GC Participants: Do you consider yourself a radfem?

submitted by usehername from (self.GenderCritical)

And why? Also, do you believe in political lesbianism [the idea that any woman, regardless of sexuality, can make the conscious choice to "become a lesbian (homosexual female)"]? Full disclosure: I do not believe in political lesbianism, and I'm not sure if I'd call myself a radfem because of the popularity of the idea of political lesbianism and other anti-science beliefs regarding female sexuality.

all 38 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Radish 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

I think you have to define your terms here. My understanding is that "radical" feminism means "to the root" which means addressing the root cause of oppression. (spoiler: it's men) I agree with the concept but don't know whether that makes me a radical feminist by other standards, because it seems so complicated now. Why is because it is obvious and makes sense.

My understanding of political lesbianism as originally practiced had to do with devoting one's energy and time to women and withdrawing from the physical and emotional labor and did not mean compulsory genital activity with women. Now I am told that it means forcing oneself to be a lesbian regardless of attraction, which is not going to be healthy for you or for any woman you engage with sexually on that level. I do believe in the former; men have taken enough of our time and support. I don't believe in the latter. I don't think it's a good idea to engage in sex you don't want. Seriously, that sounds a lot more like being a TRA. I am a lifelong lesbian, however, so my perspective may be different from some.

Also, if you're going to go on vaguely about "anti-science beliefs" you need to define your terms and say what is anti-science about your understanding of radical feminist ideas. Your (and many others, I guess) concept of political lesbianism may be icky and too close to trans demands that we be attracted to them, but is not opposed to science or denies science in any way. I don't know of any radfem, or any person with radfem ideals who is "anti-science" but then again, I don't get out much.

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

My understanding is that "radical" feminism means "to the root" which means addressing the root cause of oppression. (spoiler: it's men) I agree with the concept but don't know whether that makes me a radical feminist by other standards, because it seems so complicated now.

I also want to address the root cause of women's oppression, but it seems there is a specific philosophy detailed in literature by such people as Andrea Dworkin, Shelia Jeffreys, and Julie Bindel, which I do not agree with.

My understanding of political lesbianism as originally practiced had to do with devoting one's energy and time to women and withdrawing from the physical and emotional labor and did not mean compulsory genital activity with women.

I have heard that explanation before, but the fact is, prominent radfem activists like Julie Bindel (possibly a real lesbian, but it's hardly relevant because she believes that she chose to be a lesbian and that sexual orientation is a choice https://www.newstatesman.com/society/2014/07/julie-bindel-theres-no-gay-gene-and-i-love-idea-i-chose-be-lesbian) and Sheila Jeffreys do consider themselves actual, real, women-loving lesbians. From Sheila Jeffreys's book, "The Spinster and Her Enemies" :

Sheila Jeffreys is a lesbian and a revolutionary feminist who has been active in feminist campaigns against male violence, pornography and prostitution in Britain and in Australia for twenty years. She is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Melbourne, where she teaches sexual politics and lesbian and gay politics.

She calls herself a lesbian and clearly thinks she's qualified to teach "lesbian and gay politics". I also saw a video of her where she said she was surprised and excited when she realized she could "choose to be a lesbian".

Your (and many others, I guess) concept of political lesbianism may be icky and too close to trans demands that we be attracted to them, but is not opposed to science or denies science in any way.

It is opposed to science because they're claiming that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation, which is simply impossible, and studies have shown that there are people who are truly only attracted to one sex. The fact that conversion therapy fails every time also gives credibility to the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. As a lesbian, I'm sure you can understand that you will never be attracted to men, even if you really tried. Are you really saying that the claim that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation isn't anti-science?

what is anti-science

Other than the idea that you can choose your sexual orientation, I've also heard claims that PIV sex is completely unnatural. If a penis is never meant to enter the vagina, which they say should be used exclusively as a birth canal, then why does the cervix raise during ovulation? How are humans supposed to procreate? If the man were just supposed to put his penis right at the vaginal opening to ejaculate, then why wouldn't the cervix become lower in order to catch the sperm?

