Women who are maligned by this label
Well this is like a cool drink of water in a wide desert – Samantha Rea rebuking Juno Dawson in the Independent.
There were furrowed brows last week, in response to a column by author Juno Dawson in Glamour magazine. Dawson identifies as a transgender woman. In a column entitled, “Call yourself a feminist?”, she refers to feminist academic Germaine Greer as a “TERF” explaining that the acronym means, “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.”
Dawson tells readers that TERFs are: “A subgroup of feminists who steadfastly believe me – and other trans women – are not women.” Explaining how this is an issue, Dawson says: “The key battle ground between TERFs and trans women is the issue of toilets. Yes, my right to do a little wee or poo is, apparently, major political battleground.”
Notice that she politely ignores the syntactical trainwreck of “who steadfastly believe me – and other trans women – are not women.” I didn’t ignore it. It chaps my hide that editors let that pass, and then called Dawson an excellent writer in Twitter discussions. Come on.
The term [TERF] is actually an exonym – a term used to describe a third party that the third party neither recognises, nor uses itself. It’s generally seen as a slur, and since the publication of Dawson’s column, women have objected to the label via social media, and in personal blogs. The controversy should be no surprise to Dawson or Glamour, as the term has been contentious since it was coined.
Yes, but the people who like to use it pretend that it’s already normalized, and contentious only to the evil.
The negative connotations mean that those with similar views and concerns to those labelled “TERF” will be reluctant to speak up, for fear of being similarly tarnished. Women who are maligned by this label are also then isolated by it.
Dawson’s description of TERFs as a “subgroup” of feminists compounds the idea that these are the views of a few hardline zealots, and therefore unrepresentative of women generally. In reality, many women are afraid of men following them into women’s toilets. There’s no way of knowing if the man identifies as a woman, and just needs a wee – or if he’s about to sexually assault them.
That’s because such assaults do in fact happen, and voyeurism is downright common.
But it’s not just about toilets. Expanding the entry criteria so those who identify as women can access women’s rape crisis centres, domestic abuse shelters, and other spaces where women may be vulnerable, means an increased risk of assault, because men – not just transgender women – will have easier access, being able to walk into these spaces unchallenged.
And it’s not only that. It’s also seeing those who identify as women explaining both feminism and womanhood to those who were simply born women and left to deal with it however they could.
Getting too aggressive with the term “TERF” can inhibit personal conversations between women about subjects such as periods, pregnancy, childbirth, the menopause, miscarriages and stillbirth. Already, women are finding themselves censored and corrected when recounting their own experiences. Breastfeeding becomes “chest feeding,” vaginas become “front holes,” and there are no pregnant women, but “pregnant people.” Instead of talking freely among themselves, women’s language can sometimes end up policed, even though the source of women’s oppression often has everything to do with their bodies and their reproductive systems.
“Can sometimes end up policed” is quite an understatement.
Suggesting that such concerns are exclusive to a subgroup of feminist fanatics is disingenuous and shuts down the potential for open conversation and understanding. Dawson’s assertion that women are simply upset about “my right to do a little wee or poo” deliberately undermines the validity of women’s concerns, mocking their genuine fears.
In writing this column, Dawson continues the age-old tradition of dismissing women’s fears as hysteria. The title even questions women’s credibility as feminists. “Call yourself a feminist?” it asks. I’d like to ask the same question of her.
I’d like to tell her to sit down and be quiet.
*shudder*
Disingenuous and annoyingly twee.
I’ve recently stopped using the women’s room at work, because our new policy is no one can question anyone who appears to be in the wrong bathroom. This leaves women vulnerable in one of our few safe spaces, and one place where we are at our most vulnerable…literally caught with our pants down.
As someone who has myself been physically, emotionally, verbally, and sexually abused by men, I shudder to think about this. The worst thing is, many of the people advocating for this particular policy nationwide are some of the same who once recognized that Rebecca Watson was not being outrageous in pointing out that women feel vulnerable in elevators with strange men. (I’m looking at you PZ Myers). Yes, Shrodingers rapist is real, they say. No, women shouldn’t have anything to worry about if we just let everyone use whatever bathroom they prefer.
The whole thing is ridiculous. And it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen, when some woman with a severe anxiety disorder because of abuse has an anxiety attack because there are men in the bathroom, and is denied her rights and called a bigot.
It’s especially a problem on college campuses, where rape culture is strong, and women face the very real possibility of sexual assault on a daily basis.
Wha….? Because – men don’t have breasts? You’d think someone that concerned about human anatomy and language would have a better understanding of human anatomy and language.
Yes. I felt sickened by that one college “journalist” who thought that writing an article from a stall in the women’s restroom while he listened to women pee, putting forth his experience as a male sitting there without women apparently being traumatized by his presence was sufficient to prove that women don’t mind males being among them, so trans women should all be welcome.
Seems we’re seeing the rise of the WERF: women-exclusionary radical feminists.:/
Kristjan – I sort of like FETA – female exclusive trans activists. That might be better, since female is our biological reality, while woman is a gender identity
iknklast: I actually thought of FETA last night, but it was specifically “Feminism-Exclusive Trans Activists”. (Just because I’m one of the dissidents here on broader trans issues does not mean I don’t recognize Dawson’s article for the steaming pile of shite that it is, or that there’s a very real press by the defenders of the status quo to use trans people, and trans women specifically, as a sledgehammer to reinforce the bullshit gender norms we’ve created in our society.)
There’s no way of knowing if the man identifies as a woman, and just needs a wee – or if he’s about to sexually assault them.
Yeah, there really is no way of knowing for sure. Overall, this ups the sense of insecurity.
‘That’s because such assaults do in fact happen, and voyeurism is downright common.’
That really begs for some illustration/demonstration. So far, the right-wing ‘bathroom bills’ have been discounted on the basis that the fears they pander to are fantasies.
How can it be that a tiny fraction of trans people, invested in a particularly absurd version of gender-essentialism, can hold the entire public hostage to their rage?
It’s entirely reasonable to desire legislation which mitigates this threat. But have you thought this particular legislative response through? In what way will a law which forces transgender people, including tall, muscular, and male-presenting transgender men to use the women’s room, help? With the status quo, such a person would draw a lot of attention to themselves. And in a secluded environment, where a man can enter a restroom unobserved and expect to find the victim alone (which is really the main vector for risk in this scenario) – what role will such a law play in deterring him? However, with the new law, seeing men enter the women’s restroom would become the norm – any man could enter the women’s room and, if challenged, just say, “Oh I’m transgender. Thank the clowns in Congress for this, but it’s actually against the law for me to use the men’s room.”
Also – do we care about the fully-transitioned transgender woman, with the same physique and phsyiology as any other [not-transgender] woman, who needs to walk through the crowd of men to use the stall of the men’s room, thanks to this legisation?
@ 2 iknklast
1. Are you seriously suggesting that if a transgender woman followed a cisgender woman (to whom they had never spoken) into a toilet in the wee hours of the morning and cold-propositioned them, PZ Myers would say there’s nothing wrong with that?!!
2. As far as I recall, PZ never supported segregated elevators so that women would never have to cope with the possibility of “males” being present.
3. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict Rebecca Watson herself would never endorse any legislation banning trans women from using women’s toilets. Which suggests there is no contradiction between Schrodinger’s Rapist and having compassion for those among us who happen, whether they would have chosen it or not, to be transgender.
@iknklast A good point, yes. Or perhaps cis-exclusive trans activists.:D