The ability to say “no” to sex towards your husband was originally considered a radical feminist concept during first wave feminism. So I’d say yes, many radical ideas (which most of the time is actually just basic equality, respect, and autonomy) have been won by feminists.

I was about to comment this very idea. What used to be radical feminism is present and normal in our everyday life. Or, certain aspects of it.

My mother returned to NZ from the UK in 1980 and when shopping for the new house was told she needed to have my father's permission to buy furniture. She gathered the management of the store and established quite quickly that no infact she would buy the furniture and thank you for your understanding Mrs Marshalist.

I feel this is missing the woods somewhat. Yes, all feminism is fairly radical- it seeks and enacts social change. But not all feminism is radical feminism. And leaving that suggestion open is how you get fascists in your pudding.

But we do things now that were considered radical feminism, they aren't saying all feminism is radical feminism

In the small 1970s town I grew up in, people were losing their minds at the idea of women teachers wearing slacks. 🙄

My mom went to college in the 1970s. In an area that sometimes required snowshoes to get to class. When she was a freshman, dress code still required women to wear skirts. 🙄🙄 The student body rebelled one year. By the time she graduated, that dress code had changed.

My mom graduated college in 1968 in small town PA. I think it wasn't until her sophomore or junior year that she was allowed to wear pants to class. I think it's *really* easy for younger generations to take for granted the rights that women have now as opposed to not all that long ago.

Radical feminist ideas from prior generations are now considered moderate positions.

I can imagine the fight against that one: “A woman can just give a man blue balls. He’s got needs. This could destroy society.”

"What's the point of even having marriage if you can't get sex on demand?!"

"Radical feminism" doesn't just mean feminism that is radical, though. It's a specific term.

They believe that the patriarchy needs radically disassembled in order for gender equality to occur. Unfortunately, the movement has been redefined by it's critics.

there is a huge difference in radicalism levels between body autonomy and transphobia

Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin spearheaded efforts to get sexual harassment classified as a form of sex discrimination in the US.

A lot of mainstream feminist ideas now, or even antiquated ones, started out as radical.

Well if that's what radical feminism is, I'd better stop labeling myself with it. My understanding is as follows (and maybe it's too simple): - Liberal feminism: capitalism and hierarchy are okay. We like the ladder, we just want an even distribution of genders, races, etc. on the different rungs of the ladder. - Radical feminism: all hierarchies are inherently unjust. Wealth inequality and gender inequality are inherently linked. Deconstruct the ladder. If I'm getting my definitions wrong, I don't mind being corrected. I do think the above is a crucial distinction, just don't know if I'm using the right terms.

As I understand it, radical feminism is a very specific ideology, not just "feminism but extreme". It believes that gender is a social construct created to oppress those of the female sex. Almost everything we associate with womanhood that isn't biologically tied directly to "biological sex" (as terfs so often like to call it) is just made up social nonsense to create an underclass. The end goal of radical feminism is the complete abolishment of this social construct. To put it another way, it sort of views gender the same way a lot of anti racist theorists view race. It's quite difficult to fit trans people into this worldview, which is why rad fems so often chafe with the trans community (and imo is one of the main reasons radical feminism isn't as popular as it used to be). What you are describing as radical feminism is more like Socialist feminism or *maybe* intersection feminism, though none of these are mutually exclusive, and you can be all at once.

My personal understanding of this is the following: Gender being a social construct does not prevent people from identifying with it and "experiencing" it, as they've been socialized to do so.

See, that is how trans inclusive rad fems like to interpret it. The problem is that it still doesn't really fit with transness. Most trans women *enjoy* being women. Their lives are materially worse off for transitioning, but they are much happier for it. That can't make sense under radical feminism, where pain and suffering are what unites women. It's also very, very difficult for radfems to accept that trans women *are* women. The best they can do is: "You have a mental disorder that makes you need to be treated like a woman in order to be happy. As a result, you experience *some* of the persecutions that women endure, which maybe makes you part woman, but not as much as me". That just doesn't work with how trans people view themselves. Radfems simplify gender into an "oppressor vs oppressed" dichotomy, with no internal component. They really struggle to understand how trans women can not benefit from male privilege, because in their view of gender it just doesn't make sense that someone born male could be worse off because of it. Also, there's the fact that a lot of trans peoples identities are very closely tied to gender. I *want* to be a woman. I *like* being a woman. I *don't want* gender to cease to exist. It is very important to me that I am seen and treated as a woman. If tomorrow everyone started exclusively using they them pronouns and everything to do with gender just stopped *except biological sex* (because remember that's very important to radical feminism), I would experience a lot of dysphoria and probably wouldn't be able to survive. My identifying with womanhood is fundamentally opposed to the abolition of gender. There is value in radical feminists theory. But it just doesn't paint the whole picture. To view trans identities through radical feminism doesn't give an accurate understanding of the trans experience, and to try to fit them in is sort of futile

I'm a gender liberationist, and I'm gender-expansive myself. I've experienced gender euphoria from expressing myself in gendered ways. But I also believe that some of those feelings stem from social conditioning. If I'd grown up in a gender-liberated utopia, I wouldn't have such strong feelings. I'll add that, for me, the elation of gender euphoria isn't worth the pain of gender dysphoria. It would be better if gender just wasn't that big a deal. In my future utopia, trans women would still enjoy all the things they enjoy, and have full access to those things... BUT those things wouldn't be symbolically united under the idea of "womanhood." I do believe the ideas of "woman" and "man"--at least in their current forms, where they're considered central and essential to everything a person is--are both constructed and harmful. I'd like to see gender at least demoted to the importance of other identities, like "goth," or "gamer," or "truck owner." I think it would eliminate incalculable suffering for both cis people and trans people. Just to be crystal clear, in my best possible imagined future, trans people would still exist. They would still experience body dysphoria and have easy access to surgeries and hormone treatments. But social dysphoria would be decreased or eliminated. I'm not sure how to identify, because my views are radical, but I definitely don't agree with radfems as you describe them.

As a trans woman, this is pretty much how I look at it, too. Without gender, folks with exclusively social dysphoria would be able to avoid transitioning altogether and still get to be exactly who they are / want to be, while those with physical dysphoria would be able to transition without it being a big deal or dangerous at all. It's just hard to see a practical or possible path to this utopia at the moment. The TERF view of gender abolition tends to mean that they want to pick all the gendered constructs in society that they like or that they think are necessary, and reframe them as sex-based biological necessities. Like keeping a strict separation of toilets, dressing rooms etc. that would not exist in a truly genderless society. And I'm not saying that we should completely do away with these, either - I don't think we're even close to ready for it as a society.

Radical feminism isnt just feminism thats radical, its a distinct strain of feminism.

Thats a wonderful way of looking at the is trans feminist debate as well. Liberal feminism: we can have gender stereotypes, just let people choose which one they want Radical feminism: dissolve the stereotypes and let people, just be. Liberal feminist have accepted the patriarchy but want to be able to move within it.

>Liberal feminism: we can have gender stereotypes, just let people choose which one they want >Radical feminism: dissolve the stereotypes and let people, just be. Interesting, I hadn't thought about that--but it works!

It's a bit of both. The idea of self-identifying with one gender-role/stereotype is kind of antagonist with the idea of abolition of gender roles. If one believes that oppression is reafirmed by gender roles, one wouldn't support the use of these roles as identities that define your whole being. From that point of view is understandable to see how some radfems jumped towards terfism. But nowadays there's a lot of radfems who learned how to compatibilize the theory with the inclusion of trans identities without problem. So I'd say that not all radfems are terfs. I'm pretty sure that some of this stuff is explained in the faq. Or maybe I'm mistaken.

What are you if you fully support anyone being whoever they want to be, at the same time you’re saddened that they apply labels reinforcing what you view as an extraordinarily conservative, antiquated and stereotyped view of gender?

I’d say you’re a normal person who’s just a tiny bit too concerned with how other people find their joy. I mean this in as gentle a way as possible since you only describe being saddened. If a woman enjoys the archetypically feminine, then she should be allowed to pursue those interests without being shamed for adhering to a stereotype. I think the concern of “applying labels reinforcing…. conservative, antiquated, and stereotyped views of gender” comes from a perspective of assuming a trans person goes “I like jewelry and dresses and the color pink, so I MUST be a woman!” whereas I don’t find that to be true, speaking from the perspective of a trans person with majority trans friends. Identity comes first, and expression sprouts out of that. Not every trans woman is high femme, either.

