On slurs
The sociolinguist Deborah Cameron has a fascinating essay on the question of whether or not “TERF” is a slur. You should read it.
Near the end she writes:
If a word is just a neutral description, you might expect it to be used mainly for the purpose of describing or making claims about states of affairs. If it’s a slur, you’d also expect it to be used for those purposes, but in addition you might expect to see it being used in speech acts expressing hatred and contempt, such as insults, threats and incitements to violence. (By ‘insults’ here, incidentally, I don’t mean statements which are insulting simply because they use the word in question, but statements which say something insulting about the group, e.g. ‘they’re all dirty thieves’.)
There’s evidence that TERF does appear in insults, threats and incitements. You can read a selection of examples (mostly taken from Twitter, so these were public communications) on this website, which was set up to document the phenomenon. Here are a small number of items from the site to give you a sense of what this discourse looks like:
you vile dirty terf cunts must be fuming you have no power to mess with transfolk any more!
I smell a TERF and they fucking stink
if i ever find out you are a TERF i will fucking kill you every single TERF out there needs to die
why are terfs even allowed to exist round up every terf and all their friends for good measure and slit their throats one by one
if you encounter a terf in the wild deposit them in the nearest dumpster. Remember: Keeping our streets clean is everyone’s responsibility
Precisely because it was set up to document uses of TERF as a slur, this site does not offer a representative sample of all uses of the term, so it can’t tell us whether insulting/threatening/inciting are its dominant functions. It does, however, show that they are among its current functions. It also points to another relevant question:
What other words does the word tend to co-occur with?
It’s noticeable that on the website I’ve linked to, TERF quite often shows up in the same tweet as other words whose status as slurs is not disputed, like ‘bitch’ and ‘cunt’. Other words that occur more than once or twice in these tweets include ‘disgusting’, ‘ugly’, ‘scum’ and a cluster of words implying uncleanness (‘smell’, ‘stink’, ‘garbage’, ‘filth’)—which is also a well-worn theme in racist and anti-Semitic discourse.
I saw an example of that kind of thing before reading the essay.
holiday holomodor @yodelatme
The meaning of TERF is “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist,” which is what you are. Stop pretending it’s an offensive slur.
“Wow, you called me what I am, a transphobic piece of garbage! I’m so offended! This is abuse!” Seriously, fuck off.
Perfect, isn’t it? First tweet: how dare you pretend TERF is an offensive slur. Second tweet: you are a transphobic piece of garbage.
This reminds me very much of quite a few other terms in the gender etc. warz, where the claimed definition of the term frequently does not match the function it is used for in a typical sentence. SJW for example is usually described a as a descriptor of behaviour that is not an insult, and yet will be used frequently as ‘you’re just another sjw faggot’ or whatever. A casual glance at the word role within the sentence shows it is definitely intended to be an insult, and so the claimed definition can often be ignored.
They abuse any feminist who dissents from sexist ideology and batshit epistemology, and it’s perfectly OK with self-styled feminists who just last recently were terribly concerned about online abuse directed at women.
Even though they identify as women, these people behave like men on the internet. What an odd confluence of male privilege-infused identity politics.
ctygesen, that does seem to be the case all to often for comfort, but hey, ‘we’re the bad guys’.
Yeah, I haven’t made anything like a proper study and I’m probably completely blinded by all my biases. My impression is that it’s primarily trans women deploying these tactics. And they used to be men.
At least that’s what I keep seeing. Open to correction of course.
@ 3 ctygesen
The only tweeter from the OP whose gender is identifiable is “holiday holomodor”, and I notice from their profile that they are “transmale”, i.e. assigned female at birth but identifying as male.
Oops! Another bigoted assumption about “these people” crashes into the hard rocks of reality.
#5 ctygesen, we can quibble over “primarily,” but it’s definitely not limited to trans women (not that you said it was). Here’s a particularly dispiriting example featuring some random dude and a well-known liberal feminist, both presumably “cis”:
https://sarahditum.com/2014/07/28/how-terf-works/
Note also how we’re still having the same argument, over two years on.
Another term that is often used as a slur. though it is possible to use it in a different way, is cis- They will tell you that cis-gender just means you identify as the gender you were born with; or that you are comfortable with the gender you were raised as.
