Reputation, Iago
Dictionary.com’s “definition” of “TERF” is not a definition at all but a misogynist jeremiad crossed with a political rant.
TERF is used to describe cisgender women who self-identify as feminist but who are opposed to including transgender women in spaces they reserve for people who were assigned female at birth.
As if real dictionaries refer to “cisgender” women as opposed to women, and as if they go on to talk about “people who were assigned female at birth” when they mean women.
This is because they believe trans women are men and since men cannot coexist with their feminist ideologies, they exclude them from their beliefs and support.
That’s just gibberish. “since men cannot coexist with their feminist ideologies”?? What does that even mean? And a real dictionary wouldn’t say “they exclude them from their beliefs and support” because that’s two different kinds of excluding, it’s too sloppy for a real dictionary – as well as being tendentious, inaccurate, and abusive.
In fact, they often believe they should be denied rights and sometimes advocate for harm against trans people.
Who believe who? You can’t use two “they”s close together like that to refer to different “they”s.
But, well-known feminists who have been labeled TERF on the internet have come out to call the term a slur, because it is associated with violence and hatred.
What’s that comma doing there after the first word? And, “come out to call” – what does that mean? This definition was written by some spoiled child. Don’t consult Dictionary.com for real definitions.
I never do.
I don’t either – I wonder who does. Seeing as how one can consult real dictionaries, what would be the point of using an amateur one?
That’s not a definition, it’s a diatribe.
BTW, is it okay if I coexist with your feminist ideology, even though I’m a man?
This is an editorial entry and is thus not a part of their usual work. The difference in writing quality is vast; this thing appears to have been written by a young wokester, possibly even a student. I suspect the person has never read a novel for pleasure ever.
That bit in bold. Have they ever given a specific example? A quote?
The most I’ve ever gotten from a TRA is the claim that refusing to allow Transwomen to use the Women’s Room means men will beat them up in the Men’s Room and we KNOW that so we must want it to happen. Seems a stretch.
Good to see the twitter thread has plenty of pushback. In particular, a twitterer called PeachYoghurt. She has a youtube channel that I’ll be checking out.
Holms @ 4, oh, thanks for the clarification.
So were they hacked, or did they just shoot themselves in foot by posting this? If it’s the latter, they’ve been ridiculously short-sighted and stupid. Why go out of your way to poke women in the eye like this? Outside the woke bubble of online TA activism, the talking points of trans ideology sound like someone on crack and glue at the same time. That’s why there’s “no debate” allowed.
This is because they believe trans women are men and since men cannot coexist with their feminist ideologies, they exclude them from their beliefs and support.
Funny that. I am a man. I seem to be able to co-exist with feminist ideologies. Maybe that’s because I support women’s struggles but don’t tell them HOW to struggle. I don’t tell them that THEIR struggle must centre ME.
Hey, maybe I was born in trhe wrong body …. yeah, nah, I just know how to behave and co-operate.
‘Why go out of your way to poke women in the eye like this?’
Impression I’m getting, though it may just be my media bubble, is that gender ideology has ‘peaked’–these folks need to read the room, like Bodyform so splendidly did last month.
Well, that nonsense definition woke me up better than coffee. Need a brief break to calm down.
Excluding and neglecting the existence of a whole group of people is ACTUALLY BAD?
Hmm. The irony, it burns.
Guest, #10:
Let’s hope so. The only concern then will be which train the ultra-wokesters will choose to jump onto next, because they’ve got to have some group to defend in the most patronising way possible.
Please let it be the Otherkin! I really want to see protesters holding ‘Trans Dragons are REAL Dragons’ signs, as trans-lions demand access to the cis-lion enclosures at zoos and safari parks.
Trans Otters are real Otters!
Acolyte of Sagan #13
If trans-lions do demand access to the cis-lion enclosures, I say we allow it AND sell tickets. If the gender woowoo bunch is going to drag us back to the cliche sex roles of the 1950’s (since even the 1950’s was never totally what it is portrayed as), I say we should be allowed to drag entertainment back to the days of the old Roman Colosseum.
I think that’d amount to animal cruelty…
Blood Knight in Sour Armor
I guess if the real lions got sick from ingesting too much furry-costume while getting to the meaty treats inside the costume, yeah, that could be cruel to the real lions. But didn’t those old Romans also have battles between humans and animals? Maybe we give a non-furry a sword and pit them against a trans-lion? Oh dear, I better stop before this comment is used by High Priest PZ and his zany gender woowoo flock as “proof” that rational people want to kill furries.
Coming soon, lion-safe furry costumes! Made of healthy ingestible materials! Why? Oh, um, when you are tired of your current costume, you can throw it into the lion enclosure, and recycle it safely! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
We could avoid involving real animals at all. Simply set a pack of trans-lions loose among a group of trans-zebras and trans-gazelles and let the hunt begin.
Then again, this being Wokeland we’re talking about, half of the trans-lions will claim to be vegan and a good amount of the trans-zebras and trans-gazelles will claim that big cat allergies prevent them from playing. They’ll even have notes from their mothers – albeit notes in handwriting suspiciously like their own.