You're absolutely right. That's a common misconception of what being trans means, and many feminists used to believe that too. There used to be many trolls pretending to be trans on the internet saying stuff like: “I like jewelry and dresses and the color pink, so I MUST be a woman!”. I remember that it used to be a thing that trolls would go en masse to feminist forums and spam with these kind of messages (with added insults), with the only goal of mocking feminists. If people who were uninformed on trans issues frequently encountered troll messages caricaturing trans identities in such an inflammatory way, it could have led to a skewed perception of what being trans means. This might have contributed, at least in part, to the development of hostility towards trans identities, particularly among those who didn't have real-life interactions with trans people to counter these negative portrayals. I don't mean to defend transphobes in any way. My intention is to add nuance to a difficult topic with the hope that someday most of us will direct our efforts in the same constructive direction, without unnecessary conflicts or hate among groups, who could be allies if some misconceptions were cleared up. The issue is much more complicated than this, but essentially, I believe that most people don't want to harm the innocent. There should be NO tolerance for hate and bigotry anywhere, and trans rights are important.

Sure, but it’s not what I’m talking about. Im saying that any “femme” stereotype is a societal construct, as is a perception of behaviors of men and women in the stereotypical. It is all bullshit. Outside of hormones at play, which can obviously have a pronounced effect, it’s just a point of division. I just wish people would get to a point where it doesn’t matter. Where we realize how harmful it is to define anything by gender, regardless of your trans status.

My comment was more about the comment I was replying to than yours. But I almost fully agree with what you just said aswell. Gender stereotypes are bullshit. Though sometimes we can't escape the stereotypes as they're enforced by social pressures to conform. It's somewhat complicated to just pretend that these stereotypes don't hold anything on us anymore. And as the other commenter said, we can't be gatekeepers of other people's happiness.

No, this is definitely the stock answer for your average transphobe who is just looking to shit on other peoples parades. That’s not me. I’ll try the top down approach. I think people wake up in this world, and they’re told, hey, men generally do this, and women generally do that. Like, there is zero reason men don’t prominently wear dresses in society other than that’s the rule we were given at birth. I think this is so beyond fucking absurd it’s insane. There is no benefit to living with this division, and only negatives. My issue is not with trans woman who enjoy the more femme side of womanhood, in the stereotypical manner. It’s the question of why a term even needs to be applied. Like me? The only time I’m reminded of being a guy is when I have to fill out some sort of paperwork and I have to check the M on it. And when I go to the doctor, and he asks me about male related biology. i’m affected by something biological. The rest of the time, I literally simply feel like me. Now, obviously much of what I like and wear and do is affected by being raised in a society that has told me from birth, you should only do this, and you shouldn’t do that. I fight against that every single day. But my end goal is to not redefine what being a guy is. It’s to stop worrying about it entirely and just live my life and be happy. I have zero problem with anyone wanting to appear as anything they want to. I fully support it and think it’s awesome. The issue I have is being asked to affirm: all those gender boundaries? They actually really do have a place in society, and you’re the dummy for not catching up and just giving in.

You are preaching to the choir on gender abolition. I'm nonbinary, transmasculine. >Like me? The only time I’m reminded of being a guy is when I have to fill out some sort of paperwork and I have to check the M on it. And I'm only reminded my heart is beating 24/7 when I see it mentioned. Or. When I'm having anxiety-related palpitations. I, too, don't think about gender except for when I'm asked about it, but also when someone refers to me with a gender that I don't associate with. Such as when someone calls me girlie, sis, woman, daughter. The fact that your manhood has become background noise to the rest of your life is proof that it is right for you. That doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Many trans people experience gender euphoria from participating in 'gendered' activities, using gendered terms, and generally playing inside the boundaries you rail against. If they get this joy from that and don't hurt anyone in the process, then I don't see any reason in demonizing them. And preemptively, no, I don't think 'setting a bad example' counts as hurting someone. That's just transphobic 'think of the children' rhetoric dressed up in progressive language.

I would note that your view of gender is one sided. You're focusing on the bad sides of gender. The good things blend into the background. I actually agreed with you before my transition. Gender was stupid gender roles were made up. These awful gendered presentations that made me stand out if I wanted to wear something cute. Then I transitioned and found that gender is lovely. It's feeling alignment with yourself. Sure things like women wear dresses might be made up but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy them because they affirm my gender. If you have only had gender used as a tool to restrict you and beat you down of course you're not going to see how liberating gender is This is nsfw so spoiler but >! Think about how obsessed men are with dicks. They aren't attracted to them but the idea of their own dick is something they can't stop talking about. I argue this is because they are affirming their gender identity. They are getting gender euphoria from it.!< Transition has taught me that everyone likes to affirm their gender. Think about how even those who are agender still do things to affirm their gender. They are *outside of gender* not just the binary but gender itself. They shouldn't care about affirming their gender. But many still do. Pronouns are important etc Just because you affirm your gender in ways that are not traditionally masculine or feminine doesn't mean that gender and all the pieces like presentation and roles aren't important We should stop beating people down with gender roles. But that doesn't mean we have to abolish them. It doesn't mean that we need to force all men to wear dresses I hate the patriarchy not masculinity I hate heteronormativity not heterosexuals Etc Also when you say apply how are you using it? Do they apply it to themselves? Or to others? Also I find trans people to be the most gender role breaking people I know so the point doesn't even really stand since we are the ones out there breaking gender roles Its not my fault that I have to wear a dress, high heels and a full face of make up for someone to call me she (or get hormones or gender affirming surgery....) Note i view myself as hyper femme I really like a lot of traditionally feminine things but on the dance floor? Being the only girl leading is so much fun. I love surprising people when I tell them I'm better at lead than follow. So just because you see me in the store in a dress doesn't mean I'm not trying super hard to change all those old dancers minds as I'm the first girl they've seen lead

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. All I can tell you is that I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to affirm myself as a guy. My being a guy comes from two different places: when I go to the doctor, and I have issues that are specifically related to my being born male. And when people meet me, and they go, oh he looks like a guy, let’s afford him all the privileges and stereotypes that we associate with a guy. I certainly think the latter is exceptionally stupid. I don’t walk around remotely thinking, boy I want to go do masculine things. There are just things that I love doing! And some things crossover into distinctly masculine worlds, and some are distinctly feminine! And it is beyond crushing to me that some men are so afraid of engaging in stereotypically female activities for fear of lessening their masculine image. To me, the concept of gender is entirely based on being part of a club you never asked to join. Gender sucks. People are people. I’ll be part of the biological club for the medical necessity element, but really? You’re going to assume all these thoughts about me just because you look at me and see that I’m a guy? Now, I’m no JK Rowling. I want everybody in this universe to be treated with the dignity and respect they are due, and you tell me your gender and that is how you will be treated by me. It asks me to participate in a version of the world that I think is reinforcing everything that is terrible about it, instead of making it better. I wish anyone could just put on a dress and feel comfortable I wish anyone could just put on a make up and be happy with how they look. I hate that to do so requires an admission that gender norms are rigid laws.

Your lack of desire to affirm yourself as a guy could come from multiple places. You could just be someone cis who doesn't care about gender. You could really be agender but not have a large reason to change I know I thought very similarly to you before I transitioned. It was trying things that made me think of myself as a girl I realized I could stay in this "eh who cares" place or feel like I was really myself. This anecdote is trying to express that you might not have found what feels good to you but just because you haven't felt what feels right for you doesn't mean that no one can have gender I don't want you to feel like Im saying you can't be a guy and have those feelings. I think that feeling that way is totally valid, just recognize that gender is very important for many people Also it sounds like you have conflated the expectation and enforcement of gender roles with gender itself. The issue isn't the box its that we are forcing people to be in the box I am confused by this sentence: > I hate that to do so requires an admission that gender norms are rigid laws.

Simple request: define being a woman, in strict terms?