They also claim that birth is inherently an act that destroys women by design, which justifies their claim that all PIV is rape and women only enjoy sex with men because of trauma bonding. That does happen, but humans enjoy sex because it is necessary for the survival of the species, and the only reason birth is so traumatic and dangerous for humans is that farming caused us to have a diet that's poorer in nutrients, meaning a human won't grow as tall (therefore smaller pelvis), but the high carbs and sugar cause the baby to grow big. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

[–]VioletRemi 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I had an experience with political lesbian, I was just experimenting after I accepted myself as a lesbian. I lived in homophobic society and even married a man in tries to start loving men, my ex-husband was really great person, one of best men I've ever met and we are still friends, but nothing worked in bed between us, I insisted to go to doctors to fix it, but they just said I am either asexual or frigid, we divorced and then I slept with a woman in dormitory and found out that I am not asexual - I am very sexually active, I just can't be aroused by men, only can be aroused by women. So after finding that out and my first relationship with bisexual women, I started experimenting, I found radfem who was "political lesbian" and "chose to be lesbian" - I thought "I have no idea about sexuality, maybe it is like that, sadly I can't chose for myself, maybe something wrong with me". She had some bad experience with men and wanted to be "all for women" and "separatist", and liked idea of political lesbianism.

However, when I slept with her, she was almost disgusted from it and very irresponsive. I saw in her myself with my ex-husband. Then I realized it is complete bullshit. She just was trying very hard to like women, but was not able to. Same as I tried to like men, really-really tried, but was not able to.

Bindel

You just mentioned her, and here she is: https://twitter.com/LesbianLabour/status/1407596620825440260

Saying that it is just a choice. And there so many homophobic comments there by GC or feminists.

I like this line of comments there, tho: https://twitter.com/Iamthisnotthat1/status/1407678822028398600

[–]ColoredTwice 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Possibility to chose sexual orientation" is what lies in the idea of conversion therapy and in actions of most homophobic groups - including TRA, who are calling orientation as "preference". Political lesbianism in most cases is just homophobia, as it hurts real lesbians and not considering lesbian experiences at all. So it is "feminism, but not for lesbians".

[–]lefterfield 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

It is opposed to science because they're claiming that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation, which is simply impossible, and studies have shown that there are people who are truly only attracted to one sex. The fact that conversion therapy fails every time also gives credibility to the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. As a lesbian, I'm sure you can understand that you will never be attracted to men, even if you really tried. Are you really saying that the claim that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation isn't anti-science?

I think you're taking a too black-and-white view on this subject. Studies showing that some people are responding sexually to stimuli representing only one sex does not prove that those people cannot change their sexuality, nor even that those people are exclusively attracted to one sex. Now, I will emphasize: I don't believe it's possible to change one's sexuality, and I do believe there are people who are exclusively attracted to one sex or the other. But refusing to consider the possibility that that ISN'T the case would itself be "anti-science." Science is a process of experimentation, it doesn't give very many definitive answers about the way the world works - especially when it comes to a subject as complex as human sexuality.

Saying that conversion therapy fails every time and is therefore anti-science is not a pro-science mindset either. What we can say is that the methods that have been attempted appear not to be effective. We can also say that there does not appear to be a compelling reason to force someone to change their sexuality, so further experiments may be cruel. But if someone swears to know of a method that does work, and doesn't infringe on human dignity? I would simply want to see the evidence.

As for political lesbianism, telling women they can choose to be lesbians seems silly and counter-productive. But "science" does not say, definitively, that this is impossible. There are women that believe it is possible, and some women who swear it has worked for them. I don't believe them, but calling them "anti-science" is not going to convince them they're wrong. And who cares? So long as they aren't forcing other women to go along with it the way TRAs do, they can believe what they want. To me, if a woman is in a sexual relationship with another woman, they're lesbians. If they're living together in sexless relationship, they're roommates/friends. I don't care what they call it in either case.

[–]usehername[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are ... some women who swear it has worked for them.

If they aren't lying, they're bisexual. The sexual orientation of a monosexual person can't change, but for bisexuals, it may appear to change.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have no proof of this, but my impression is that bisexuality is much more common than is usually thought. One of the issues that complicates the topic is that it seems very few bisexual people are attracted to each sex on an equal 50-50 basis. Many of us are predominantly attracted to one sex, and attracted to the other sex on a much more limited basis. Like someone can be 95% attracted to the same or opposite sex, but 5% attracted the other way. Moreover, one's minority sexual attraction can come to the fore at certain times & in certain circumstances.

I know many men who consider themselves heterosexual who would never fuck another man, but they nevertheless haven't turned down getting blown by other men.

[–]usehername[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have no proof of this, but my impression is that bisexuality is much more common than is usually thought.

I very much agree. Then these closeted bis often end up spreading myths like "everyone's a little bi (: look at me, i'm straight but a little bi (: still het tho" and on the other side, same-sex leaning bisexuals who claim lesbian or gay are more common than people think. A lot of them see being "lesbian" or "gay" as a big part of their identity and hold negative views about bisexual people. Of course, as you said, this is anecdotal from my own experience and observations. I'd love to see a real study.

