I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.
So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?
TERFs are “radfem” in nothing but name.
They were here before you, just because you disagree with them doesn’t make them not feminists.
This is a great example of what I meant, btw: progressives act like every protestant denomination, calling eachother “not real christians” not realising they are all the same brand of sanctimonious.
Pardon?
Are you under the impression that the term “TERF” was invented in 2008 because that’s when trans exclusion became a thing?
Do you seriously think that a movement that over its lifespan at some point didn’t even include non-white women started off including non-female ones?
“Trans x are x” as a widespread progressive sociological stance is new, I don’t even know if it’s 20 years old, it may be closer to 10, even.
deleted by creator
What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist and not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology that feminism at its core has been fighting against since it’s inception, just this time aimed at trans women to protect “real women”?
I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.
The part that is your standard boilerplate second wave feminism, the only difference is how they define “woman,” which simply hasn’t changed in the last 20 odd years to conform to the mainline progressive position.
They are effectively conservative feminists, which sounds counterintuitive until you realise feminism is old enough to easily fall within the range of things that can have a conservative/progressive split.
You mean like feminism was until the adoption of intersectional sociological lenses by the progressive part of the movement? (and it arguably still is essentialist, just on qualities other than birth sex)
Cause like, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Julie Bindel, they were feminists before a lot of the feminists of today were alive, and they don’t strike me as trans allies.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t feminists, it just means they have different ontological positions that lead them to side with different people.
Often the enemy you know, especially one that appears (but isn’t, in the case of conservatives) on the backfoot can look positively attractive compared to the new and alien.
If anything it should tell you how essentialist and misandrist second wave feminism was that they’d draw the line at male women and female men, and not at cis conservatives.
In brief, my point is: just because it’s not your wave of feminism that you identify with, doesn’t mean your wave doesn’t directly descend from it and that it didn’t pave the way for yours.
Movements change and evolve, society as a whole was not trans inclusive at all until the late 00s, and even then it was touch and go, and it’s incredibly naïve to think that feminism, of all things, would somehow be morally lucky from its inception in the 1800s and never in ~150 years sided with the mainstream on axes other than pushing for women* to be equal to men* (*provided they are the right demographic on every other axis).