a.k.a. “Tumblr feminism”, a.k.a. “purity politics”, a.k.a. how lack of nuance is harming activism.

In some respects this is also a debate between academic analysis and lived experiences and it’s one of those things I don’t think has an easy answer (one person’s academic paper is another’s life-or-death scenario), but… still. I think it’s at least worth contemplating the question. Also, as a disclaimer: this article almost certainly will piss you off at one point or another.

As a more serious disclaimer, and also a content warning, most of this article deals with academic discussions about trans identities, including discussion about the concept of autogynephilia and the opinions of TERFs. While the article itself kind-of-sort-of tries to present things in a way that doesn’t invalidate any one trans experience, it’s still a bit cake-and-eat-it and could still be confronting to people who aren’t in the mood for a big long essay dissecting their gender identity, including how that may or may not intersect with their sexuality.

Also, for the record, I think the article goes too far out of its way to defend Germaine Greer who is, as we’d say here in Australia, a bit shit. Nonetheless, I guess it’s still a useful discussion on why Greer is “a bit shit”, just in case you were still unclear on the whole “self-identification of gender” versus “cultural identification” thing. (Although, I assume, that probably means you aren’t, in fact, yourself trans and could probably learn more by reading words from actual trans people about their identities than bothering with apologetics for Greer’s historically-interesting-I-guess-maybe-but-nonetheless-bigoted-and-old-fashioned nonsense.)