Are TERFs and SWERFs "socially conservative"?

[I Stand With TRKL1917]

Obviously no (sane).

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Not by definition. They can have socially liberal stances on other issues.

[H. Ross Peron]

Obviously not. Conversely, certain kinds of reactionaries are favourable to legalized prostitution while the clericalist government of Iran is rather accepting of trans people (though quite homophobic otherwise).

[Goldwater]

Not necessarily, but they do take the more "socially conservative" position on sex work and/or trans related issues.

[HisGrace]

TERFS are anti-trans for the polar opposite reason as SoCons. SoCons think it's wrong or anyone to deviate from the gender matching their sex, while TERFS think gender is completely made up so there's no such thing as really being trans. That really is the logical outcome of all feminist thought which most of them refuse to acknowledge resulting in their having incoherent positions on things. If there's such a thing as being trangender then there is obviously such a thing as gender in the first place and it is not just a social construct.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They are not but people need to understand what the terms mean. the "RF" stands for "Radical Feminist." If someone is not a radical feminist, then they are not a TERF or a SWERF. Period.

[Beet]

No more than Andrea Dworkin was for making common cause with the anti-pornography Christian right.

[H. Ross Peron]

TERFS are anti-trans for the polar opposite reason as SoCons. SoCons think it's wrong or anyone to deviate from the gender matching their sex, while TERFS think gender is completely made up so there's no such thing as really being trans. That really is the logical outcome of all feminist thought which most of them refuse to acknowledge resulting in their having incoherent positions on things. If there's such a thing as being trangender then there is obviously such a thing as gender in the first place and it is not just a social construct.

Not all feminists deny gender, though obviously that seems to be the radical feminist position.

[Alben Barkley]

TERFS are anti-trans for the polar opposite reason as SoCons. SoCons think it's wrong or anyone to deviate from the gender matching their sex, while TERFS think gender is completely made up so there's no such thing as really being trans. That really is the logical outcome of all feminist thought which most of them refuse to acknowledge resulting in their having incoherent positions on things. If there's such a thing as being trangender then there is obviously such a thing as gender in the first place and it is not just a social construct.

Not necessarily. You could say it's a social construct but that some people, for whatever reason, are more comfortable presenting as the opposite gender of that which typically matches their birth sex. Whether or not it is a social construct doesn't really have any bearing on that. Doesn't really matter if it's because of some inherent, biological brain differences in males and females that can result in being born in "the wrong body" as some people claim or if it's just a social/psychological thing. Or a mixture of both. Regardless of the precise cause, gender dysphoria (feeling at odds with one's biological sex) is a very real phenomenon that has been formally recognized by the medical/scientific community for over a century.

My personal opinion is that the whole nature vs. nature debate is both probably unresolvable and irrelevant. If people want to alter their bodies to feel more at peace with themselves, let them have at it, so long as they are adults with genuine gender dysphoria who are making informed decisions. (I DON'T approve of giving hormones or puberty blockers to kids; they just are too young to make such a life-altering decision.)

That said, I do agree that some people seem to try to have their cake and eat it too on the issue. It doesn't make any sense to say that gender is a total social construct/spectrum so that anyone can identify as any gender at any time because it's meaningless AND to say that gender is some in-born, inherent thing that's fixed from birth and is hard-wired into your brain and essential to your identity. Frankly, the entire concept of "non-binary" is pretty much nonsensical if you go with the "male and female brains" theory. And if you reject that idea in favor of pure social construct, then it doesn't make sense why you'd even have to "transition" to another gender; if all that defines it are meaningless social roles and stereotypes, then why not just reject those things but still acknowledge your biological sex?

Still, again I have to emphasize that I really do not care what people want to call themselves or how they want to identify or what pronouns they want to use. And again, I do not know or really care how much of it is based in biology vs. psychology/sociology. At the end of the day, these are people who have a condition that makes them feel completely at odds with their own bodies, and they deserve sympathy and support. I just wish certain people weren't so... dogmatic about the issue.

Like with the whole JK Rowling thing, she literally just said "I support trans rights but biological sex is real too and we shouldn't ignore the complexities of how all these things interact and affect our conceptions of gender" and was eaten alive for it. When you start denying hard science because it makes you feel uncomfortable, THAT is when I say you've crossed the line. And it's not all trans people, not even close; there are plenty who fully acknowledge they are not literally the biological sex they prefer to identify with. It's those who claim they are and if you dare to think otherwise, you're some evil fascist scum or something, who are nuts.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

They're misandrists, so no.

[Goldwater]

They're misandrists, so no.

Misandry is certainly not a liberal posistion, if that's what you are implying.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

They're misandrists, so no.

Misandry is certainly not a socially liberal posistion, if that's what you are implying.

It's certainly not a social conservative position though.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

TERFs and SWERFs are by definition Radical Feminists, which pretty much implies they are decidedly not socially conservative as a whole.
You can make the argument that TERFs take a socially conservative position with regards to trans people, though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course not. It's not even clear to me that hostility towards the sex industry is itself the socially conservative position on the subject (noted #wokebae pro-brothel politician Matteo Salvini says hello), although hostility towards trans people definitely is.

