So ‘Rad’

by on

In the Aug. 4 issue of The New Yorker, Michelle Goldberg provides a fascinating look at a subset of radical feminists, the self-described “radfems,” who are regarded by other feminists and transpeople as TERFs (which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”).

The radfems bar transwomen from their events (including the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival) and seek to exclude them from womens’ spaces, including restrooms and lockerrooms. Worse, the radfems point to certain ex-trans (or “detransitioners”) who once identified as transgender but no longer do, as evidence that transgenderism isn’t about intrinsic gender identity but is a further manifestation of male privilege.

For instance, Goldberg cites radfem theorist Sheila Jeffreys who:

calls detransitioners…“survivors,” and cites them as evidence that transgenderism isn’t immutable and thus doesn’t warrant radical medical intervention. (She considers gender-reassignment surgery a form of mutilation.) “The phenomenon of regret undermines the idea that there exists a particular kind of person who is genuinely and essentially transgender and can be identified accurately by psychiatrists,” she writes. “It is radically destabilising to the transgender project.” …

Explaining female-to-male transition is fairly easy for her (and for other radical feminists): women seek to become men in order to raise their status in a sexist system. Heath Atom Russell, for example, is quoted as attributing her former desire to become a man to the absence of a “proud woman loving culture.”

But, if that’s true, why would men demote themselves to womanhood? For reasons of sexual fetishism, Jeffreys says. She substantiates her argument with the highly controversial theories of Ray Blanchard, a retired professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and the related work of J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University.

The radfems view of being transgendered seems eerily similar to what social conservatives believe about homosexuality—it’s an unhealthy deviation that people should be steered away from and not an intrinsic aspect of who someone is.

I don’t know what to make of this, and perhaps author Goldberg doesn’t either. But it’s evidence of how those who take a militant stance on behalf of remaking society beyond oppression often, on inspection, are revealed to have their own deep-rooted prejudices. That’s a good lesson to remember.

On the other hand, organizing to deny the radfems the right to hold their own meetings and events by threatening to boycott commercial venues also seems intolerant on the part of trans activists. What’s needed are dialogue and efforts at education and understanding, not attempts at suppression coming from both camps.

19 Comments for “So ‘Rad’”

  1. posted by Tom on

    From what I’ve seen of these “radfems”, they are really just mannish lesbians who cannot fathom why someone born with a penis would elect to not leverage it for all it’s worth. Their resentment of trans women stems from their own self-hatred of having to be a women in a patriarchal society. That someone would consciously choose to live as a woman is incomprehensible to them. My question has always been why a trans woman would want to hang out with them at their music festival anyway. It’s not like it’s Lilith Fair or something empowering for the greater female population. It’s just a bunch of non-shaving lesbians who feel somehow liberated by sitting topless listening to the Indigo Girls for six days. No thanks…..

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Be honest. If it weren’t for right wing bloggers and talk show hosts would anyone even know such a thing exists? Yes, this is a real thing, but it’s insignificant even among feminists and lesbians.

      • posted by Kosh III on

        Me too.
        I’ve never heard of this bunch but that is not a surprise as I don’t live in NY/DC/LA but instead live out with ordinary people.

        Of course I support the rights of trans but around here, just having basic human rights is a challenge as the Teanut/GOP seeks to turn everyone into corporate serfs.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          I have known many lesbians over the years. I have enjoyed their friendship and learned a lot from them. I have never met the kind that is so often presented by the right as the stereotypical lesbian. Never did they seem to hate men. They sometimes got annoyed at typical male bullshit (like the rest of us) but I found them fun and interesting, especially the ones I got to know in Cherry Grove (Fire Island).

    • posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

      Well, I actually like Indigo Girls. Some people find my music interests to be odd for a man. Then again I consider myself to be a feminist….

      I am not sure I could listen to any music for six days. I don’t have the time, money or desire.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I don’t know what to make of this, and perhaps author Goldberg doesn’t either.

    Got me. The Radfems are reminiscient of the 1970’s theorists who wanted gays and lesbians to reject “homonormative” relationships, that is, marriage. I imagine that the Radfems will have about the same miniscule impact, of interest outside their small ranks only to right-wingers who can hold them up as examples of the abormality of gays and lesbians. My response is “whatever”.

    But its evidence of how those who take a militant stance on behalf of remaking society beyond oppression often, on inspection, are revealed to have their own deep-rooted prejudices. That’s a good lesson to remember.

    History is replete utopian movements that turned bad and self-destruct under the weight of their misplaced idealism, sooner or later. The problem is not that they self-destruct, but that they can cause a lot of misery on the way to self-destruction.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      That argument (“heteronormative”) had always struck me as absurd. No one is forcing anyone to get married. If you don’t see the point, don’t do it. But knowing gay couples who’ve had horrible problems caused by their lack of legal status for their relationship in a medical emergency or even the death of one of them, it is necessary and any gay person who believes otherwise is divorced from reality.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    The article is behind a subscription firewall, or whatever you call it.