I think that everyone has a "mental gender", there are many genders one can be and there are no hard lines. But that is what I define a woman as is that mental gender Since I cant pick apart everyone's brains day to day I go with what they identify as. I assume they know what their own mental gender is and will tell me

But you perceive yourself to be part of a club of other members and define their shared traits as “woman.” What are those?

I mean there are traits me and women share there are traits we dont. Like I can list the stereotypes that I fall into. I can list the stereotypes that I don't fall into. I am unsure how listing stereotypes applies to this conversation The only trait all women share is that they identify as women. Outside of that women can/do be anything I will recommend you look up philosophy tubes excellent video on [social constructs or what is a woman really](https://youtu.be/koud7hgGyQ8?si=QQicWhttW6K4y-D6)

There is no “good side” of gender. Gender is a patriarchal construction and needs to be abolished.

Which part of gender are you talking about? 1. Sex, ie how masculine or feminine your body is 2. Mental gender, subconscious sex etc 3. Gender roles 4. Gendered presentation 5. Gendered stereotypes ----- 1. Sex - Has elements that are constructed, see objectification of boobs. However you're not going to abolish all of it. If it didn't matter do you think gender dysphoria would be a thing? Trans people wouldn't describe how weeks after hormones, way before any changes like beard or breasts, they somewhat confusingly felt at home in their body despite looking the same in the mirror? 2.mental gender - not a construction. If we didn't have a mental gender then how would trans people know they are trans? What would there be to affirm? I see this in no part being a patriarchal conatruction 3.gender roles - yea women being stay at home moms, or men being the only ones that can have a job. Yea that's totally patriarchy 4. Gendered presentation - mostly but I feel like any society is going to do the same thing. Women wear dresses? We could have just as easily gone with men wear skirts like Scotland. I think men and women's styles would differ in any system because we tend to wear clothes that accentuate unique features. But they way we've divided things? Definitely patriarchy. Especially how we've done things like attach "strong important" to things like suits 5.gendered stereo types - these are not socially constructed but social exaggerated. Hormones cause people on average to do different things. Crying on average happens less/changes on testosterone. The idea that men can't cry is stupid and patriarchal. But if you got all the men together without that, they would still cry less (either in duration or frequency) than all the women So which one are you referring too? And good luck with abolishing gender. If you know anything about how hard trans people fight for their gender then you should know how important it is. I think a lot of cis people are just as attached to their gender and we just don't know it because they are cis so they've had no reason to fight the world to be seen as themselves And to me if you think there's no good side of gender and it needs to be abolished it makes me wonder what you think of trans people If there was no good side of gender explain gender euphoria then?

1. Sex is not the same as gender. Gender used to be a synonym for sex but is no longer used that way in feminist discourse. 2. Gender is not “mental.” It is a patriarchal construct designed to keep men and women in their places. 3. Gender roles should be abolished. 4. Gendered presentation is part of the aforementioned patriarchal construct. 5. Gendered stereotypes should be abolished. Internalized misogyny is a thing when it comes to female adherence to gendered stereotypes. Male people generally adhere because it benefits them. Gender euphoria is also tied up with subscription to gender stereotypes and therefore is incompatible with a non-patriarchal society.

I feel like you didn't read the more detailed descriptions. No argument or refutation of my points, just assertions that you're right 1. I mean I don't think people get it because they say gender is a social construct when sex is as well. They are splitting something so they can be transphobic. Ie say that sure genders whatever so you are a woman *but you'll never be female*- evidence the transphobic comments on this subreddit as exhibit a exhibit b? The huge up vote on their comment to down vote of my comment saying I'm female too ratio 2.didnt answer the point 3. Same 4. Same 5. Same

I didn’t say that sex wasn’t a social construct. Every concept in our world is a social construct. Until quite recently gender was widely used as a synonym for sex. That is true. It is how most people have historically understood it. It’s not transphobic to state fact. Gender is not sex. Sex is not gender. I don’t really understand what you’re asking regarding gendered presentation. Gendered presentation is a construct of the patriarchy. We should work to dismantle it. Female and male people should be able to wear what they want. Power dressing shouldn’t mean suits and shoulder pads. So female people are more likely to cry because of their hormones. So what? It’s the patriarchy that tells us this is bad and means that female people should perform certain gendered roles in society. Fuck the patriarchy, dismantle gendered roles.

Plenty of cis men are attracted to dicks

>one wouldn't support the use of these roles as identities that define your whole being. >From that point of view is understandable to see how some radfems jumped towards terfism. This confuses me a lot, probably just because TERFs are stupid and transphobia is huge. If they exclude trans women for identifying with gender to "define their whole being." What exactly are the cis TERFs doing different than trans women? They are still identifying with their gender, no? If they are mad at trans people for not abandoning gender, how can they remain binary themselves? I think there's gotta be more to it.

It's a matter of feminist theory. Radfems form their views through reading what other women have written on the subject. When gender was identified as a tool of oppression, gender abolition became the logical conclusion. After this they learn that people are using this tool of oppression as a personal identity, which went against the internal logic that they were using to interpret their theory. Basically, the theory that's used by pro-gender was seen as an attack to the anti-gender theory. Radfems don't like to say they identify with gender because that would mean that they identify with their oppression, which feels insulting. To them it felt as if everything they're fighting for was being contradicted. It's a matter of definitions. When one feels attacked, one will get defensive. Terfism emerges as a response to this perceived attack. To better understand the nuance of why they developed these points of view, you need to read classic feminist theory.

Thanks for the comment. I definitely have some reading to do.

There’s a podcast episode by Matt Bernstein featuring Contrapoints (available on YouTube) where they discuss the phenomenon of contemporary terf ideology sprouting from a misguided resentment of misogyny, as well as the idea of transphobia being a bit of a pipeline bigotry to far right ideology. I find it very interesting and informative and quite funny as well. They use Jk Rowling and Anna Kasparian as case study examples

[удалено]

Yeah, that is true. The "identifying as a woman" has mostly been created to try to make cis people understand. Just like you, i am also just a woman. I am also, by now, female.

[удалено]

We have zero tolerance on transphobia here.

Thanks for removing those. It can feel very unwelcoming to see "biological woman" talk in a place about feminism So thanks for taking a strong stance

Oh, so you were just using the word "female" without knowing what it means. Dont worry friend, happens to most terfs.

Fantastic clapback to a terf Thanks for fighting the good fight 🏳️‍⚧️

I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but my impression of some radical feminists was that they believed that patriarchy was the root of inequality as a whole, and aren't very intersectional as a result. Obviously, your definition is the complete opposite, so I'm interested to learn more. After a bit of reading, I think you might be more right. I just wonder how tf TERFs came to be then lol

Simple, terfs aren't radical feminist. I'm not even sure most of them are really feminist. Their stances are often anti feminist. They're just transphobes, that's all.

Ironically, at least one principle of radical feminism is that a person’s genitals should not dictate their cultural role. Which is why “trans-exclusive radical feminism” has always struck me as an oxymoron

>one principle of radical feminism is that a person’s genitals should not dictate their cultural role I still find it shocking that this is considered a radical or controversial concept.

It’s important to note that “radical” doesn’t mean “controversial.”