To me, often a real key to whether something is primarily a slur or not is whether someone will comfortably use the term to describe themselves. For instance, I will proudly identify myself as a feminist; I will consider SJW, because I fail to see anything bad in that, even used a a pejorative. I do not identify myself as cis-, and I dislike other people getting to decide that I am what they term as cis-.
Unless, of course, you inform them that you don’t in fact identify as/feel comfortable with any “gender” – certainly not if “gender” says anything about what’s going on inside your head. Then “cis” only means “not trans” (whatever “trans” is supposed to mean?), no PoG has ever said otherwise, and the fact that you’re strawmanning trans people by pretending they did only goes to show, once again, what a horrible bigoted TERF you are…
@ 7 iknklast
By the same reasoning, “misogynist” is a slur.
I don’t think this claim stands up. To give one counter example, in the UK ‘Tory’ can be used to express hatred and contempt etc, but it isn’t a slur, it is just a name that describes something real.
But the claim is carefully limited, so it does stand up even if there is a counter-example. The whole piece is written that way – and it starts with the fact that how to determine what is a slur is contested.
If you didn’t read the piece I recommend doing so.
Silentbob – is there anyone who would say misogynist isn’t a slur? I have no problem with that. We don’t use it as a neutral idea, but as a negative. The person being called a misogynist and the person calling someone a misogynist would likely both recognize it as a slur. It is pejorative term used for pejorative uses, and the fact that it is an accurate descriptor doesn’t really change that. Racist is also a slur. That doesn’t mean we can never use the words, only recognize that they are, in fact, intended to portray a negative image of someone.
An interesting thing about “racist” and “misogynist” though is that they can be used as somewhat dispassionate, descriptive labels as well as pejoratives. Calling a particular person racist or misogynist probably always comes across as pejorative, but discussion of misogynist blogs or racist groups doesn’t necessarily. I think. I’m not a linguist, and I’m just musing aloud…I’m not sure about this.
I think “TERF” is different, in that it’s not (yet) so broadly accepted that it can be used dispassionately in say mainstream newspapers. Part of the fury about Dawson’s piece (which I share, by the way; I’m not distancing myself from it) is because it was in a mainstream magazine as opposed to Twitter.
@SilentBob Thank you for the correction. I accept the rebuke.
However it can still be true that most of the abusive, violence-threatening “activists” are trans women.
I’m not sure I buy the “slur” designation. Yes, it’s a disparaging term, often delivered with a mix of hostility and dismissive-ness, and is absolutely not the kind of language that’s going to lend itself to constructive conversation. But in that vein, I class it with conservative talk show hosts labeling specific politicians “RINO”s for voting a certain way, or misogynistic assholes calling out the “betas” and “cucks” of the not-manly-enough members of their ranks.
It’s not so much that I wish to sugarcoat “TERF”. I’ve just always considered “slur” to refer to that special class of words which disparage something people *are* – deriding them for their disabilities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, or genders; rather than where they stand on a certain topic, what they believe, what they’ve said or written, how they vote, etc. Slurs have a certain dual-edged aspect; they devalue not just their target, but simultaneously send a broad message of hate toward entire groups of people, not because of what they do, but simply for being.
That’s interesting, because – I think – that actually is how it’s used. It shouldn’t be comparable to an identity-epithet, but it’s deployed as if it were. It was originally apparently a fairly neutral descriptor, but “activists” have transformed it into something much more like “cunt” or “nigger.”
In other words I think you’re right about the distinction, but I also think the distinction is ignored for this one word. (There may be other such words but I don’t know of any offhand.)
The examples Cameron selected from “TERF is a slur” again:
It’s weird and not necessarily representative, as she says – but it’s not rare either.
How about “pig” as a reference to law enforcement officers? Quite honestly, I feel I’ve seen many of these TERF statements directed almost verbatim by black activists at officers. But I think any classification scheme that paints with the same “slur” brush, a black man saying “Get lost, pig” to a police officer vs a police officer saying “Get lost, nigger” to a black man… would seem to be missing a very essential aspect to what makes a slur a slur.
I see what you did there. But of course I don’t agree that women are to trans people as cops are to black people. That’s very much one of the issues, isn’t it. I am beyond sick of being told that women are the oppressor class.
Goodness gracious, Ophelia, are you implying that women who object to trans ideology don’t have state power to arrest trans people? How dare you ignore the long history of “cis” women shooting unarmed trans people, brutalizing them, framing them for crimes, and colluding to imprison them? Have you forgotten the 1960s when the city of Oakland hired all those radical feminists from the deep South to police transwomen?