    Anyway, this is all fascinating, but… even if everything they’re saying is true, it refutes nothing. Transgender is a much broader term than homosexuality, after all (part of the reason it’s in use), and the difference between many of the categories it includes is about how people choose to cope with what they experience, or what stage in their process they are at.

    I don’t begrudge people for opposing the transgender rights movement, but it’s the transgender community’s responsibility to educate their people as best they can on what gender identity might mean for each person. It’s a heavy responsibility, and there’s no need for interlopers to be rude about it. I suppose I’m not one to talk.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Agreed. I am in favor of trans rights but acknowledge that they have a long way to go. Just being angry isn’t going to help. They need to educate the public. I do see a lot of that going on, and that does sometimes include calling people out for misrepresenting their lives and concerns. Sexuality is a complex topic and it’s time we discussed it as such. The arguments in the post above were laughable in their simplicity. Am I really to believe that women want to become men to up their social standing, because I doubt that works (and I think they know that). Or is it because they feel they ARE men and want to live authentic lives? The latter, obviously, and only someone looking for an excuse for his or her bigotry would insist otherwise.

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    How many radfems are there really? They do have a right to meet and say whatever they want. If Westboro has such rights, then so does everyone else. But are they really influential at all in the culture at large and a threat to anyone? Or are they, like WBC, good at media manipulation to inflate their importance and simply skilled at grandstanding and annoying the public at large?

  5. posted by Mike in Houston on

    It’s unfortunate that there are “sides” to be taken at all… these radfems are a small radicalized minority within a minority that wouldn’t have more than a snowflakes existence outside tenured faculty and other cloisters. That they have the ability to reach a megaphone — and a degree of privilege that they use against trans people (and, lest we forget, Y-chromosomes) — is unfortunate.

    Whilst I think that the hair-trigger responses (and unwillingness to ever let any perceived slight go years later), I understand where the anger in the trans community comes from.

    Here in Houston, the trans community has been on the receiving end of a hateful campaign of lies since the start of the HERO debate… thankfully, we didn’t have any of the radfems involved in the discussion.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Never underestimate the nastiness with which one minority group will treat another. (See homophobic African Americans and racist gays, for two shameful examples.)

      • posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

        I suspect that these particular feminists are much less influential then the religious right.

        The comparison was made, and I am not sure if it’s remotely accurate. Maybe Fred Phelps is discredited, but the larger “kinder, gentler” religious right – that promotes the ex gay movement – can win elections in America.

        These particular class of feminists probably have much less political power in comparison.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As side notes to the RadFem circus (not my circus, not my monkeys):

    (1) Utah has appealed Kitchen v. Herbert to the Supreme Court. The appeal was filed today.

    (2) Virginia will appeal Bostic v. Schaefer to the Supreme Court on Friday, according to a notice from the Virginia AG with the 4th Circuit filed today.

    (3) The 6th Circuit will hear oral arguments in cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee tomorrow. The 6th Circuit is considered the second most conservative in the nation (the 5th Circuit, which will hear the Texas case, is far and away the most conservative). If a negative decision is likely this fall, it will be from the 6th Circuit. The 5th Circuit has not yet scheduled orals in the Texas litigation, and doesn’t seem to be in a rush, so that case is not likely to be decided for a while.

    (4) Another Florida state court (this time Broward County) ruled in favor of marriage equality on Monday.

    (5) Oral arguments in the 7th Circuit (Indiana and Wisconsin cases) have been scheduled for August 26.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      An update: A fourth Florida state court ruled Tuesday that the state’s anti-marriage amendment is unconstitutional, this time in a casse involving probate in Palm Beach County.

  7. posted by Lori Heine on

    The “Radfems” sound like a flock of cuckoos. I know a whole lot of feminists — gay, bi and straight — and plenty of lesbians of various political descriptions. I am happy to say that I have yet to run across one of these rare birds.

    I would not be a bit surprised to find out that the social right is trying to make it sound as if these people are mainstream progressives, typical feminists, whatever. Extremists are like dogs and little children: they get really excited at the sight of one another. But calmer creatures bore them.

  8. posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

    Hmm.

    I recently read something similar in a book edited by Bruce Bawer. One of the articles talks about the exclusion of transgender people from some women’s festivals.

    I guess these particular type of feminists still exist and their music festivals still excludes transgender women.

    I just never actually met any, and I doubt that they are given much creedence writhing the feminist movement or feminist theory.

Comments are closed.