[Former President tack50]

TERFS are anti-trans for the polar opposite reason as SoCons. SoCons think it's wrong or anyone to deviate from the gender matching their sex, while TERFS think gender is completely made up so there's no such thing as really being trans. That really is the logical outcome of all feminist thought which most of them refuse to acknowledge resulting in their having incoherent positions on things. If there's such a thing as being trangender then there is obviously such a thing as gender in the first place and it is not just a social construct.

Not all feminists deny gender, though obviously that seems to be the radical feminist position.

For what is worth, I haven't seen many TERFs taking that position. The more common argument I've seen is that being a woman is biological in nature and therefore any trans woman is really a "man in a wig" no matter what they do.

Another argument I've seen is that the existance of trans women "devalues" femininity in some way.

[SWE]

If there's such a thing as being trangender then there is obviously such a thing as gender in the first place and it is not just a social construct.

"Gender is a social construct" and "gender exists" are not inconsistent. If something's a social construct then it obviously exists. Money, the state, capitalism, countries are all social constructs, but that doesn't mean those things don't exist. Gender being a social construct means it's possible that gender could not exist, but at this present point in time, it obviously does.

[afleitch]

No, but if you tie what it means to be 'female' increasingly to biology and it's possibilities and limitations and talk about 'sex based' rights and threats to you being derived from people who have a 'male' sex infringing on your status or space you are making the conservative and anti-feminist argument for them.

If women are 'different' solely on account of their biology that doesn't necessarily lead to equality.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I understand that you can order this in certain posh restaurants.

[afleitch]

I understand that you can order this in certain posh restaurants.

Especially if it's a Fleet Street lunch.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think what's often missed is just how out there actual TERFs/SWERFs are even on issues that have nothing to do with trans people or sex work. They are not simply "feminists/otherwise non-socially conservative who don't like trans people/commercial sex." Some proposals I've unironically seen from actual TERFs/SWERFs include:

-A tax that only men are charged.
-A curfew that only applies to men.
-Eliminating presumption of innocence in rape cases.
-Banning urinals.

(OK that last one wouldn't have anywhere near as far reaching negative effects but seriously think of just how f[inks]ed in the head someone would have to be to consider that a cause worthy of attention.)

[I Stand With TRKL1917]

I think what's often missed is just how out there actual TERFs/SWERFs are even on issues that have nothing to do with trans people or sex work. They are not simply "feminists/otherwise non-socially conservative who don't like trans people/commercial sex." Some proposals I've unironically seen from actual TERFs/SWERFs include:

-A tax that only men are charged.
-A curfew that only applies to men.
-Eliminating presumption of innocence in rape cases.
-Banning urinals.

(OK that last one wouldn't have anywhere near as far reaching negative effects but seriously think of just how f[inks]ed in the head someone would have to be to consider that a cause worthy of attention.)

That's not just the TERFs. A lot of the woke third-wave feminists support that "tough on crime, but woke" position as well.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think what's often missed is just how out there actual TERFs/SWERFs are even on issues that have nothing to do with trans people or sex work. They are not simply "feminists/otherwise non-socially conservative who don't like trans people/commercial sex." Some proposals I've unironically seen from actual TERFs/SWERFs include:

-A tax that only men are charged.
-A curfew that only applies to men.
-Eliminating presumption of innocence in rape cases.
-Banning urinals.

(OK that last one wouldn't have anywhere near as far reaching negative effects but seriously think of just how f[inks]ed in the head someone would have to be to consider that a cause worthy of attention.)

These still aren't "socially conservative" positions though except in the sense that the third one, as the poster above me says, could be framed as "tough on crime".

[afleitch]

There's also a fringe undercurrent of lesbianism being fine/ in some cases preferred (eventually...there was a lot of lesbian and bi erasure early on) but a very conservative take on male homosexuality being wrong as it includes sexual gratification and the expression of sexuality without women and is therefore misogynistic (long forgotten groups like Redstockings etc)

While fringe some of that does rear it's ugly head online (there's a great account on twitter about Gender Critical homophobia) in recent years. Especially around issues of surrogacy and adoption.

[Senator Incitatus]

Radical is the antonym of conservative.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's also a fringe undercurrent of lesbianism being fine/ in some cases preferred (eventually...there was a lot of lesbian and bi erasure early on)

Yes; see Shulamith "what do you mean this radical feminist house party doesn't have men at it to hook up with?!" Firestone, for instance.

but a very conservative take on male homosexuality being wrong as it includes sexual gratification and the expression of sexuality without women and is therefore misogynistic (long forgotten groups like Redstockings etc)

That's the natural conclusion of some of the crassest "penetrative sex is rape" or whatever takes, yeah; the more people involved in the sex act who are capable of penetration, the rape-er it is.

While fringe some of that does rear it's ugly head online (there's a great account on twitter about Gender Critical homophobia) in recent years. Especially around issues of surrogacy and adoption.

I know MRDA to me saying this, but I don't think surrogacy and same-sex adoption are really equivalent issues, even though homophobes often attack them as though they are. There are pretty straightforward "orthodox" feminist arguments against the former, even if one doesn't agree with those arguments, which there really are not against the latter.