LogFAQs > #966413469

I think it's important to differentiate between TERFs and straight up conservatives, because you will probably run into TERFs in most liberal or leftist spaces. The whole "gender is based on your genitals and determines whether you are a victim or victimised" as their entire ideology definitely leads to a lot of overlap, but a lot can't get past open misogyny from conservatism. And I know TERF numbers are pretty small, but they're a very vocal minority.

I also think some of the frustration comes from how TERFs should theoretically be supportive of certain things? Like, not getting treated like dirt because of your gender, or not having your agency removed based on your genitals. Which tend to be things I'd associate with feminism and makes it feel like they're easier to reason with (and they often have relatively sane takes on plenty of other topics, too).

I do think that addressing the historical attitudes of gender essentialism that brought about TERFs and transphobia as a whole is often more effective than focusing as much on TERFs as we do, but the arguments are similar regardless.

The big difference between the countries is that the few UK organisations with more socially liberal attitudes towards gender like the Guardian and the BBC have produced some hateful stuff about trans people. It's probably better to be entirely ignored than have organisations which could be supportive try shitting all over you. I think it's fair to look at Rowling for a lot of the movement, and incidents like the Forstater case (which I am utterly clueless as to how she won when compared to similar-ish cases) really blew the movement up.

Also, not to say it's as bad as in the US and I think we pretty much agree, but the UK government has made it very explicit that they are taking measures to exclude trans people or prevent transition where possible, and I would be wary about arguing there's very limited eliminationist rhetoric. It's the same basic ideas here, just far more politely put.