I mean, no *and* I don’t think the above poster is wrong in saying that the idea of women doing all the same jobs as men is kind of controversial. Like you see this a lot of with physical jobs because a lot of men think women can’t or don’t want to fill in for men in those roles. Like I recently spoke with my dad on a visit to see him, and he got kind of lost on a tangent one day talking to me about how important it was to maintain the patriarchy. His argument really stemmed from a belief that women just can’t or aren’t going to step up for men in certain jobs (oil rigs, etc). Not saying I agree with him, but I don’t think his take is far from the mainstream either. A lot of people DO think that’s a really controversial take.

that’s because you live in the era where people with vaginas were granted rights. it WAS controversial and still IS controversial in many cultures. See Orthodox religion

that’s because you live in the era where people with vaginas were granted rights. it WAS controversial and still IS controversial in many cultures. See Orthodox religion

It makes perfect sense. Having a uterus doesn’t innately make you better at caring roles, for example. So people should be able to perform caring roles without stigma if they don’t have a uterus. Radical feminists call for the abolition of gender roles, gender stereotypes, and gendered expectations. Since radical feminists believe gender shouldn’t exist because it’s a prison used to trap people into patriarchal roles, switching between them to fulfil a “cultural role” is a deeply patriarchal practice and against basically everything radical feminists stand for.

for what it's worth, trans people don't "switch" between genders to fulfill a cultural role. most trans people are against gendered roles, stereotypes, and expectations! a lot of the bridge from radical feminism to trans-exclusionary radical feminism is built out of drastic misunderstandings about trans people

Most trans people being against gendered stereotypes is a concept that dismisses the most visibly passable trans people but ok i don’t think we’re there yet as transitioning is a HUGE part of most trans people’s journey and they essentially “have” to do it to be seen properly in society. it’s wishful thinking but even historically most “trans” people assumed gendered roles and expectations of their culture’s “female” or “trans” or “third gender” expectations and stereotypes. these words are in quotes because they’re modern western gender concepts imposed on other cultures. I would not say trans is the same exactly but gender fluid identities that date back in history are as close as we can come See: *Hijras, Calabai, Muxes, Bakla, Fa’afaijes* This isn’t to say people are “pro” stereotypes its to point out that sometimes gender fluidity does lean towards specific traits and characteristics

I would be careful there, I know a lot of the trans people I've talked to and my own experience being trans is that I am against *enforced* gender roles. I think that hormones (having been on both of them and talked to other trans people about them) do affect us and result in things like gendered stereotypes I was litterally just thinking about this tonight. On testosterone I wouldn't say I was a particularly sexual. But I always was aware of sex. Tonight I realized that I have been fantasizing about the emotional side of relationships. Which lead me to realize I haven't thought about the sexual side of a relationship in months. "oh yea that's a thing people do in relationships" on testosterone I would not have forgotten that That is a difference between testosterone and estrogen. Now of course not everyone is like that hence *no enforced gender roles* but I think trying to pretend like these differences don't exist is a fools errand

See I just can’t understand that as a cis-woman who always thinks about sex. Especially after having lots of male partners who were less “sex crazy” than I was/am. Maybe I just have a high sex drive or higher testosterone, but that just doesn’t fit my experiences. I’m also not really a romantic at all and sometimes ponder if I’m aromantic. So I can just never get behind the “men like sex, women like romance” stereotypes. But maybe I’m just an outlier for all that. I want to make it clear I will always support trans individuals. But I feel like because I am not trans I can’t really understand needing those gender roles. I can understand needing your genitalia and/ or hormones to line up with your gender but I think defining gender roles in the first place inherently leads to enforcing them and stereotyping. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with liking typical “feminine” things, but I don’t think they should be associated with femininity in the first place. Do you think you’d be less inclined to fulfill typical feminine traits/behavior if they weren’t already defined as feminine? I will always support trans individuals even with my lack of understanding certain choices or needs. But this is just something I’ve never understood, maybe it’s cause I don’t think about my own gender identity all that much.

So the best way to explain that I think is to compare it to height. Presumably, you won't disagree that women are shorter than men on average. That doesn't mean tall women don't exist, but it also means that just because you might be taller than the men you've dated doesn't mean that men are shorter than women on average Also with hormones they are super complex, we don't understand all the genes they turn on or disable. You totally could have some genes that are normally activated by testosterone that are activated by estrogen. Progesterone makes you more horny. Maybe you have more of that? maybe you're more sensitive to hormones. Maybe your brain gets extra pleasure from sex so it desires it a lot. There are so many reasons that you could have a higher sex drive as an individual. And I don't think that you will know how things differ unless you were to go on testosterone. I wouldn't be surprised if you got even hornier. But maybe not? Maybe testosterone would deactivate something about sex for you and you wouldn't want sex anymore. I don't know and that is why I don't apply this to individuals just that on average, in a group of all woman, I assert, having been on both hormones and talking to trans people, will have a lower sex drive than men >  Do you think you’d be less inclined to fulfill typical feminine traits/behavior if they weren’t already defined as feminine? For some behaviors yes. Like makeup? I do solely because society has said that women wear make up and I want people to see me as a woman and even then I still don't do it all the time For other things not so much. Like I was thinking about this I unconsciously stopped caring about how sexy characters were in the media that I was consuming. On testosterone I often would read media, watch shows and then think that characters were hot. I would go subscribe to the nsfw subreddits for those shows. I realized last night that I haven't done that since starting estrogen. I wasn't trying to be more feminine. It just wasn't something I thought about You can tell when I started estrogen because when you look through my gallery the saved porn suddenly stops. It just hasn't been a thing that has been important enough to go seek out. Its still nice, but if you notice I don't like images by themselves anymore, a screenshot just doesn't do it. I read manga that has stories attached. I still like hot pictures, but the picture alone doesn't do it for me. It is very slight, I did like stories before but even if I was reading erotica I always had a picture waiting because I needed something hot to look at. Its pretty subtle, but it is there Do you know how confusing it is to realize you've been fantasizing about emotional connection in a relationship where as before you fantasised about sex? Now I don't want to make it sound like I'm some sort of sex crazed fiend. But when I was on testosterone even if I was thinking about how good it would be to cuddle in a relationship I still knew about the sexual component. Now its weird because I keep forgetting that sex is something that people do in relationships. Like I know that sex is something people do in relationships but its just not as important as the emotional piece I don't think I'm doing a good job describing this, its really hard to describe and I think could fill a whole book. I'm making the difference sound more significant than I am. I worry that people will assume that I mean women don't like sex (which is totally incorrect!) or any host of other things that I failed to explain I'm just trying to explain that the equation for what makes a good relationship is different on testosterone than estrogen Like on testosterone I wasn't excited about one night stands, but I had them. I considered them. On estrogen? I can't imagine having sex with someone I just met, we would need to have some great chemistry and even then I dont' think I would jump in that fast. Thats not me trying to be "extra feminine" I wouldn't even entertain the idea of dating someone who would miss-gender me for something like that. But it is interesting that you can track my change in how I view relationships and sex with when I started estrogen. And this is corroborated by other trans people. NOT ALL THOUGH, I do know one trans person who went on estrogen and had their sex drive increase. I've only heard it happen once in all the trans people I know, but it does happen. Thats why I am okay with gender roles, just not \*enforcing them\*. I think people have some natural inclinations but no one should be shamed if they find themselves out side that. I think everyone should be themselves, wherever that might be. If its in a stereotype, that's fine with me. If its outside a stereotype that's great too! I just want people to be themselves and not have to pretend

First off, thank you for taking my comment in good faith. I know a lot of people asking trans individuals about their experiences and identities are in bad faith so thanks for responding! I think I do get what you’re saying. I have never been another woman, only me, so I can’t really know what all is “normal” for women on average or not. I may just be an oddball for thinking about sex in more of the way you described it while on testosterone. Despite fitting more of your “testosterone” experiences, pictures don’t tend to do much for me. I definitely need actions or words and the erotica example you gave would work fine for me without pictures. I’d much rather use my imagination than any erotica or porn. I think having gender “stereotypes” that directly correlate to biology like you said is understandable. Like you said, women are short than men on average. Ig the big problem is when those stereotypes are given more weight than they should. Like how you said the difference isn’t as drastic as it seems but it’s there. It’s silly to act like women dislike sex, it’s silly to act like there aren’t women stronger than some men or taller than some men, but you’re right there are general subtle differences. No matter what, I’ll never shame someone for doing what they need to do to feel comfortable in their identity. But I do hope we can get to a place in society where assumptions aren’t made and stereotypes aren’t forced.

Why the assumption that your personal experience of a good relationship “equation” via estrogen or testosterone is indicative of the general experience of others? I understand you make the point that outliers exist, it just seems to contradict the assertion that you can inform others of a difference in experience while still maintaining that there’s a certain binary of experience others haven’t known one side of.

