Thank you! I have seen these takes cropping up more and more and despite my unease (being entirely unwilling and unable to fit into the “family” ideal being presented by Harrington et. al.), I’ve had a hard time articulating exactly how they differ from, for example, Victoria Smith’s honest and sharp analyses of the reality of female embodiment (which I find true and important).
Thank you! This group is a roll-call of accounts I've unfollowed over the last 6 months or so, and this explains the counsel of despair underlying them.
Thank you for ploughing through the various articles and whatever sex realist feminism is. I saw some post about it and vaguely thought that looked a bit dodgy and I'd look later. Had been a bit confused by my skim-reading of Perry and Harrington (I'd not seen her Tate article, thank goodness) and wondering why the things in the first paragraphs seemed fine but somehow I was uneasy. I'd not read with any real attention, so I'm very grateful you did and exposed this nonsense for what it is.
So you're saying this is the philosophy of those who've coined the term, "sex realist feminism"? The regression to marriage? (Which, by the way, began as the law by which a man acquired a woman or girl as his property: it's the female slavery law, and has served as such for almost all of its herstory, with vestiges in US laws today, such as limitations on abortion; and the lack of marital rape laws in every state.)
Here I was looking forward to having a new term (SeRF) that could be used instead of the hate term, "terf," which some delusional feminists think they can "reclaim," even though most people don't realize that feminists ever objected to the term, and even though the "e" for "exclusionary" in it is being interpreted by courts as implying "discriminatory" and are therefore ruling against us.
We need to keep pointing out that gen-crit feminists are not "excluding" men who say they're women, the men are are INTRUDING on women and trampling our rights to privacy and safety.
So I was hoping to start using the term SeRF, instead.
Is it everyone in the SRF community who is advocating for regressive projects such as marriage, or just some, please?
Reminds me of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, of sectarian warfare between proponents of making the sign of the cross with two fingers or three ...
In any case, not really sure that, as you argued, sex-realist feminism really does "understand sex as immutable and women as biologically female"; certainly don't see any explicit claims to that effect there. But rather amused by their "vision of female and male as embodied expressions of human personhood" which seems the antithesis of your assertion. But a more anti-scientific and woo-ish definition for "male" & "female" is scarcely imaginable.
Offhand, it seems that much of feminism -- sex-realist, radical, gender-critical, and all the other 20-odd "sects" -- is vitiated and corrupted by what the reviewers of "Professing Feminism" called feminism's "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiments":
Kinda think the crux of the matter, the source of the problem -- in many if not all cases -- is a rather pigheaded reluctance to accept the biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, it necessarily following that those with neither are sexless:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Thank you! I have seen these takes cropping up more and more and despite my unease (being entirely unwilling and unable to fit into the “family” ideal being presented by Harrington et. al.), I’ve had a hard time articulating exactly how they differ from, for example, Victoria Smith’s honest and sharp analyses of the reality of female embodiment (which I find true and important).
Would Judith Bulter be this sort of fake feminist? She certainly teaches despair. I’ve often wondered if was paid to do so.
Thank you! This group is a roll-call of accounts I've unfollowed over the last 6 months or so, and this explains the counsel of despair underlying them.
Thank you for ploughing through the various articles and whatever sex realist feminism is. I saw some post about it and vaguely thought that looked a bit dodgy and I'd look later. Had been a bit confused by my skim-reading of Perry and Harrington (I'd not seen her Tate article, thank goodness) and wondering why the things in the first paragraphs seemed fine but somehow I was uneasy. I'd not read with any real attention, so I'm very grateful you did and exposed this nonsense for what it is.
So you're saying this is the philosophy of those who've coined the term, "sex realist feminism"? The regression to marriage? (Which, by the way, began as the law by which a man acquired a woman or girl as his property: it's the female slavery law, and has served as such for almost all of its herstory, with vestiges in US laws today, such as limitations on abortion; and the lack of marital rape laws in every state.)
Here I was looking forward to having a new term (SeRF) that could be used instead of the hate term, "terf," which some delusional feminists think they can "reclaim," even though most people don't realize that feminists ever objected to the term, and even though the "e" for "exclusionary" in it is being interpreted by courts as implying "discriminatory" and are therefore ruling against us.
We need to keep pointing out that gen-crit feminists are not "excluding" men who say they're women, the men are are INTRUDING on women and trampling our rights to privacy and safety.
So I was hoping to start using the term SeRF, instead.
Is it everyone in the SRF community who is advocating for regressive projects such as marriage, or just some, please?
Reminds me of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, of sectarian warfare between proponents of making the sign of the cross with two fingers or three ...
In any case, not really sure that, as you argued, sex-realist feminism really does "understand sex as immutable and women as biologically female"; certainly don't see any explicit claims to that effect there. But rather amused by their "vision of female and male as embodied expressions of human personhood" which seems the antithesis of your assertion. But a more anti-scientific and woo-ish definition for "male" & "female" is scarcely imaginable.
Offhand, it seems that much of feminism -- sex-realist, radical, gender-critical, and all the other 20-odd "sects" -- is vitiated and corrupted by what the reviewers of "Professing Feminism" called feminism's "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiments":
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
Kinda think the crux of the matter, the source of the problem -- in many if not all cases -- is a rather pigheaded reluctance to accept the biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, it necessarily following that those with neither are sexless:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male