You know, sometimes I have the urge to use the same discursive violence on TERFs that they use on us. Misgender, degender you, and call you a man with all the implications thereof. But then, of course, my feminism stops me.
Violence begets violence, yeah. And this isn’t a substantive protest either; in the same way that Catherine Brennan responding to every person who disagrees with “says the man” isn’t substantive. Because using “man” as a pejorative, in fact, misses part of the point of feminism, the freedom from exploitation, from stigma for everyone.
That, and of course, I don’t need discursive violence to know that you’re wrong when there’s plenty of valid evidence out there. Like that your philosophy doesn’t explain what you might consider to be edge cases, the lives and bodies of intersex people. You put all your faith in a non-binary, imperfect system of “biological sex markers” without knowing the science behind it.
And, of course, let’s talk about the demographics of your movement. It doesn’t directly invalidate your argument, but I laugh at the complete dearth of women of color, neurodiverse women, disabled women, financially insecure women, survivors of abuse. You’re on the whole a bunch of honky pendejo jerkoffs crying about your losing of privilege.
You use the historical oppression of “Woman”, a class you fallaciously derive, as if all those experiences belong to you and happened to you personally.
You ignore any feminist thought that isn’t Raymond, Daly, de Beauvoir, or Greer. You’re stagnant is what I’m saying, and you seem to operate under the perverse fallacy that your movement isn’t on life support, that you have any chance of survial in an incrementally more intersectional world. Your under a fantasy that when we call you a trans* exclusionary radical feminist, we actually consider you to be feminists, as opposed to merely tolerating your self-identification.
Good luck in your sunset years.