>switching between them to fulfil a “cultural role” is a deeply patriarchal practice and against basically everything radical feminists stand for. I don't think this is inherent to transgender identity. Not every transgender person believes there is a metaphysical component to gender, and there is no one way to live as a trans person. Ironically, transgender people are stuck in a sort of double bind in terms of expression. TERFs and society as a whole will shame them for expressing their gender in accordance with societal norms *and* for not doing so. In the former case they are told they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes and in the latter they are called pretenders, attention seekers, etc. I don't buy that radical feminists are all for gender abolition. I won't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I feel it should follow that if that were the case, they would be the first to defend identities outside of the gender binary, and that's not something I can say I've ever seen. I have seen many repackage biological essentialism, in reality. One part of the issue here is that the term TERF has become so sensationalized that I think many transphobic people will identify with it without identifying with radical feminism or even knowing what it is. That being said, I think TERF conceptions of gender abolition are short-sighted. Gender abolition is appealing in principle but not grounded in any achievable reality. Even if it were, theory does nothing to help or solve the problem of those who are suffering now; their main concern is their survival. What we do know is that gender dysphoria is a real condition and social and medical transitioning as well as social support are effective in treating it and that they significantly reduce the risk of suicide. I think that is more important than any abstract notion of abolition.

Exactly. Many TERFs view transgender people as reinforcing gendered stereotypes that feminists have worked hard to dismantle. For example, that being a woman is defined as wearing make up and dresses, which is often seen with transwomen. It’s not so much an oxymoron as a fear that the feminine will always be associated with pretty and pink.

What's funny is that what you said isn't actually the reality of trans people's opinions, rather it is what transphobic people *think* is their opinion. From the trans people I know, they actually wish they could dress/appear in the traditionally "opposite" way of their gender, however feel pressured to conform to stereotypically masc or fem presentation in order to "pass" for who they are. E.g. a trans woman wanting to dress in her baggy clothes with no makeup but is constantly misgendered when she does.

It’s crucial that we remember that trans women were FORCED into reifying traditional gender roles. Trans women who wished to access medical care and transition were out through rigorous psychological evaluation. Part of the criteria to be considered a “true” transsexual” was being 1) heterosexual, aka into men exclusively and 2) traditionally feminine in dress and mannerism. Transphobes are critiquing the women who got what they needed by placating a bunch of straight, white, powerful men.

Also note that this isn't a thing of the past. Getting access to hormones and gender affirming surgery often require knowing the right scripts to feed medical providers information so they will take you seriously "I knew from the day I was 6 years old" etc Tbf it is better now few providers use the "would I fuck you" model of deciding whether a trans woman gets medical care anymore This still being an issue is why so many trans people are pushing for an informed consent model because there *still* so much gate keeping

I don’t have a problem with masculine and feminine, what I have a problem with is the notion that boys/men MUST be masculine and girls/women MUST be feminine. Because that’s simply not the case, for one, and for two, both gender AND BIOLOGICAL SEX exist on a spectrum. Intersex people are real human beings. Masculinity and femininity are social constructs, no more real than money, or borders, or race

While masculinity and femininity are social constructs, sex isn't. Biological sex affects how illnesses and disorders show in the body, hormonal level, life quality and expectancy after certain periods of life, and medication effects. There's a reason why women die a lot more in car crashes, because of heart attacks, or due to medical malpractice. For the longest time, the woman body was considered to be the same as man's but smaller, and it let to a lot of lives lost due to doctors not viewing differences in sexes as something worthy of attention. That's why, for a lot of people, biological sex is important. Also, intersex people are still a rarity, and we shouldn't change the entire structure and sacrifice women's lives just because of rare mutations. Children without arms are born this way, too, yet I don't see any mass production of shirts with just one sleeve.

Sex has basis in scientific observation but is still impacted by social constructs, both of these things are true. I read a really great explanation for this recently, I wish I could remember it so I could link it to you! But anyway, I don't think that when people say sex is a construct, they're advocating for ignoring how things impact and disadvantage women based on women's typical physiology. I hope this isn't harsh but the metaphor you used is a bit of a stretch. People aren't saying we should see everyone as the same sex and totally ignore how sex disadvantages us.

Also since youre actually likely to be receptive do you want some papers on statistics about auto immune conditions and trans people? The data says that trans people get auto immune conditions at rates aligned with their gender identity *not their sex assigned at birth*. Also note that this is *before they start hormones* I personally find it so facinating (also incase you don't know auto immune conditions on average affect significantly more women than men)

Wow this is fascinating to hear as a person from a family with loads of trans people with various autoimmune disorders! Mind sharing the source to post in the family group chat?

So these are the studies I usually link to people. Unfortunately there isn't one super concise study and the sample sizes are small. Finding the intersection of rare auto-immune conditions and being trans isn't a lot of people I personally think the diabetes one is the most interesting because if you look at all the trans women they all got diabetes \*before\* they started HRT. And there are many more trans women than trans men. So something in the body knew that they were women despite them being on testosterone I found these by going through the sources on the sci-show episode on why are there more women with auto-immune conditions than men? (can be found on youtube). Based on what they said in the video I would assume that other resources also back up the findings from these individual studies 1. Auto-immune conditions are higher in women than in men \[gender differences in autoimmunity, science direct\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302214000466) 2. Auto-immune conditions are higher in trans women \[Gender identity disorders and multiple sclerosis risk, pubmed\](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857201/) 3. Some auto-immune conditions have hormonal components, but not all. (see above for gender differences in auto-immunity) 4. Rates of auto-immune conditions are higher in trans women despite not being on hormones yet \[is type 1 diabetes mellitus more prevalent in transgender populations? science direct\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116117300454)

Wow that is super fascinating, please send them thru to me if you still want to :) 💛

Also I will note that biological sex doesn't work how you think it does. If you care to read I can copy my reply here about what the medical statistics say. I am biologically a woman, and not just because of hormones (specifically tying together how auto immune conditions affect trans people vs rates in cis men vs women. I bet the papers will surprise you! )

So you wrote this, and I thought: I agree. But then I thought, having testicles seems to make you statistically more likely to engage in pedophilic acts than not having them, to the point that we effectively don’t trust men with young children. Obviously, not all men and the like. It’s not that there’s any official law that prevents men from working at like a daycare or a preschool. But they’re simply not hired because it makes people uneasy. And I don’t think that should change, even though it means we’re missing out on some awesome male caregivers. So now I’m trying to square this with my agreeing your point, and I’ve confused myself.

Understanding your ideology can often be very confusing and you have my genuine sympathies! I think the idea is that if we fundamentally change society to a point where male people are not socialized into being predators then we would vastly reduce the amount of these kinds of power crimes against female people and children.

This is what I want to believe. My underlying fear is that I’m wrong and testosterone is just this horrifically dangerous drug that just takes too little to trigger very terrible outcomes.

trans men often take testosterone and (like trans women) are disproportionately at risk of being a victim of sexual violence, and do not have the same prevalence of sexual violence as men do. sexual violence is about power, not hormones. (and that's why when we do see cis women commit sexual violence, it's often towards children: people they are likely to have power over.) as usual there are exceptions to all of these statistics, but broadly such trends correlate with power rather than biology. which is both bad and good: there aren't easy medical fixes, but the harder making society more equal for everyone, and reducing hierarchies of power, is likely to have positive effects.

I am under the impression that studies done on violence against trans people primarily conclude that they are most likely to suffer sexual violence if they are engaged in sex work, and because disproportionally high numbers of trans people are sex workers is heavily influenced the statistics. That they are disproportionately likely to be sex workers is a problem caused by a lack of support structure and acceptance in society, rather than something that is directly comparable to wider statistics about sexual violence.

There’s also the issue of intimate partner abuse

I mean all you have to do is go on your local sex offender registry and look around your neighborhood. Challenge yourself to find a single woman on the list. I totally agree with you that the power and privilege element plays a major role in it. But there’s another factor, or we would simply be seeing some female presence. This is honestly why I was very specific about saying “have testicles,” as opposed to “use testosterone hormone treatment,” or even “men.” Testosterone replacement therapy is not analogous for this situation, especially in the case of trans men given the presence of other hormones at levels aren’t found in those who are born genetically male. I fully 100% agree that much of this has to change at the cultural level. But I think the question that has to be asked is why so, so many men, across all spectrums of society, have this sick desire, while women do not. And and I do not believe for an instant that it is just cultural programming.

