• spaduf@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right?

    No I don’t think so.

    You’re arguing we should stick to the “intended” meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people?

    I’m arguing that your particular claimed usage of feminism as a transphobic term (that is, the general inclusion of NBs as a class for whom feminism benefits is tantamount to gendering them female) simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. This is distinct from the issue of women’s spaces explicitly including NBs feels like misgendering (which is valid).

    The premise of this community is fundamentally dependent on the idea that being a beneficiary of feminism MUST be entirely seperate from being gendered female.

    • exocrinous@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah, no, I meant to say that feminism losing its implication of progress for all gender identities (if it had such an implication in the past), is evidenced by the fact that if someone says they’re a feminist, that doesn’t tell you whether they support equality for enbies.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.

        I assert that the quantity of nbs who hold this opinion is so small as to be negligable and that ceding a major right wing talking point for gender equity for nbs (a group in which I, and the majority of my social circle are a part of) is mostly just ceding a right wing talking point.

        Put another way, the idea that “feminism” is an insufficient term is tantamount to “all lives matter”.