TERF stands for transgender-exclusionary radical feminist. The term is very, very familiar to anyone who follows LGBT and feminist issues on social media, and probably quite obscure elsewhere. For whats supposed to be a network for mutual support and protection, the online LGBT community spends an extraordinary amount of server space debating who belongs in it and who doesnt. Nowadays its generally accepted that transgender people do belong; the big debate, online, is over whether asexual people do. But generally accepted isnt the same as universally accepted, and the ones who dont accept it can get pretty nasty sometimes.
TERFs dont accept transgender peoples identifying gender, and in particular they dont accept that trans women are women. Like other transphobes, TERFs read transgender women as men pretending to be women a misframing which does real harm (an identity is not a pretence), but fundamentally a matter of perception rather than of fact. What distinguishes TERFs from other transphobes is the motive they ascribe to transgender women for this alleged pretence, namely ...so they can rape lesbians. That is a matter of fact, and the facts are clear. Transgender identities are not motivated by a desire to rape lesbians. TERFs are wrong. Im not debating this point any further. Im not going to waste space rehashing here what Ive already written about gender identity, when trans people are far more worth listening to on the subject than I am; and the rape accusation is preposterous, but the people who need convincing of that arent likely to listen to me.
So why am I writing this? Because, preposterous as it is, TERF ideology is a necessary logical consequence of three propositions which the Left today holds dear. Since TERFs are wrong, one or more of the three propositions must be false. We need to find out which one and stop using it even at the cost of having to mince words like moderate liberals instead of making bold sweeping proclamations about overthrowing oppressors and remaking society. The three propositions are
- Feminism. Women do not yet enjoy basic rights equal to men. This is due to mens actions, and social structures upheld by mens actions.
- Social constructionism. Most, if not all, things we perceive as enduring realities are in fact products of societal roles and institutions gender most pertinently.
- Dialectical materialism. Institutions such as the state exist to allow powerful classes to exploit powerless ones. Classes are distinguished by having divergent material interests, and individuals act in their classs interests, so the exploitation can only end if the powerless class overthrow the institutions.
See what follows when you put these together? Men, the powerful class, materially exploit women, the powerless class, by impregnating them. A woman is someone who can get pregnant and a man is someone who can make a woman pregnant; those are the material interests by which alone the two classes are meaningfully distinguished. Any other distinction is merely a gender role, socially constructed to maintain the power of men over women. If someone who can make women pregnant adopts womanly roles and calls themself a woman, it must be somehow a subterfuge to advance the interests of men, and the only way that makes anything remotely resembling sense is if they are trying to infiltrate the ranks of those women who have refused to act as brood-stock i.e., lesbians. Hence TERF ideology. If we agree that the conclusion is preposterous (and if you dont, please take the debate to a different post) then one or more of the premises must be false. Our remaining task is to find out which. Lets examine them one by one.