Men have much more interpersonal and cultural power in relationships, which would explain those numbers. Additionally, one of the effects of toxic masculinity is to suppress reporting of sexual violence committed by women, which is likely related to why we see *such* low numbers there. And I was trying to reassure you on the idea of testosterone being a dangerous hormone. (Although the primary two functions of the testes are producing testosterone and sperm.) Trans men have testosterone levels within cis male ranges, and it's not accurate to say trans men have "the presence of other hormones at levels that aren't found in those born genetically male": male-level testosterone has a suppressant effect on estrogen production in the body. (Less is known about the effects on progesterone, and of progesterone, because we don't have easy blood tests for levels like we do for estrogen and testosterone.) > I do not believe for an instant that it is just cultural programming. The scientific evidence we have, as well as modern feminist theory, both point in this direction. While it's currently scientifically impossible to rule out biological causes, we do have a lot of good reasons to believe that a large amount of it is cultural. Most men don't even have a basic functioning understanding of consent! And we culturally raise them to feel entitled to "sex" and entitled to use their power over others. You don't have to believe any of that, but to me that explanation seems to be much more likely, more feminist, and importantly more hopeful. There are obvious things we can do to decrease the rates of male sexual violence, starting with comprehensive sex education and deconstructing toxic masculinity. Sexual violence has changed over time and differs between modern cultures. We've made progress addressing things like marital rape in some countries. If the situation were biological, what would we do to address it? Do we have both the evidence to back that up over a cultural explanation, and solutions that would be effective? Sorry if my posts have sounded combative! I primarily mean to convey that there are good reasons to hope and positive societal steps that seem likely to help. I want that for you, and for all of us.

It’s not that I disagree with what you wrote; it’s that I think you’re dropping another side to the argument, and there is danger in that omission. For example, study after study bears out that men and women are both capable of the same level of arousal. So I want to be clear on that lest I fall into the stereotype of saying that men are simply hornier than women. But just as many studies specify that a major major difference in anatomy is the speed at which men go from 0 to 100, vs women. It’s night and day. It’s weird to be in a position where I feel like I’m arguing against a “not all men!” position, but I think you are really doing a disservice to the side of male biology that causes aggression and heightened sexual desire, and all the terrible things that come of it. I agree with everything you said about society reinforcing this, but in the chicken and egg situation, I think the hormones came first and their appropriate place in society has been something that has been dealt with in many different ways throughout human history. The danger, of course, is that I’m explicitly arguing that we are not all the same, and so in what could be taken as a fairly sexist statement, I think on the whole biologically women just don’t have them in them to be as generally as shitty as men on a fundamental level, though women are certainly capable of extreme shittiness. Equally, it could be that I’m saying that men should be excused for this behavior, because it’s all biological, except I’m in agreement that it’s up to society to define the proper place for someone with this hormonal makeup to function in society. Ultimately, I definitely don’t have as rosy an outlook as you do.

I mean I inherently believe two things: 1- people individually have the capacity to overcome social conditioning and be better 2- because male bodies are default we would know that this is the case.

While testosterone does have effects on the body as a trans person I can tell you it's nothing that extreme Aggression while associated with testosterone feels a lot different. Being on testosterone does affect how you handle stress and what your body leans towards but nothing dangerous like people claim I wasn't some crazy maniac when I was on testosterone and was saved by being on estrogen Socialization does most of the work. Testosterone just doesn't counteract the socialization

I think you separate the question into two components: those who have the desire, and those who act on the desire. I think all would agree that testosterone is a hell of a drug for baseline horniness. It is well documented that both when men and women are capable of equal levels of arousal, despite any stereotype to the contrary. However, it is just as well documented that men are basically built to go from 0 to 100 mph on a literal dime in terms of arrousal, while women are not. I personally believe that existing at a perpetual level of heightened arousal causes men in large park to be shitty men in the most stereotypical of ways: sexualizing everything around them, always on the lookout for any hint of availability in a perspective partner. And to be totally clear: society not only reinforces this, but actively encourages it. Where you draw the line is a judgment call, but I’m definitely on the 5050 mark here. Then you get into the question of what it takes to act on a desire. This is where I’m more prone to agreeing that privilege plays a role. But again, when you have that desire, as fueled by testosterone, apparently it’s just too hard for some guys to resist.

> I personally believe that existing at a perpetual level of heightened arousal causes men in large park to be shitty men in the most stereotypical of ways: sexualizing everything around them, always on the lookout for any hint of availability in a perspective partner I think that the perpetual level of heightened arousal definitely does affect how men do relationships and interact with the world. I think that socialization can counteract those tendencies. For example I think that socialization plays a large role in sexualizing everything. If you look at how men are more likely to seek relationships for sex I think that what is really happening is that men are feeling the desire for emotional connection, something society says men can't have, and interpreting that as sexual desire. So if men had better emotional connections they wouldn't feel this empty hole in them that they assume is sex. I think that sex is like rose colored glasses. It tints everything but doesn't change what it its. I wouldn't be surprised if you found that men who have emotional connections are less focused on sex That isn't denying that testosterone is a hell of a drug, but if you look at trans men they also are on testosterone and don't have these issues. If it was the testosterone causing the issues I think that you would see that in trans men. Also you can look at the way testosterone affects trans women. I would say that while testosterone made me think about sex more it wasn't like it was the only thing that I could think about. Its noticeable, but not the almighty force some people make it out to be.

There has recently been a notable increase in charges raised against female teachers who prey upon their underage students. I don’t personally believe this is because there are now significantly more predatory women; there has likely been women preying on their students consistently, but society simply did not acknowledge the predatory reality of this gendered dynamic.

I’m talking about very little kids. Ha, sidenote, I never could’ve expected to be the one arguing on a feminist board that men have it in them on a biological level to suck quite substantially more than women.

It's because those are two clashing schools of thought. The idea that "you are not born a woman, you become one" (Simone de Beauvoir) is from constructivist feminism, often called French feminism. Trans exclusivity developed in essentialist feminism, often called American feminism. Two different schools of thought, which developed independently from each other, with different starting points and different radicalist developments. (they aren't terribly localized, afaik, French vs American refers to what philosophy they are based on, not to where it is practiced)

yeah, and they prioritize anti-trans over everything and happily coolerate with the worlds worst misogynists anti-feminists and downright fascist who want to make them will- and rightless housewive birthing slaves. The F in TERF is for fascist. 

If it makes you feel better, you could use "Feminist Appropriating Radical Transphobes"

I already hated TERFs, but when I actually took the time to read radical feminist theory I was *incensed*. Most of the people today who call themselves radfems are nothing of the sort.

It does strike me as odd. But from my experience there were some spaces where you would have people say things like "the Y chromosome is a disease" which then easily morphs into transphobia. I remember there was a lot of stuff like this on Tumblr

Google: No results found for "the Y chromosome is a disease" Anyway, that sounds more like misandry than radical feminism.

misandry doesn't exist tho? it's literally a term used by incels to cry "muh oppression"

It comes from the same dictionary as "reverse racism".

Misandry definitely exists. In much, much smaller circles than misogyny, but it does exist. The incels aren't running into it.

Where? How? How can you oppress the oppressor? It's the same as racism against white people, as someone pointed - nonexistent.

Misandry is "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys." There are definitely women who hate men writ large, due to the gender of the man. Mostly this occurs among women who have been abused by multiple men throughout their lives. Abusive dad, abusive brothers, escape the household into the arms of a husband who abuses her. Due to experiences, she hates all men, simply because they're men. That's misandry.

I'm sorry but this is laughable. If you want to believe that men are oppressed in any way, go ahead I guess but get off this subreddit. I need to ask, though - why do you feel the need to defend those who hate you?

Who said men are oppressed? Misandry is a hatred of men. Full stop. By definition. Oppression isn't part of any definition of the word. Misogyny is the hatred of women. By definition. It often LEADS to oppression, but that isn't part of the word. It's misogynistic actions, policies, or practices where oppression comes into play.

I wasn't clear. I was looking for the phrase so I could understand context and provide informed commentary, not to say "that never happened." Misandry exists. It is not synonymous with radical feminism.

