TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Sometimes, "exclusionary" is expanded as "eliminationist" or "exterminationist" instead to more accurately convey the degree to which TERFs wish harm towards trans people, specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth.
Needs to be changed to
TERF is an acronym for Trans-Extermanationist Radical Feminist. Sometimes, "Exterminationist" is replaced by "Exclusionary" by those who subscribe to this ideology to obfuscate the degree to which TERFs propagate harm towards trans people, specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth. Another acronym for TERF is TWEF, or Trans Woman Exterminationist Feminist.
Kitttin (talk) 00:47, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
kitttin
Can we not turn this site into a debate forum between feminists and radical feminists? This place should not be used for bashing each other, and theres about a zillion other forums where it would be more conducive and on topic. Just a suggestion. I have seen this debate turnnasty and innocent feminists whom are completely uninterested in engaging get pulled in and told they are SWERFs for disliking the porn industry, or called TERFs because they ask the wrong questions. I am completely against the Geek Feminism wikia becoming a place like that. Leninflux (talk) 12:32, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
Please find a better word than coercively. There is nothing coercive about being born, no matter what gender you identify as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.129.66 (talk • contribs)
- "Coercive" refers to the social process of assigning a sex category to infants at birth, not birth itself. Do you have any suggestions to make that clearer? ("Coercively assigned sex at birth" is a pretty standard term: e.g. http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Assigned_gender_at_birth ) Monadic (talk) 00:47, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, while you're all actually looking at that sentence at all, can you please not erase intersex by describing it as some kind of subset of transgender. It's bad enough when trans-activists do it (and it's not "two sides of the same coin" either). Do some research, fix your article and you should find the small percentage of intersex people who also identify as transgender, but that's no reason to rewrite the history of all other intersex people. Not to mention the issues surrounding surgery to correct post-natal mutilation, which is often not considered trans at all as it is surgical correction of an old injury. I suggest you start by speaking to organisations within the intersex community instead of those who focus on transgender issues. --Hasimir (talk) 06:17, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, can you quote what part of the article you're referring to? It doesn't use the word "intersex." Monadic (talk) 14:44, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Right at the top, "specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth." Post-natal surgery is or has been (some countries are finally banning the practice) performed on infants who do not have obvious genitalia and that is usually one of about three or four dozen different variations of intersex people. Now, there are some intersex people who identify as transgender as well, but it's less than 10% and the problem here is that the trans community has a history of appropriating intersex terms and then trying to erase intersex voices. Perhaps because intersex people are (usually) not dealing with issues of what their gender identity is, but rather with simple and obvious biological facts (e.g. one or more extra chromosomes such as 47-XXY, 48-XXXY, 47-XXX, etc.).
- As for the article (and probably plenty of others on this wiki) not using the word "intersex" well, that's both the problem and the irony with this article: it was almost certainly written by a trans community member reacting to that type of radfem, but then they turn around and commit the same type of prejudice against intersex people in it. It'd be funny if it wasn't a pervasive theme pretty much everywhere on the Internet, but, of course, it is.
- Anyway, Wikipedia is okay-ish for an intro (it tends to get overridden by USA's definitions from the DSM which are quite contentious), but good enough for at least basic descriptions of a lot of the intersex types (e.g. Turner Syndrome, CAIS, Klinefelter Syndrome, etc.). The Rational Wiki has more detail on anti-intersex prejudice, including by transgender people. Alternatively you can just start here (it is focussed on Australia, but there's a lot there and since America is still quibbling over whether or not it has the right to mutilate intersex infants at birth it's in no position to claim authority, plus all US literature consistently use insulting terms like DSD). --Hasimir (talk) 19:06, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- As per Meta:Editorial guidelines, your pseudo-scientific biological essentialism and transphobia aren't welcome here. Bye. Monadic (talk) 19:37, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- Surely you could have handled that better. Why were you so rude and unresponsive to someone concerned about a marginalized group of people? Many of them DO have a problem with being mistaken for a subset of trans, and have asked the trans community and its allies a million times to be heard. They have asked for their gender and sexuality be respected just like trans folk do. And what do you do? Call them a transphobe (even though there was not one disparaging thing said about trans people in ther two posts), and kick them aside instead of listening and empathizing. Meh. Not the proper response by a mile. Leninflux (talk) 17:07, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Tone policing isn't welcome here either. Please review Meta:Editorial guidelines and Category:Silencing tactics while you are blocked. Monadic (talk) 17:16, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
- FYI: There is an extremely long history of a small minority of intersex activists who identify as cis using respectability politics to frame their sexes and genders as real at the expense of non-intersex trans people. (Most intersex people and activists don't do this, and many identify as trans themselves.) It's tiresome and tedious, just like TERFs are, and none of these anti-feminist, misogynistic tropes are welcome on the Geek Feminism wiki. Monadic (talk) 18:03, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Surely you could have handled that better. Why were you so rude and unresponsive to someone concerned about a marginalized group of people? Many of them DO have a problem with being mistaken for a subset of trans, and have asked the trans community and its allies a million times to be heard. They have asked for their gender and sexuality be respected just like trans folk do. And what do you do? Call them a transphobe (even though there was not one disparaging thing said about trans people in ther two posts), and kick them aside instead of listening and empathizing. Meh. Not the proper response by a mile. Leninflux (talk) 17:07, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
- As per Meta:Editorial guidelines, your pseudo-scientific biological essentialism and transphobia aren't welcome here. Bye. Monadic (talk) 19:37, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, can you quote what part of the article you're referring to? It doesn't use the word "intersex." Monadic (talk) 14:44, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, while you're all actually looking at that sentence at all, can you please not erase intersex by describing it as some kind of subset of transgender. It's bad enough when trans-activists do it (and it's not "two sides of the same coin" either). Do some research, fix your article and you should find the small percentage of intersex people who also identify as transgender, but that's no reason to rewrite the history of all other intersex people. Not to mention the issues surrounding surgery to correct post-natal mutilation, which is often not considered trans at all as it is surgical correction of an old injury. I suggest you start by speaking to organisations within the intersex community instead of those who focus on transgender issues. --Hasimir (talk) 06:17, May 13, 2016 (UTC)