need a change in the law to enter a woman only space.”

So we should make it easier (self declaration), not harder for males to enter female spaces gotcha.   This simple phrase  highlights the vast differences between queer (male-centric) and feminist (female-centric) theory.  

   Have your queer theory, but know that it mostly represents yet another attempt to keep the female class oppressed in society and that effective feminism is in opposition to it. 

 

And so endeth the RPOJ.  :)