I see a lot of people say things like "TERFs aren't real feminists" or "We should call TERFs something besides feminists," and I understand where this viewpoint comes from, but as a transfeminine person, I honestly don't like this approach.
I feel like when people utilize this approach, they're trying to see TERFs as a problem from the outside rather than a problem within. We cannot build a better, more inclusive, and more intersectional flavor of feminism if we assume that problematic tendencies such as transphobia are inherently beyond feminist thought.
Is TERF ideology flawed and misguided? Absolutely, 100%. Is it not feminist? On some level, I see why some would say it isn't, but at the very least, it's in the name of feminism. Although TERFs are incredibly sus with their hyperfocus on trans people, especially transfeminine people, and very minimal focus on actually advocating for women's rights, TERFs are not exactly stemming their transphobia from a viewpoint that conservative Christians, for instance, might stem their transphobia. Their viewpoint is tied to a certain interpretation of feminism, even if that interpretation sucks major doodoo ass.
We have to remember that even mainstream, liberal feminists are not exempt from some problems that TERFs embody. These kinds of feminists can often have transphobic and bioessentialist ideas as well. The difference? They are often more implicit and mask-on with these problematic tendencies. If they're not outright transphobic in their thinking, they, at the very least, tend to be very erasing of trans struggles, as they usually are with all other kinds of intersectionality. Their major issue with failing to grasp intersectionality is painfully obvious with how much they focus on white cishet women, failing to demonstrate that they don't even have a single place in their mind concerned about black women, trans women, and other more marginalized groups of women. I see these feminists as a problem obviously (because libs suck), but I certainly wouldn't say they're not feminists.
I'm functionally at a point where I can only trust feminists that are truly intersectional and communists, but unfortunately, I wouldn't say that outlook comprises most self-identified feminists. However, I wouldn't say that any feminist that deviates from the most helpful outlook on patriarchy isn't a feminist. They're just, in some way, a failed one in desperate need of education.
I don't think Julia Serano is totally and completely right about that. She's great, and Whipping Girl is great, very worth reading, it really helped me flesh out my understanding of gender, but still, I think she's wrong about, at least, the subconscious sex theory she posits.
I'd like to recommend Judith Butler's new book here, but I'll be honest, I can't read Butler, I find them extremely confusing. For an easier time, you could instead watch Philosophy Tube's newest video, because Abby talks a little about this issue, following Butler. If you're interested, I also could see if my sister would be ok with me posting an excerpt of an essay she wrote on this subject, because that's my exposure to Judith Butler, filtered through my sister's writing.
I think fundamentally this is what I don't agree with. I don't believe I feel better with a testosterone-dominant endocrine system because of societal norms. It's a body thing, not a society thing, at least for me. But, that doesn't necessarily mean "sex" isn't socially constructed. Why does feeling better with testosterone necessitate that I be "subconsciously male"?
Let me say a little more: I had tits once, and I got top surgery to remove them. That choice was purely societal. In a perfect world, I would have kept my tits while being on testosterone. Would you still say I'm "subconsciously male" if my ideal body would have large (they were big and wonderful) boobs, but also facial and body hair? If so, what exactly does "male" mean? If not, what is my "subconscious sex"? Something other than male or female?
(I do actually agree about transsexual being a word that perhaps we should keep. I far, far preferred when my official diagnosis was "transsexualism" rather than "gender identity disorder". I'm trans, but I'm not disordered.)
Well alright, that's fine, but then, like, so what? How is it helpful to think about "subconscious sex" if really the idea there is no more than "some people are more comfortable if certain parts of their biology are changed from what their bodies would do without intervention"? What do we gain by saying something like "everyone has a subconscious sex that may or may not match the gender we're assigned at birth and could even have very little to do with what society calls 'sex' "?
Am I underselling the idea somehow?
(Thanks for talking with me, I'm really not trying to be argumentative or contrarian.
)
Honestly, I wrote up a response similar to this to @EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net, but I didn't want to seem argumentative. I just hope to be educational and clarify what trans-affirming gender abolitionists believe in. Here it is:
"I don't agree that total social constructionism is genuinely transphobic. I also don't think your dichotomy is accurate here. To say that 'If sex is entirely socially constructed, then the only potentially applicable explanation for dysphoria is that it's caused by submitting to patriarchal norms and nothing else can possibly be the explanation for such a feeling whatsoever' presents that false dichotomy. Let me ask you this: why must those only be the two options?
When people say gender and/or sex is socially constructed, they're not necessarily saying that the 'feelings' around gender/sex aren't real. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as masculinity and femininity could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as gender dysphoria could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, you're still gonna have your genitals, hormones, and characteristics of 'biological sex' as people know it. It's just that these things would all take on a different outlook. These things wouldn't have an idea of 'gender' tied to them. Gender abolitionists seek this reality because it liberates people from how seemingly concrete gender is placed as an expectation within society.
Gender and sex are made up categories regardless of the things we categorize within them. Dysphoria could be innate to trans people, but the way we have gendering around it obviously is entirely a social construct. A very non-gendered way explain the manifestation of a trans person would be something like:
No where in that explanation did I mention gender. Although, this kind of reality sounds unimaginable because of how deeply gender is woven into society, nothing is saying that the hypothetical trans person in this scenario would be unable to be uncomfortable with the way testosterone impacts their body. That's something that could theoretically occur regardless if you tie a social construction of gender or sex to that discomfort or not.
It's effectively the same thing as:
The difference is that this latter example is gendered, and it's the way many people would look at it as things stand now. We don't really need to have an 'explanation' for dysphoria in particular to validate it. To be honest, we don't have a perfectly definitive explanation as to why people experience gender dysphoria now, and the same could honestly be said about homosexuality even. This does not mean that gender dysphoria and homosexuality aren't real things people experience. The simplest explanation that I wish people could accept for queer people is: it be like that sometimes (seriously)."
And this is what gender abolitionists like myself believe in, hence my comment here tying in perfectly, the one starting with "I honestly hold it to be a semantic argument..." These semantic discrepancies are what got me to reject the notion of gender abolitionism initially. I don't base my view of the existence of trans people off of conditioning like you mentioned, and that isn't an inherent part of proper gender abolitionist views. Any gender abolitionist with a proper grasp on how gender works in this society will not see it that way, but the same can't be said for TERFs. TERFs don't often manifest this kind of thinking because they try to have bioessentialism and gender abolition co-exist, which is just nonsensical on their part. I was exactly thinking the same way as you before I understood these things, so I understand where you're coming from for sure. This knowledge may not do the same for everyone, but in my personal experience, I found so much more comfort, peace, and liberation in my gender (or lack thereof) once these realizations hit.
Oh, that's definitely not the implication, comrade.