Sorry for such a break y’all. I’ve been focusing a lot on Twitter lately, just because without a laptop Tumblr is a little more difficult to churn out quality content (the mobile app is alright, but not perfect by any means).
I’ll try to balance it out a bit more though, because I really enjoy both! How’s everyone doing? Fantastically, I hope.
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) are quick to make fact assertions about the term, TERF. According to TERFs, the term is a slur and use of the term makes one a misogynist.…[But] within feminist and trans discourse, the term refers to a very specific type of person who wraps anti-trans bigotry in the language of feminism. A hallmark of TERF discourse is that it tends to sound a lot like the anti-trans rhetoric coming out of extreme right-wing groups.…[T]he following interview I did with one of the cisgender feminists who are responsible for popularizing TERF as a feminist concept.Defining TERF: Interviewing the Feminist Who Popularized It
Cristan Williams: From what I can see, yours is the earliest use. The term has become fairly common in trans discourse.
TigTog: Lauredhel and I are pretty sure that we started using trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) activists as a descriptive term in our own chats a while before I used it in that post.
C: TERFs have made some assertions about your lexical contribution to feminist discourse. For instance: “TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory.”
T: It was not meant to be insulting. It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. I notice that since TERF has gone out into the wild, many people seem to usetrans-exclusive rather than trans-exclusionary or trans-excluding, and I think that leads to some exploitable ambiguity. It is possible to interpret trans-exclusive as “exclusively talks about trans* issues” (which could quite rightly be considered a slam on the rest of their feminism), while trans-exclusionary is more specific that their exclusion of trans* voices and bodies from being considered women/feminists is the point.
C: I find it interesting that this term originates in the feminist community and was popularized by a cisgender woman. I think the assumption has been that a trans person had coined the term in the last year or so. Was there a specific incident – or a culmination of incidents – that lead you to advocate for the use of this term?
T: We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other radfems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral, because we had several years of history of engaging productively/substantively with non-TERF radfems, and then suddenly TERF comments/posts seemed to be erupting in RadFem spaces where they threadjacked dozens of discussions, and there was a great deal of general frustration about that. It is possible that one of us picked it or something similar up from an IRC discussion elsewhere and then we both adopted/adapted it for ourselves, perhaps transforming it from some other initialism into an acronym, because we both appreciate the utility of acronyms in simplifying discourse.
C: You seemed to take personal offense over the colonization of the RadFem identity by an anti-trans group. Was this because you identified as a RadFem and/or have friends that were RadFem who were frustrated by a colonization of their feminist identity – that RadFem became synonymous with being anti-trans?
T: Not so much personally offended as pointedly pedantic, although I certainly sympathised with various RadFems I knew who felt that mAndrea and her fellows did not speak for them and were disrupting other discussions with anti-trans* derails. I was still quite actively writing FAQs for the Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog then, so being pedantic about what various strands of feminism were and were not saying was pretty much second nature at the time.
C: Some TERFs have asserted that others do not have a right to make a distinction between TE RadFems (TERFs) and RadFems.
T: The idea that any group can deny others the right to make distinctions between opinions/positions voiced by different members in that group seems utterly absurd. Obviously, nobody can force anybody who voices what others consider TERF stances to self-adopt the TERF label for themselves, but they can always choose another name for their stance which is not held by all other RadFems. After all, RadFem itself is a label chosen by some feminists to distinguish themselves from other feminists, and those feminists felt insulted that what they were doing was not considered sufficiently radical to fall under the RadFem label, see also the womanist/feminist distinction – distinguishing between different arms of activism is what social activist movements do as they grow and develop and react to change within and without.
C: Others assert that the TERF is a slur. How would you respond to such assertions?
T: It was not originally intended as such. Initially the TERF acronym didn’t seem to gain much traction at all, so I never really kept track. Since it’s become in more common usage, no doubt there are some people that use it as a slur. The same thing happened to “radical feminist” and also to “feminist” – any group-identifying word can and will be used as a slur by those who find that group challenging, but that doesn’t mean that the word is fundamentally/always/only a slur.
C: How do you feel about the impact you’ve had in feminist discourse (re: your lexical contribution)?
T: I don’t really know. The acronym was something Lauredhel and I found useful for some of the discussions we were having at the time (and as mentioned above, we aren’t really sure that we invented it as such anyway rather than adopted/adapted it). We thought it might be useful for some others having similar discussions, so we and our co-bloggers shared it around in some of those discussions. That it did eventually catch on and people still find it useful after five years, and that it’s now a label that TERFs feel the need to push back on? It’s certainly intriguing, but I don’t really feel any strong sense of ownership over the term (language is a collective construct which evolves with variant usages, after all). I wanted to communicate something clearly at the time, and it worked for that. That it’s still working for people engaging in that ongoing trans*-inclusion/exclusion debate is certainly satisfying on several levels, definitely.
Brenda Prewitt has never seen an infant diagnosed with asthma, not once 26 years of pediatric nursing. Recently, however, she’s thinking that might change.
“We used to never diagnose asthma in kids under the age of two –never even see asthma-type symptoms under the age of two — and now we’re seeing that,” Prewitt, who works in Houston, Texas, told Climate Progress on Thursday. “Doctors don’t want to label somebody with that chronic disease so early in life until they know for sure.”
For the last three years, Prewitt has seen an unprecedented number of chronic lung-related diagnoses in children as young as one — something she has never seen before. The increase in symptoms, she says, is frightening. Doctors hold off on making a diagnosis until they can count how many times an attack has occurred, but initial signs are now sometimes starting as early as infancy. A wheeze here, a cough there — but no virus, no infection.
Prewitt, who started experiencing asthma symptoms herself when she moved to Texas, believes the increase is due to emissions coming from oil and gas refineries that currently surround the area. After all, she said, harmful airborne chemicals produced in oil refining are much higher in Houston than in any other city — in some cases up to 20 times higher, according to a 2006 study from Rice University. Children who live within two miles of the Houston ship channel, where the Keystone XL would come in, are also 56 percent more likely to get leukemia than those living more than 10 miles away, according to scientists at the University of Texas.