24
votes
A deep, nuanced Tumblr discussion about trans-exclusionary beliefs and how they come to be
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Weasels in Space
- Authors
- Weasels in Space
- Published
- Jan 8 2023
- Word count
- 1369 words
I'm trans. This lengthy Tumblr discussion recently came up on my dashboard, and it introduced a lot of nuance into my perspective. It's dense, but I think it's worth reading -- especially everything including and after user winged-light's reply.
The people in the discussion try to unpack why certain cis women/radical feminists feel so defensive in the face of trans people. I've read posts like that before, and I'm kind of sick of reading them, but... this specific discussion identified feelings and dynamics I had never considered before. And, I feel that these points of view are useful to try to acknowledge and understand, even if I don't support the people who hold these feelings.
I'm hoping that by sharing the link, I can give people some new ideas to chew on, and maybe defuse some tension and bridge the gap in understanding between folks on Tildes.
(Side note: Like a lot of trans folk on Tumblr, I use the Shinigami Eyes extension to identify transphobic users on Tumblr. This discussion has no red names, so I feel safer in sharing it, knowing that the participants probably don't hold trans-exclusionary beliefs themselves.)
If there are any cis women who legitimately feel like they are being treated reductively by the existence of trans women, and aren't just using that as a weapon because they dislike the concept of trans women, then I feel for them. No one should ever be made to feel like they are under attack because of who and what they are. Emotions and feelings are valid.
I would ask that they consider, however, that trans women are under literal attack (and I don't mean by aforementioned cis women), so their feelings of persecution are just as valid. I also have to add that as badly as I feel for them, I don't feel badly enough to closet myself so as not to offend them. No one's identity trumps another's, and the two can coexist.
I don't disagree with you. What you're saying feels fairly basic and common sense? It's fair and agreeable, and it makes sense to the kinds of people who visit Tildes.
At the same time, I was hoping to try to go for something deeper with this post. To try and highlight the journey someone takes on their path to becoming [insert flavor of radfem]? To better understand the mindset and conditioning of someone who falls down the rabbit hole.
The Tumblr discussion, for me, fills the same space as The Alt-Right Playbook video series does, just for TERFs instead of the alt-right. Neither tries to defend or excuse the beliefs they're examining? More-so, they're trying to theorize how people get to where they are, and what worldviews they develop once they get there.
With that context in mind...
I'm not sure what this thought accomplishes? I feel like it's the sort of thought that resonates with us on Tildes, as trans folk and allies of trans folk, but might fall on deaf ears to TERFs, given everything they've grown to believe.
It's not something I would literally ask of any person, it's more of an "ask the universe" kind of thing. Something I wish we could do is to see each others' POV, even if only for a little while.
I like that the posts in this are trying to first steel-man and figure out the other side's point, so they can more directly address what's wrong in it and figure out the goals of it, including parts they're sympathetic to. Way too many arguments online are just about trying to make the space hostile to the other side so they leave, rather than figure out the arguments, the goals, and the cruxes each side hinges on. ... Which I kind of understand, because for many controversial topics, people do desire safe spaces where they're not always expected to debate and justify their side's point. The hostile mode does have some advantages -- it communicates the importance of the subject, places that totally shun the hostile mode can end up becoming too friendly to people with actually harmful ideas, and people personally affected get exhausted and filter out of the space -- but I'm convinced that there's too many people whose only understanding of political advocacy is the hostile mode, who think being a better ally for any cause merely requires using the hostile mode more.
I think this is something that's a problem in all sides for many controversial topics online: every side has a tendency to point attention toward only the worst and weakest parts of the other side. This is terrible if this is your only exposure to the other side and you want to have the ability to talk to and convince people on the other side. It's obvious when someone is in a debate and they without realizing it only have a warped perspective of what the other side thinks and cares about.
The posts about TERF spaces rings true with what I've seen. I used to occasionally look at the (now banned) r/GenderCritical subreddit to try to understand what they were about and what arguments they might be sympathetic to. It was pretty terrible, and I don't recommend this exercise for everyone, but I think it's hard to get an actually accurate idea of how the other side thinks if you don't ever immerse yourself a little. (Not that I disagree with the subreddit being banned. I'm sure there's no shortage of places like it that work for this exercise now.) The ContraPoints video "Gender Critical" is pretty good about diving into and criticizing the culture.
What’s ironic is I feel that trans men and trans women are only going to be allies to feminism and could provide society with the most compelling rhetoric for revolutionizing gender for the better. I don’t think bigots today will be swayed, but I’d bet children raised in a world where it’s undeniable that people get to affirm their own (perhaps complex) gender identity would be hard to convince of rigid gender norms. A generation post trans normalcy and acceptance is going to be the least sexist generation.
Thanks for sharing this, it was a really good read. But I notice that just as in the un-nuanced discussions of TERFs there is that assumption that they aren't feminists, this conversation is doing a similar thing with 'radfem':
This is not what I thought radical feminism was about. My understanding of the distinction between liberal and radical feminism was that liberal is more focused on legal reforms and creating rights for women, whereas radical is more about critical theory and changing the structure of society. There are, for example, SWERFs -- sex worker exclusionary radical feminists -- but like TERFs they are a minority contingent, not part of the core definition of what radfem is.
Has the consensus changed, or is this a sign that this thread is mostly led by libfems who have an un-nuanced understanding of radfem?
I think I got the latter vibe from a couple of posts in the thread. It could also be that the core beliefs of radical feminism, i.e. the fundamentally patriarchal nature of society, its role in all manner of oppressive hierarchies, and the need to reform it on a fundamental level, are basically the default on that corner of the Internet, so they don't register with people as radical, and they look for other things to distinguish their picture of radical feminism from their own, which lands them on minority viewpoints like those.
This is a really good question, and one I don't know the answer to. I feel like I don't really have a strong understanding of what radical feminism actually is, now that I think about it. Thanks for pointing this out -- I have some reading to do.
Thank you for sharing this. Never would've come up with something like that on my own, as a cishet male.
Steelmanning can feel distasteful, and it can be really hard to do if the topic at hand has hurt you, but it is a really critical tool for understanding the opposing side in an argument or movement. I think it is underutilized by many folks.