Borrowed fragility
Colleen Flaherty at Inside Higher Ed reports on the Daily Nous “does the word ‘TERF’ belong in an academic journal?” post:
TERF is an acronym meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” While the term has become controversial over time, especially with its often hateful deployment on social media, it originally described a subgroup of feminists who believe that the interests of cisgender women (those who are born with vaginas) don’t necessarily intersect with those of transgender women (primarily those born with penises).
Er, entirely those born with penises, surely.
To some feminists, that notion is obvious: the experience of having lived as male for any period of time matters. But some trans scholars and allies say that notion is in and of itself transphobic, since it means that trans women are somehow different from women, or that they’re not women at all.
That “somehow” is precious. Also, responsible reporters and commentators really ought to stop defining “transphobic” as “stating obvious facts.” Phobia is hatred, and usually unreasonable hatred. Stating obvious facts is not the same thing as hatred, though it can of course be cruel, as in telling people they’re ugly.
It’s interesting, though, that we are so much more primed to see it as cruel (aka phobic for those who insist on that word) to say that “trans women are somehow different from women” than we are to see it as cruel to say the equivalent about trans men. Isn’t that odd? Partly it’s just because trans women do 98% of the shouting about it, which it’s hard not to suspect is because they grew up with classic male feelings of entitlement, but also it’s because they have as it were “appropriated” the subordinate status of women. We’ve been conditioned, weirdly, to think that trans men can take it, but trans women must be shielded at all costs. You can see that all over the comments on the Daily Nous post – it’s all about trans women; trans men barely get a mention.
This month, though, a group of scholars registered a public complaint with Philosophy and Phenomenological Research’s editorial team. In a guest post for the Daily Nous philosophy blog, the scholars said that in a recent issue of the journal, the term “TERF” was lobbed in “ad hominem attacks” rather than in mere discussions.
In question is a symposium on the noted 2015 book How Propaganda Works, by Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. In an article called “The Epistemology of Propaganda,” Rachel McKinnon, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston, uses Stanley’s work to analyze what she calls “a modern form of propaganda where so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are engaged in a political project to deny that trans women are women — and thereby to exclude trans women from women-only spaces, services and protections.”
Noting that the phrase “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” was coined by two cisgender radical feminists in 2008, McKinnon argues that “this point is important, since many contemporary feminists accuse trans women of coining the phrase/term — and, ludicrously, claim that ‘TERF’ is a misogynistic slur.”
The scholars who complained — seven feminist philosophers from Britain and Australia — wrote in Daily Nous that TERF “is at worst a slur and at best derogatory. We are extremely concerned about the normalization of this term in academic philosophy, and its effect in reinforcing a hostile climate for debate on an issue of key importance to women.”
TERF “is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues,” the scholars wrote. Targeted groups include “lesbians who merely maintain that same-sex attraction is not equivalent to transphobia,” and “women who believe that women’s oppression is sex-based, and are concerned about erasing the political importance of female bodies,” they said, citing websites such as TerfIsaSlur.com as evidence.
A quick search for #TERF on Twitter also turns up references to the “clitterati,” “ignorant, hateful cunt[s],” comparisons to Nazis, and invitations to “go fuck themselves on cactuses.” Trans women of course face brutal discrimination online and in life, but such examples support the idea that “TERF” is not a neutral term.
That’s putting it mildly.
McKinnon forwarded her online talk about why “TERF” is not a slur but declined an interview request. She’s responded on Twitter to what she called a targeted attack against her, however. She’s also said that the writers of the complaint asked the journal’s editor to retract the article.
Which is not true.
The scholars denied ever requesting a retraction, and said it was troublesome that it was being asserted that they had. The journal’s editor in chief, Ernest Sosa, professor emeritus of philosophy at Brown University, said via email that there was no formal request for retraction, just a request for an apology and a correcting. There was some “back and forth” in terms of an informal request for a retraction, Sosa said, adding that he did not have a good record of it.
…
Numerous supporters of McKinnon also reached out to Inside Higher Ed, asking that it not publish an article about the topic. Several academics declined interview requests, with one citing not having tenure as the reason.
“Please stop your harassment of Dr. Rachel McKinnon,” reads one of many similar emails received by this reporter after requesting comment from McKinnon. “‘TERF’ is not a slur. [McKinnon] needs your support, not your contributing to further hate and violence threats from TERFs.”
“Violence.” They sound like Trump.