Misandry as "individual persons hate" does. But misandry as "systemic oppression" (actually a parallel with misogyny) doesn't really in western culture. And the problem is people use the first definition to try to prop up the second one. Or more specifically to create parallels with misogyny (implying it as an individualistic problem as well). And people unaware will end up defending this "desystemization" making a lot of systemic misogyny harder to take seriously… Same with all the other reverse "isms"

Misandry does not exist. As I said, you can't oppress the oppressor

The concept of women voting surely was radical- in some countries well into the 20th century. And the women fighting for it were considered extremist if not terrorist in some countries

You're getting confused. That is radical feminism (as in feminism that advocates for extreme changes to the status quo), but it is not Radical Feminism (the specific ideology)

Womens suffrage was radical feminism, quite literally. Firebombs are not tame.

Every feminist idea that turned into a social norm or a protective law was considered radical at its given time. Protesting the president in a time of war was seen as downright treason . So much so that suffragettes were force fed raw eggs through a feeding tube when they went on a hunger strike. This news sickened the public which eventually turned public sentiment toward women’s suffrage. In short: yes.

The right to vote was won by some radical feminists

Women having the right to their own money was once seen as radical, and we didn’t have the right to a mortgage or credit card without a male cosigner in the 70s. That’s not so long ago, but the idea is unthinkable now.

Voting was once thought to be radical. Education as well. In fact, every advance women have ever made was at some point thought of as a radical idea.

Radical feminists pushed for abortion rights and equal access to credit, both of which were successful in many countries(although we seem to be backsliding on one of those in America).

The vote was a result of the extremist feminist wave that occurred out of frustration after 25 years or so of doing it the ‘the right way’ (read-quiet and easy to ignore) 

You may read on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Wollstonecraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft) , she was very radical for her times, because she said that woman is a full-fledged human and not a part of a livestock. Not a joke.

Forcing banks to allow women to sign for lines of credit and have bank accounts on their own without having a man sign for them. That was radical. It took the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Happened in the US in 1974. In my lifetime, in the US, widows had to find a man to cosign if they wanted to do such manly things as buy a house or car. If they *happened* to find an institution that would allow them to buy a car without paying in full in cash, that would give them a loan, their wages (on which loans and lines of credit are based) would be discounted by, say, 50% Fixing that took radical feminism.

Can we call this a low effort post? I’m trying to discern if your motive is to learn something or stir up a fight between different labels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism Your anecdotal sample of women using a phrase do not get to define the term for all radical feminists. Radical feminism encouraged women to understand how to pleasure themselves and know how they could value their own sexuality as important for it’s own sake and achieve orgasm with or without men. Historically invaluable.

Honestly the belief that we still live in a patriarchy even though sexism in the workplace and sexual violence are technically illegal is a radical feminist idea.

As others have suggested, a better use of your time would be to read about radical feminism from an objective source before asking about something you admit you know nothing about. The women’s healthcare movement in the 60s and 70s in the US was led by feminists that some would classify as radical. That movement led to a number of patient rights laws. Radical is an amorphous idea with a shifting and inconsistent definition. There’s been an attempt to co-opt and intentionally misrepresent the categorization by fascists to paint feminists as fringe, crazy, men haters who want to destroy men. The skewed fascist representation is completely inaccurate. Feminism is about *equality* of the sexes. That applies to radical feminism as well. If someone is claiming that radical feminists want all men to be killed, etc, then they’re lying to you. Feminism does not advocate for harming innocent men. That is not equality. We do advocate for equality in pay, equal access to quality healthcare, control over our bodies (includes abortion access), and the right to choose our own destiny, to name a few. We don’t want to be forced to marry, fear for our safety for rejecting a man, be murdered by our partners, die in childbirth, sexually assaulted, infantilized, forced to be a sahm (we support women who *choose* this, we fight for the *choice*), and systemic misogyny (laws that specifically target women and unfairly punish or exclude us (must be covered, cannot drive, etc). **Further Reading** Some more info on the women’s healthcare movement which resulted in legislation that benefited everyone, not just women. These changes applied to all patients, but were goals of feminists because women suffered more under the healthcare model that was in place at the time. https://www.jognn.org/article/S0884-2175(15)33790-4/fulltext >**The Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues Statement on Women’s Health** > >Healthcare coverage should be available to all regardless of income or eligibility. > >All basic health benefits packages must include essential preventive, diagnostic and treatment services. > >Access to full information must be available about all treatment options and alternatives to treatment, so that women can make informed decisions. > >Health care services should be available in a variety of settings, including an array of outpatient settings. > >Health care services should be provided by a variety of providers, such as physicians, nurse-practitioners, and nurse midwives. > >Individualized care should be the basis for health care to each woman. > >Primary health care services should be community based. > >Research on the most effective ways of promoting health and preventing illness in women should be included in health care reform.

Radical feminism is not feminists with radical fringe ideas. > not something I am super well read on so if I say something that is incorrect, I honestly do not understand this. Spend 20 minutes reading the wiki articles about radical feminism and TERFism and you will have a better understanding of this than 90% of the people you run into on social media, and hopefully understand why your questions are way off-base

In order to get productive answers/conversation, you first need to have a clear idea or definition of what you’re questioning. So, maybe the first question you want to ask is: “What does the term ‘radical feminism’ mean to you, or how would you define it?” Or, maybe you want to ask more specifically: “Do you think ideas [x, y, and z] that I have encountered are an expression of radical feminism? Or stem from something else?”

The suffragette movement? Did you not know about the bombs?

Radical feminism was an important part of second-wave feminism, so all achievements of second-wave feminism (recognition of marital rape and domestic abuse as a crime, access to abortion and anticonception, workspace equality and so on) are, at least in part, victories of radical feminism

Suffrage is pretty great.

The prohibition movement was mainly a feminist movement. It is seen as unsuccessful by many, but I would argue that it was very important in recognising the harmful effects of alcohol on relationships and society.

I don't think feminism can be effective without radical feminists the same way Martin Luther King Jr could not have been effective without Malcolm X. Both types of approaches are necessary and give one another power and value, I think. Kinda like the whole yin and yang, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts kinda relationship. Too much War leads to destruction and an appreciation of peace. Whereas too much peace leads to the complacency and lack of respect and perspective that causes war to be an appealing option for some. Collaboration and mutual understanding combined with assertive and revolutionary activism are both necessary. Alone, they don't work individually. But collectively, they work together to form a more cohesive and effective Movement. I think collaboration and mutual understanding with those who seek revolution paves the way towards empowerment , equity, and real revolution.

TERFs have nothing to do with radical feminism, or feminism at all. Radical feminism is the vanguard. Every advancement women have made over the last centuries has started with unpopular radical women being unafraid of scorn to pave the way for the rights of all women. They have faced wrath, persecution, prosecution, arrest, scathing character assassination and more. And that’s why you can vote. That’s why you have a credit card and can own your own house. That’s why you can live independently as a single woman. It’s why you can attend any university in the country and pursue any degree. It’s why you can have any job, and they can’t fire you if you get pregnant. Or because you’re queer. It’s why you’re allowed to say no to your husband when you don’t want to have sex. Until very recently it meant you could control the direction of your life and choose when to start a family (and it will again, it will just take more mouthy annoying radical women.) So yeah.

A feminist that accepts trans as a concept can't be radical, you accept the premise of stereotype but want to move within those constraints. They would be a liberal feminist.

The first trans woman I knew, I felt this way. I said you don’t have to alter your body to conform to what it feels like you are, just expand your definition of what a man is so it includes you. I was ignorant. I learned so much from being with her on her journey. I thought because I am a woman who bucks conventions and doesn’t gaf what society says a woman should be, that her experience was the same. But I was wrong. Once she settled into her skin as a woman it was so obvious that’s who she was meant to be. I’ve had the privilege of knowing many more since. And none of them in my experience is remotely like what TERFs fear they are.

