Skip to main content

ActivityPub - Link to source
🧵 I'm currently writing about how many GC/TERF go-to terms (“biological sex,” “gender ideology,” “AGP”) primarily function as floating signifiers, where the referent is a moving target. a perfect example of this is the phrase “erasing women”...juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: Gender-critical activists also routinely claim that trans people are “erasing” or “silencing” women, neither of which is true. The claim that trans people—who comprise less than 1 percent of the population—are somehow capable of “erasing women” is farcical, unless of course you buy into Janice Raymond’s conspiracy theory that “biological woman is in the process of being made obsolete by bio-medicine” (Raymond, 1979, p. xxiii). For this reason, GC/TERFs typically deploy “erasing” in a vague and flimsy fashion.

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...for instance, here are two wildly different ways in which GC/TERF activists use the phrase “erasing women” – they will vacillate between these meanings depending upon whether they're discussing a trans woman or man... (excerpts are from my GC/TERF Primer: juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...)
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: For instance, if a trans woman wins an award or is appointed to a position within a women’s organization, GC/TERFs will describe this as an instance of women being “erased”—that is to say, the trans woman has supposedly “replaced” a hypothetical cis woman who would have otherwise received said accolade or position. The unspoken implication here is that trans women should not be allowed to participate in the public sphere, as any success we achieve could be construed as constituting the “erasure of women” in some way or other. Contradictorily, GC/TERFs also sometimes point to trans men as examples of the “erasure of women”—that is, these individuals “were” or “should” be “women” but no longer are. It is difficult to square how people transitioning in opposite directions can both be “erasing women” until you realize that the phrase is essentially meaningless—its only purpose is to evoke fear or concern about the existence of trans people.

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...& then there's the GC/TERF claim that trans-inclusive language “erases women.” of course, if you point out why such language doesn't actually “erase” them, they will simply retreat to one of the previous two meanings...juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: Accusations of “erasing women” are also routinely invoked in response to trans-inclusive language, particularly phrases like “pregnant people” or “people who menstruate.” To clarify a common misconception: This language is not intended to be inclusive of trans female/feminine people, but rather of trans male/masculine people who were assigned female at birth, some of whom do menstruate and can become pregnant. Parker Molloy’s article Nobody is trying to ban the word “woman” provides a good overview of such alarmist claims. It must also be said that many trans people explicitly describe ourselves as women, and GC/TERFs are well aware of this—in fact, they routinely proclaim “trans women are not women” in response to it. In other words, GC/TERFs know that trans people are not trying to “erase the word woman” and if they suggest otherwise they are being purposely disingenuous.

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •
...and of course, they will also use “erasing women” in the same way that other people use “cancel culture.” indeed, by my critiquing their use the phrase “erasing women,” they could accuse me of “silencing” & “erasing” them! it's a lose-lose situation...juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: GC/TERFs often use “silencing women” in a manner similar to “erasing women.” But “silencing” may also be used in a manner akin to “canceling” (à la “cancel culture”). For instance, when GC/TERFs receive criticism for their anti-trans views, they will often retort that their critics are attempting to “silence” them. They may additionally imply that said critics are “oppressive men” who are “speaking over women”—this not only misgenders many trans critics (e.g., trans women) but ignores the many trans-inclusive cis women who also publicly disagree with GC/TERF positions. Given that many GC/TERF positions are extreme (e.g., trans people should be morally mandated out of existence) and that GC/TERF rhetoric is often “hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive,” it is patently absurd to suggest that trans people and allies should not be allowed to protest such beliefs and language lest they be accused of “silencing women.”

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
in reply to Julia Serano

Julia Serano
ActivityPub - Link to source
Julia Serano
• •

...anyway, I will post the new piece I'm working on once it's done (soon!). in the meantime, you can read my "Gender Critical" and "TERF" Primer (where all these excerpts are from) if you wish: on Substack: juliaserano.substack.com/p/a-gender-c...& Medium: juliaserano.medium.com/a-gender-cri...

A “Gender Critical” and “TERF”...


A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer

for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates
Julia Serano (Switch Hitter)
⇧