‘We’ve been conditioned, weirdly, to think that trans men can take it, but trans women must be shielded at all costs.’ I think this is another example of male entitlement–women having difficulties, for whatever reason, are generally expected to ‘suck it up’ and get on with life, while men typically expect, demand and receive support for whatever problems and challenges they face.
It is, but it’s also, weirdly, combined with thinking of them as vulnerable compared to men.
I remember when I was a kid suddenly realising that whatever was ‘common knowledge’ about ‘men vs. women’ was in reality the exact opposite. Men are more emotional. Men are weaker. Men expect to be taken care of. Men are poor drivers. Men waste money on frivolous things.
It’s also the paradox we run into with the stereotypes of any ‘othered’ group–Jews are both subhuman and super-powerful, immigrants are both lazy and stealing our jobs, etc.
Oh, and my favourite–men want to quickly get married and settle down, while women are more interested in exploring romantic options.
guest – another one is, divorced men get remarried much sooner after the divorce; divorced women may prefer to be single a while.
Marriage is good for men – married men live longer. It often has the opposite effect on women.
:) yep–although it took me a surprisingly long time to start recognising the effects of sexism on my life, I did figure out early on that whatever people generally said about men was actually true of women and vice versa.
I think it’s also got something in common with the trope that one with a reputation for early rising can sleep until dawn. Men inherit the best of reputations and the easiest expectatioms precisely because of those reputations–every aberration is an independent anomaly, a mistake, and probably some woman’s fault somehow anyway.
Gosh, one of many things that stood out to me in that is the idea that because a word came about with a particular meaning at a particular time, it is somehow immutable and cannot possibly have changed meaning in the public mind. To grab a random example, faggot. use that word and how many people will immediately think of ‘a bundle of sticks tied together for fuel’? How many people will think ‘homosexual male’. Of course, there is a direct – and very unpleasant – relationship. English, the only language I’m deeply familiar with, is littered with words that have changed, even reversed meaning. Including in the last few decades. Anyone who has pretensions of being a writer, thinker or academic and claims immutability of meaning for a word that has clearly changed is a dishonest hack. Trans activists coined the current meaning of TERF.
Rob, I may be anomalous but when I hear ‘faggot’ my first thought is always of the savoury pork meatball with a rich onion gravy.
The origin of a term does not determine its meaning, common use does. If a word is used as a pejorative, then at least one of the uses of that word is as a slur. There can certainly be a conversation about which use – slur or non-slur – dominates, but it is indisputable that it has a pejorative use.
Descriptive vs. prescriptive; McKinnon and others are ignoring a basic concept of linguistics.
#9
What in tarnation
That’s one meaning, for real. It’s a North of England edible.
A delicious edible at that, if properly made. The mass-produced stuff is horrendous, with all the texture of slurry, but there are still a few butchers left who make them in the traditional way.
If you’re thinking of trying them – and you really should – I cannot warn strongly enough; do NOT try factory made, they are without exception an insult to food in general, and to faggots in particular.
AoS, I need an emoji right now. Just not sure which one. However, if I ever make it to the north of England, I’m going to track you down and insist you demonstrate the deliciousness of this strangely named dish.
It would be a pleasure, Rob.
@Seth good point! Weirdly, I was thinking of that very song yesterday–I’m known as an ‘early riser’ at work, so when I show up a couple hours late it’s no big deal. And I’m known as a ‘hard worker’, so if I spend the day procrastinating by writing blog comments, it’s not held against me….
Also, faggots are delicious–like Swedish meatballs, only generally bigger, for those of you who haven’t had the opportunity to try them.
I find it interesting that what some trans-activits have in common with right-wing evangelicals is their sense of entitlement. They both feel that other people having equal rights is somehow diminishing them and taking away their rights.
Rob, I do hope you try properly-made faggots. They are truly delicious. But you should also be aware that there are other colloquial derivatives of faggots (as a bundle of sticks) that you might encounter. Please do not freak out if someone says “Pete’s gone to bum a fag”, as he has merely run out of smokes and departed to request a cigarette from someone who still has some.
And then there’s the Etonian usage in which a fag is a junior boy who does various chores for a senior boy – domestic chores not sexual chores. By the same token, “bugger” doesn’t mean much of anything in the US.
As well as “bloody”.
When I was in college, my friend from London refused to explain to my friend from Tokyo why she wouldn’t use the terms “bugger” or “wanker”. He had heard them somewhere, had no idea what they meant, and was saying them to her repeatedly to try to get her to define them for him. She never did. I suppose, in the era of the internet, he probably eventually found some source that would explain it for him.