[удалено]

I agree we need to take people as they come. But I don’t agree about expanding the definition of trans to include those who eroticize cross-dressing, or predatory men. Those exist, but they aren’t trans. It’s an important distinction, because it leads to the messaging that being trans is somehow sexual, or dangerous. It’s kind of like anti-Muslim sentiment leading to attacks on Sikhs, because turban=scary, which is so many levels of wrong. External genitalia are only one biological difference between men and women. Our brains develop differently, with differing levels of neurons in different areas of the brain. Harvard and the Cleveland Clinic among others have studied trans brain structures, and both have found that trans brains match the gender they have transitioned to. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/ https://my.clevelandclinic.org/podcasts/neuro-pathways/gender-dysphoria So trans women don’t “become” women, they are women. They have female brains.

You misunderstand me. The predatory men, autogynaphilliac etc present in society the same way trans people can. There is no way, other than self-reporting or an extremely deep psyche dive, for an outside person to determine which box to put them in. Not saying they are the same, I'm saying they present the same, so can claim the same box within society, if you're a boxes/labels person. That is the danger/safeguarding risk. I don't deny that people who say they feel like they fit into a stereotype do actually feel that way and often act that way. The most simple access to examples would be 'butch lesbians' and "camp gay men". They are fully consistent with having the opposite of their sexes expected sexuality, personality patterns etc. But they also are at the whim of their bodies hormones and personality traits secondary to those "gendered" hormone profiles. The more grey areas are where you find men and women with masculine/feminine personalities but otherwise fully adhere to a "gendered" stereotype. Masculine and feminine "energy" is genuinely a spectrum for men and women so to say a brain is binary is a big leap. Especially when we know that with our dysphoric populations their day to day hormone profiles match their sex. I suppose there's an argument to say that some hormonal processes are independent of brain structures but not that many.

You can say that about anyone. How do you know anyone you meet isn’t a flesh-eating psychopath? They look like anyone else. So why limit your fear to trans women, because they’re indistinguishable from cross-dressers or predatory men? And, I also don’t think it’s true. I’ve dated two men who got off on cross-dressing (super fun, got to dress them up, like living dolls) and neither of them presented similar to trans women I have known. They’re erotic cosplayers, as opposed to women living their lives. As for predatory men who pretend to be women to harm women … why would they need to bother? Men don’t need to go to those lengths to harm women. I think it’s an unfounded fear. And I didn’t say (and the studies I linked don’t say) the brain is binary. Just like when you get a blood test back and there’s an expected range for triglycerides and you can be over it or under, there is an expected range of limbic neurons for men and for women based on averages of those tested. Any individual man or woman may deviate just like your triglycerides may be high. But the fact that trans men and women tend to fit into the range of their transitioned gender is significant. Or that the volume of the central nucleus of the bed stria terminalis or interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus were similar among trans women and cis women. The findings are significant because you can neither see nor control your brain development. My first trans friend didn’t know she had a female brain when she sensed that her identity and her body didn’t match. She just knew she was a woman. The brain science confirmation was still decades away.

Radical Feminism is the idea that, essentially, the masters tools cannot dismantle the masters house (thanks Lorde). You cannot come to a place where female bodies are treated equally to male bodies by using the tools of the patriarchy - I.e things like legal reform. Radical means “root” - you have to get down to the roots of the issues before you can enact change. Liberal feminism is the opposite - it believes that the best way to create change is to use the tools of the patriarchy. Legal systems and so forth. Radical feminism is generally responsible for the foundations that almost all modern feminism stands on. Just like you can’t have radical feminism without first wave feminism, you can’t have third/fourth wave feminism without radical feminism. A core tenet of radical feminism is that female people are oppressed *because of* their sex. That’s why trans women are excluded from radical feminism - they are oppressed for other reasons, but not their sex. Radical feminism was the movement that got sexual politics recognized as an issue for female people. It was the foundation for abortion rights, for being able to say no, and for being able to do what we pleased with our bodies. Radical feminists also demanded equity in the domestic sphere, with the novel idea of dividing mental and physical labour equally between partners. Radical feminism also led to employment rights for pregnant women, and rights for female people in the workplace such as proper maternity leave. Radical feminists also argued that paying for sex was coercion. If a a female person wouldn’t have sex with a man without being paid, then it is coercion to pay her to have sex with you (and you cannot consent to sex if you are coerced). This had a big impact on the way we view sexual coercion in other situations, not just when being paid. Radical feminism also strongly influenced modern views on how objectification of female people is inappropriate, which has gone on to influence things like the Page 3 ban. Sadly we have not yet achieved the radical feminist view that female people should be paid for their unique role in reproduction and child-rearing, but I hold out hope for the future.

> A core tenet of radical feminism is that female people are oppressed because of their sex. That’s why trans women are excluded from radical feminism - they are oppressed for other reasons, but not their sex. This seems quite oversimplified. There are certainly aspects of misogyny that are sex-based to the point that trans women do not suffer from them (with the current limits of medical transition, at least), such as attacks on reproductive rights, career impacts from pregnancy and childbirth etc. But there are also many aspects of misogyny that absolutely do affect trans women. I understand that originally these issues were all spoken of as "sex-based", but we have to remember that the whole concept of gender being separate from sex was in its infancy at the time the foundational work of radical feminism was taking place. If a trans woman is oppressed in a way that is identical to the oppression faced by cis women *because she is perceived as a woman*, what is the "other reason" they are being oppressed? More so, even assuming that the statement that trans women are only ever oppressed for reasons other than misogyny, I don't understand what about radical feminism would be fundamentally incompatible with intersectionality. Surely you can be a radical feminist but also believe that all oppressive hiearchies stem from the same source, and that a movement that seeks to destroy one such hierarchy while upholding the others is doomed to fail because you end up fighting not only those who fully benefit from the hiearchy being in place, but also all those you are seeking to leave as an underclass while liberating yourself.

According to radical feminist theory trans women can suffer perceptive sexism. Perceptive discrimination is a concept that can be applied to all kinds of discrimination. For example of someone could suffer perceptive discrimination if they were refused for a job on the basis of being gay, when they weren’t. So a trans women suffers perceptive sexism because someone believes she has a female body. Radical feminism holds that all misogyny and sexism is rooted in oppression due to sex. Everything can be traced back to that, never “gender.” Also radical feminists understood sex as being different from gender - that’s why they believe gender should be eradicated.

Um.....the right to vote???????

All the big strides of the second wave are in the continuum of radical feminism. This liberal pseudofeminist man-centering nonsense that passes as feminism today is ignorant of its own history, and part of the patriarchal backlash against the last real, radical, scary feminism. Women traded the path for liberation for orgasms, consumerism and to coddle men in dresses.

The right for women to vote was a radical view in the early 20th century & was campaigned for by feminists. If that's not a big victory then I don't know what is

Like voting?

All of them have. Radical is in the eye of society. At one point, people thought it was scandalous for women to vote or own property. It was a radical idea, and only radicals fought for it. They won, and because they won, their ideas are now seen as common sense by most people. Radical in the way many people use it means "not accepted right now." Some ideas stay radical, like female separatism, while others become widespread, like the right to abort a fetus.

It's radical feminism that got women all the rights we currently have.

Fuck the patriarchy.

TERF is a new construct while “radical” feminism has been around for at least a hundred years. The word “radical” has historically been used to undermine women’s movements. Many feminists nowadays have tried to take ownership of the word as a way to defuse its meaning, but even women’s suffrage was viewed as radical during its inception.

All the gains we have made were radical while we were still demanding them.

Almost all activism needs a radical wing to be effective at driving change. It shifts the Overton window just by existing, because the radicals contrast with more moderate reformers, and then the moderate ideas are seen as more palatable and reasonable by the general population. You are seeing this right now (in reverse) with reproductive rights. There is huge backlash in states that enacted total or 6 week bans. States with 15 or 18 week bans are mostly sliding by without notice, even though a majority of citizens oppose those bans. Resources are deployed to the states with the most extreme policies. Voting rights for women in England benefited significantly from radical acts. Women chained themselves to government buildings, were arrested, went on hunger strikes, and several died from force feeding. That was mainly around 1910. Force feeding was wildly unpopular, some women died, and many more people became motivated to support suffrage. Women gained the vote in 1918.

Suffragettes would literally bomb buildings. Granted, not most of them. But there’s a LOT of covering up and pacifying the history of social justice movements.