1,084
edits
TERF: Difference between revisions
→Analysis of the term
Technician (talk | contribs) |
Technician (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
* Exclude them from education | * Exclude them from education | ||
* Exclude them from accomodation equality | * Exclude them from accomodation equality | ||
* Exclude them from local, state, national and United Nations protections | * Exclude them from local, state, national and United Nations protections(!) | ||
As such, the women labeled "TERF" are represented less as women who simply want to uphold women's sex-based rights, and more like fascist monsters, which is then used to incite hatred and violence against them. It's also noteworthy how exclusion of transwomen turns here into exclusion of all trans people (from whatever). As a matter of fact, women targeted as "TERFs" will frequently say explicitly that they welcome transmen in their groups, since transmen also face the sex-based oppression all women face from birth. | As such, the women labeled "TERF" are represented less as women who simply want to uphold women's sex-based rights, and more like fascist monsters, which is then used to incite hatred and violence against them. It's also noteworthy how exclusion of transwomen turns here into exclusion of all trans people (from whatever). As a matter of fact, women targeted as "TERFs" will frequently say explicitly that they welcome transmen in their groups, since transmen also face the sex-based oppression all women face from birth. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
<blockquote><em> | <blockquote><em> | ||
"Troll’s Truisms are used to insinuate an exciting falsehood, which is a desired doctrine, yet permit retreat to the trivial truth when pressed by an opponent. In so doing they exhibit a property which makes them the simplest possible case of what I shall call a Motte and Bailey Doctrine (since a doctrine can single belief or an entire body of beliefs). | "Troll’s Truisms are used to insinuate an exciting falsehood, which is a desired doctrine, yet permit retreat to the trivial truth when pressed by an opponent. In so doing they exhibit a property which makes them the simplest possible case of what I shall call a Motte and Bailey Doctrine (since a doctrine can be a single belief or an entire body of beliefs). | ||
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land. | A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. I think it is evident that Troll’s Truisms have the Motte and Bailey property, since the exciting falsehoods constitute the desired but indefensible region within the ditch whilst the trivial truth constitutes the defensible but dank Motte to which one may retreat when pressed." | For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. I think it is evident that Troll’s Truisms have the Motte and Bailey property, since the exciting falsehoods constitute the desired but indefensible region within the ditch whilst the trivial truth constitutes the defensible but dank Motte to which one may retreat when pressed." | ||
</em></blockquote> | </em></blockquote> | ||
In our case, the ''Motte'' is an easily defensible statement like: "You don't consider transwomen literally women, therefore you are trans-exclusionary, which makes you a TERF." Whereas the ''Bailey'' is: "You want to exclude trans people from housing and employment, therefore I'm justified in hating you with a passion!" | |||
It could also be called a "bait-and-switch" argument, where one is "baited" into agreeing with the claim that someone is a "TERF" by using a mundane definition of "trans exclusion," and then the definition is switched into something bad, to justify expressions of hatred. | |||
=== Inspection of the claims on ''The TERFs'' === | === Inspection of the claims on ''The TERFs'' === | ||