Similarities between radical feminists and fundamentalists

[Mama Mia]

So after reading some threads here, and looking around on-line, I'm really struck in the similarities between radical feminists and fundamentalists regarding transgender people.

Even the language is very similar - lots of talk about how the transgender people are "pretending" and just a very, very mean and dismissive attitude.

I understand the radical feminists are coming at it from a different perspective than the fundamentalists:

- the radical feminist perspective seems to boil down to there is no difference between male and female except what is put there by society, so there is no such thing as transgender.

-the fundamentalist perspective seems to be that transgender is wrong because God made you a man or a woman and you should stick to the gender you were born with.

I get that the radical feminists disagree with the general premises of transgender ( I, personally, think they are wrong ) - but I don't understand how extremely angry and passionate they are about this one issue. It seems to be one of the main issues on the various blogs.

Any thoughts ?

[AtroposHeart]

I really don't see any similuarity, just because they share a basic opinion about something, that doesn't make it the same at all.

I really don't see that much simulurity between them at all. For instance radfems are against PIV (Penis in vagina) sex since it can potentially kill or disadvantage a woman through pregnancy.

Fundies don't care about a woman's health or advantages one way or another, and think men are entitled to any kind of sex they want

[tabitha2]

a fundamentalist is some one who takes a possibly reasonable, workable or beneficial idea, believe or way of life and takes it to extreems, perverting the idea or message, sually adding components that have no place in the original ethos. by that premise a person can be a radical feminist, vegetarian, Buddhist and so on. and they like to broadcast them loudly any one they can.

[Mama Mia]

I really don't see any similuarity, just because they share a basic opinion about something, that doesn't make it the same at all.

I really don't see that much simulurity between them at all. For instance radfems are against PIV (Penis in vagina) sex since it can potentially kill or disadvantage a woman through pregnancy.

Fundies don't care about a woman's health or advantages one way or another, and think men are entitled to any kind of sex they want

I'm talking about their similarity on that one issue, not every single issue. That one sticks out because there is so much emphasis on it, and some of the ways it is addressed - like refusing to use the pronoun the transgender person prefers, being up in arms about tax dollars possibly going to medical care for transgender issues, and some stories about de-transitioning for people who had been transgender and now decided they weren't ( which sounded, to me, way too much like the "therapy" that is supposed to "cure" people from being gay )

Gee, if they are against penis in vagina sex because of possible pregnancy is there some kind of exception if someone is past child bearing age, or in-fertile, or on birth control ? :roll: How is that position any less controlling or condescending that the fundamentalist stance that sex should only be for reproduction ? Or that marriage should be limited to one-man one-woman because of pro-creation ??

[miffy]

Extremists are all similar even if their views are completely different. Because they want to force their own extreme viewpoint onto the rest of society.

[jaelh]

Extremists are all similar even if their views are completely different. Because they want to force their own extreme viewpoint onto the rest of society.

Not quite. Militant extremists are all alike. One can hold an extreme perspective (in that it's far outside societies norms) and be quite happy living and let live. It's the desire to impose ones will on others that's common; not the type of view that you hold. (for what it's worth; you can militantly police "the centre" just as viciously as any fringe group)

Also, while *some* radical feminists are anti trans or PIV sex, they aint all that way. These are minority views within the movement, at least in recent years re trans. The PIV argument was never majority (straight women seem not go along with if for some reason [i wonder why?], and there are lots and lots and lots of straight rad fems. it was never going to fly)

that's all.

[Dysfundamental]

There's a significant divide within the radical feminist movement between those who welcome all women, regardless of their legal gender at birth, and those who feel that trans women are beneficiaries of male privilege (and that latter group ranges from "if you were raised with a male legal identity, you won't fully understand radical feminism" as a philosophical position to the deeply transphobic bigotry of people like Jul*e Burch*ll).

This in itself shows more nuance than fundamentalist Christianity as a movement, in my experience. Which is not to underplay the disgusting transphobia of some loud voices in the radfem community.

Jul*e Burch*ll and others like her get a lot of media airtime because they're extreme, and because their ignorance and hatred allows for feminism as a movement to be dismissed.