You TERF, you.
Lets establish some perspective on “who is oppressing and who is oppressed” with respect to trans ideology. There are states where women have the power to report transgender women to the authorities for using the restroom. What converse power-to-oppress do trans women have over [women-who-are-not-trans-but-Ill-use-mulltiple-words-to-avoid-the-slur-cis] women?
Is it really such a stretch to at least empathise a tad with transgender men who see those who refuse to welcome them into the discussion of abortion rights and maternity leave in the workplace as nothing more than an extension of the existing laws that bar them from using the mens restroom. Not in severity, of course, but in oppressive spirit?
Or to at least empathize with those women who out of empathy decide to talk about “people who get pregnant” from time to time?
At the risk of committing emotional blackmail, every time the phone rings and I see its a call from my son’s school, I’m relieved to hear its just a minor fever or stomachache, not the principal calling to inform me that, due to some complaints of parents – and based on actual laws on the books – my 2nd grade son will have to use a different bathroom than all of his male peers. So please try not to use “oppression that comes with the rejection of trans ideology” as a punchline.
If this point constitutes emotional blackmail, I will understand it being deleted. I also understand that by deliberately crossing of the line you’ve put down for me is sufficient grounds for banning me; I will not take your decision to do so personally.
And Lady Mondegreen – I do not care for your implication that I am arguing that Ophelia is a TERF. I have not ever made such a claim and even, during the great “yes or no” saga explicitly stated that I do not consider her to be one. To that effect, I’ve never – nor would I ever – called anyone a TERF for any action, statement, or belief.
I still don’t think it’s a “slur”, for reasons stated, but that’s world’s removed from thinking it’s a word that does anything more than shut down conversation.
[Last comment before awaiting responses]
Nobody is claiming “women are the oppressor class” of transgender women, any more than people are claiming “women are the oppressor class” of blacks. Blacks are oppressed by whites (a class made up of men and women), and transfolk are oppressed by non-transfolk (a class made up of men and women). The fact that women experience oppression in one domain does not entitle them to a “get out of jail free” card in other realms of oppression. Women, even those subjected to heinous levels of gender-based oppression, can be every bit as vilely racist as men. Calling out such racism does not amount to denial of, or erasure of, the struggles women face; and it would not be “anti-feminism” to call out racist behaviors of feminist activists. Similarly, arguing that some women are active proponents of the forms of oppression faced by transfolk is not a denial of oppression faced by women, and I’m a bit tired of the implications that it is.
For there to be any analogy here, the following would have to be true:
1. There would have to be an extremely loud and aggressive minority of light skinned people who insisted they were “black”.
2. These light skinned “blacks” would have to require every dark skinned person to accept* – not only that “race” is a thing – but that it says something vitally important about what’s going on inside the heads of black/white people respectively.
3. They would have to require every dark skinned person to accept – without reservations – that “blacks” and “whites” have different ways of thinking or feeling, and that this is in fact the only thing that makes a person “black”/”white” in the first place. (The fact that this would – that’s right – exclude any dark skinned person who failed to think/feel the right way about him/herself obviously wouldn’t bother anyone…).
4. They would have to insist that “dark skinned privilege” was a thing.
5. They would have to require everyone to shut up about the discrimination faced by dark skinned people specifically because of their skin color, because it excludes those “blacks” who just happen to have light skin.
6. They would have to insist that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with their demands (or their framing of the issue) is if they’re infinitely evil bigots who can’t possibly be demonized or harassed enough.
7. Other light skinned people would have to line up to side with these light skinned “blacks” and take the issue as yet another cherished opportunity to shit on dark skinned people, dismiss their concern and whitesplain anti-racism to them.
* Unless they want their name dragged through the dirt all over the internet.
*raucous cheers*
Kevin, I don’t think you ever called Ophelia a TERF, and I’m sorry if it looked like I implied that.
I was mocking the comparison between “TERFs” and “pigs” (as an epithet directed at police officers.)
And that was your comparison, Kevin. No, you haven’t called me a TERF. But I do despise that comparison, and it does make me angry.
Bollocks. Trans people are not oppressed by non-trans people. That’s a massive and absurd generalization. Trans people have forms of disprivilege that non-trans people don’t have, but that does not automatically translate to oppression.