I know. I remember a mystifying conversation with the British mother of a school friend about why exactly “bloody” was so taboo. The answer seemed to be pretty much Nobody Knows (Nevertheless It Is). I still don’t really know.
And there’s a big chunk of Margaret Drabble’s second novel, early to mid-60s, about the protagonist’s sister who won’t let her child play with the working class neighbor child any more because the middle class child had picked up the word “bugger” and she (the mother) just couldn’t bear it. It’s so weird.
AoS, you’re on. One day. I hope. All the alternative uses of fag above are known to me. The smokes one I have’nt heard in decades. Possibly because cigarettes now cost so much that few people smoke and it’s considered poor form to cadge them.
All this just reinforces how mutable meaning is and how ridiculous it is for a writer to claim that because a meaning was X at Y time, no other interpretation is valid.
@20 & 21, when I was a student, there was an American women in our lab class who refused to say rubber (which is what we call an eraser). Her association was of course to a condom, which for some reason she found deeply shameful and embarrassing.
I was told a (probably apocryphal) reason by my mother as to why ‘bloody’ was forbidden in our house. It is, according to her, a contraction of ‘By Our Lady’, and therefore potentially blasphemous, as was ‘”Cor blimey!” (which was almost impossible to avoid as a Cockney!). “God blind me!” was not something that a good Catholic child should be saying. In our house, epithets were so restricted that “Bother!” was about the only think we could say without being told off.
tiggerthewing, I seem to recall reading somewhere that ‘cor’ derived from ‘gor’, which itself was a foreshortening of ‘gawd’, the supposed Cockney pronunciation of ‘God’. I have certainly heard (possibly in the old Ealing comedies) the expression ‘gor lumme’, which I assume meant ‘God love me’.
Regarding ‘bloody’, I’ll never forget my grandad being admonished by my grandmother for saying that word, ‘and in front of the boy, too’. He replied ‘Now then, mother (he always called her that whenever she told him off), bloody’s in the Bible, it’s in that bloody book, and if tha don’t believe me, go take a bloody look.’
I had a cousin who went through a phase of delighted in reading out some of the more salacious and violent bits of the bible to his very religious Anglican parents. He then became a baptist preacher, which upset them even more.
When I first moved to the UK, about 15 years ago, my boss found a US/UK lexicon in The Economist, and we started adding to it, both standard business English and the jargon of our profession; we ended up giving up when the list was well over 100 words and counting. The one that bothered me most when I first moved here was ‘diary’; I think I’m used to that now, but have not yet managed to sort out ‘table’–I can’t even remember now which English uses ‘to table something’ to mean ‘to deal with it right away’ and which uses it to mean ‘to set it aside for now’.
Hmmm, if papers are tabled in parliament, it literally means that the report (or whatever) has been placed on the table in the debating chamber. It means ‘presented’ in that context. In theory that suggests that parliament is going to do something, but we all know what that can mean. So, in more common usage, ‘tabling’ an issue could well mean either dealing with it right away, or shelving it to later (or forever). Got love English!
Sigh. Regular readers will have noted the care with which I proof read my spelling, grammar and capitalisation, and will understand my parents dismay.
Ha so it’s not just me who’s confused…. I think on reflection in US English it means ‘set it aside for now’–it is/was a problem for me because I often say ‘can we just table this for now?’ when chairing meetings and people get too involved in distractions or minutiae–which of course confuses the hell out of English people. So I think I’ve managed to stop saying it.
I think this link might somewhat explain the tabooing of “bloody” and related B-words for those that are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody
Aha! Confirmation of a theory of mine I’ve held for a few years regarding swear words:
The concept of swear words like fuck, shit, and apparently bloody is and has always been a polite way of saying ‘peasants use this word, eww yuck.’ I noticed years ago that if you try to get someone to explain why e.g. fuck is so vulgar, you get given a merry-go-round of similes:
“Fuck is bad because it is crass” “why is it crass?” “It is crass because it is crude” “why is it crude?” “It is crude because it is vulgar” ad nauseum, ending with “it just is, okay?”
And there’s also the eyeroll inducing pat phrase that gets dusted off every time there is a disagreement over using naughty words: “using swear words when you could express your thought more reasonably shows how small your vocabulary/imagination is!” which neglects the fact that sometimes fuck is exactly the right word to use, e.g. when talking about current US politics, and refraining from swearing is in fact a limitation, a shackle on free and expressive communication.
Note that the above peevish lecture does not apply to demographic slurs.
Holms, a quote from one of the most eloquent of speakers:
Stephen Fry