(Jul*e Burch*ll=UK journalist and radfem "activist", * ="i" because she loves to Google herself and yell at people who have the temerity not to be hateful to women who are trans.)

[Mama Mia]

There's a significant divide within the radical feminist movement between those who welcome all women, regardless of their legal gender at birth, and those who feel that trans women are beneficiaries of male privilege (and that latter group ranges from "if you were raised with a male legal identity, you won't fully understand radical feminism" as a philosophical position to the deeply transphobic bigotry of people like Jul*e Burch*ll).

This in itself shows more nuance than fundamentalist Christianity as a movement, in my experience. Which is not to underplay the disgusting transphobia of some loud voices in the radfem community.

Jul*e Burch*ll and others like her get a lot of media airtime because they're extreme, and because their ignorance and hatred allows for feminism as a movement to be dismissed.

(Jul*e Burch*ll=UK journalist and radfem "activist", * ="i" because she loves to Google herself and yell at people who have the temerity not to be hateful to women who are trans.)

The bolded is what I think is the problem with virtually everything in the media -- the more extreme and hateful the voice, them more it is promoted. On any issue.

[browngrl]

I think that it is important to define what I think "radical feminist" means first. To me a radical feminist is someone who blames men for all the problems and who can never see that a man might be right and someone who can't empathize with a male perspective. When I think "radical feminist" I think of someone who hates men and feels all men should be held accountable for all past wrongs. I define it as someone who is as far from moderate as Steve Maxwell is from moderate religion. So with that perspective I do see many similarities between radical feminists and religious fundamentalists. Both are rigid/uncompromising and impossible to work with. I can't see the difference between a woman who blames and hates all men and a fundamentalist who blames and hates all women.

[yewchapel]

I think that it is important to define what I think "radical feminist" means first. To me a radical feminist is someone who blames men for all the problems and who can never see that a man might be right and someone who can't empathize with a male perspective. When I think "radical feminist" I think of someone who hates men and feels all men should be held accountable for all past wrongs. I define it as someone who is as far from moderate as Steve Maxwell is from moderate religion. So with that perspective I do see many similarities between radical feminists and religious fundamentalists. Both are rigid/uncompromising and impossible to work with. I can't see the difference between a woman who blames and hates all men and a fundamentalist who blames and hates all women.

That is not what radical feminism means - there is an actual definition. From wiki (I know, but here it's accurate):

'Radical feminism is a older perspective within feminism, now primarily associated with Second-wave feminism of the 1980's that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.'

[Mama Mia]

That is not what radical feminism means - there is an actual definition. From wiki (I know, but here it's accurate):

'Radical feminism is a older perspective within feminism, now primarily associated with Second-wave feminism of the 1980's that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.'

Transgender issues seem to be be the main theme on the radical feminist sources that pop up currently. Is this due to some recent clash .. and isn't generally a prime factor ?

The transgender hate and controversy regarding bdsm seem to be the main issues that are discussed.

I only recently became interested in this after reading one of the threads here, so don't know if it is just a current hot topic.

[yewchapel]

Issues regarding trans people and BDSM are to do with how radical feminists see the patriarchy. Radical feminists see the patriarchy as the single system of power that oppresses women, whilst other feminists (not all other feminists) see the problem being the kyriarchy, an interlocking system of many separate oppressive systems such as the patriarchy, racism, transphobia, homophobia etc. Radical feminism will see trans and BDSM issues (for example) on the basis of how they affect and are affected by the patriarchy, not any other system of oppression, hence the differences between radical and other feminists.

I hope that made sense?

[Mama Mia]

Issues regarding trans people and BDSM are to do with how radical feminists see the patriarchy. Radical feminists see the patriarchy as the single system of power that oppresses women, whilst other feminists (not all other feminists) see the problem being the kyriarchy, an interlocking system of many separate oppressive systems such as the patriarchy, racism, transphobia, homophobia etc. Radical feminism will see trans and BDSM issues (for example) on the basis of how they affect and are affected by the patriarchy, not any other system of oppression, hence the differences between radical and other feminists.

I hope that made sense?

Thank you, that was very helpful and clear