I know many men who consider themselves heterosexual who would never fuck another man, but they nevertheless haven't turned down getting blown by other men.

Me too. Or a "gay man" who likes women when he's drunk...

[–]Aloudmeow 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right, and I think that’s who the concept of political lesbianism applies. Bisexual women can and sometimes do, decide to live “as lesbians” due to their commitment to certain political issues. They can consciously choose to date only women and ignore any attraction to men they may also feel. But by definition almost, political lesbianism is not an option for exclusively heterosexual women.

[–]usehername[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When self-aware, these women usually call themselves FEBfems (female-exclusive bisexual females).

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Most likely.

[–]Radish 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I actually based my understanding on some of the second wave feminist writing I read when I was young. I would have to go through and look it up, so perhaps my understanding is wrong. I never got around to reading Jeffries, although I have a pdf of Lesbian Heresy that I need to get to. I've read Julie Bindel on the subject and disagree with her interpretation completely. I find the idea of sleeping with someone who doesn't really feel it kind of repulsive.

There is a difference between something not being scientifically proven or simply wrong with being actively anti-science, which is a different position altogether. There is disagreement among many things within the scientific community. I would say that one can change one's sexual orientation at will is both wrong and not scientifically proven, but does not say that science is wrongor that they are opposed to science.

Perhaps my understandings of terms are wrong.

I do know that Dworkin never said that all heterosex was rape.

People are pretty threatened by radical feminism, generally speaking. There are a lot of ideas out there. Many people call themselves radfems. There is not an organized gospel or anything like that. So the terms are all up to interpretation. I do know for me that being gender critical is rooted in radical feminist philosophy.

And, of course, it's all just my interpretation and I could be wrong.

Also, I respect science.

[–]Nosce_te_ipsum 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are a lot of ideas out there. Many people call themselves radfems. There is not an organized gospel or anything like that. So the terms are all up to interpretation.

I completely agree. I also think this is the case for every movement or ideology out there (at least the ones that don't act like cults). There are some core values and principles that most people who are part of that movement share, but there are also a lot of divergent opinions, especially when it comes to issues that are not the primary target of that particular movement.

From my personal observations, most radical feminists seem to be critical of political lesbianism, and it's also not a subject that is very often discussed in radical feminist circles, so it makes me think it's definitely more of a fringe opinion (like other comments have mentioned).

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There is a difference between something not being scientifically proven or simply wrong with being actively anti-science

Conversion therapy is scientifically proven not to work, so saying it does work is anti-science, the same way that the vaginal steaming is proven not to cleanses your vagina or uterus, improve fertility, or balances hormones as is claimed, so to say that it does is anti-science. If there were evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to take a look and maybe even change my views, but there isn't, so claiming that it's true is just ridiculous, and even if you disagree that it's anti-science, it's definitely not science. I'm not in the habit of believing things without proof, or with proof disputing it. It's sort of religious in my eyes. If a woman believes that she was straight and became a lesbian, she is bisexual. It irritates me to see the erasure of bisexuality as a concept.

And like I said, there's a lot I do agree with, but even if a lot of radfems disagree with the idea of political lesbianism, some very prominent radfems are very vocal about supporting it and they're essentially the face of the movement.

Anyways, I appreciate your perspective.

[–]lefterfield 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Conversion therapy is scientifically proven

This doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be scientifically proven. What you mean is, the evidence is against any indication that it is possible, and there is additional evidence that attempting it is harmful. All this focus on "science proves" and "anti science" is very religious and should be avoided.

[–]usehername[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nothing can be scientifically proven.

That's just not true. Humans have used science to prove lots of things, like the fact that the Earth is round, for example. Here: political lesbianism is a personal belief not backed by science. Better?

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Humans have demonstrated via evidence that the earth is round, taken pictures of it from space and done calculations using the distance between various locations. It could be mathematically proven to be round, and I'm pretty sure that was done. And sure, I agree with your statement about political lesbianism too.

[–]Radish 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (15 children)

Sexuality and attraction can change to some degree over a lifetime. I don't mean that I could turn around tomorrow and be all into men, but I know at least one woman who honestly believes that she was straight until her early 20s and became a lesbian. I don't really know what's in her mind, so I have to take that at face value, I guess, since it is her feelings about it. To me that does not seem possible. Neither position is scientifically provable, so therefore, saying one is anti-science is not true. Yes, things touted as medical treatments that go against the scientific laws would be considered anti-science.

I don't think there's "a face" to the movement. Radical feminists don't recruit, or have settled dogma, or anything else. Some are better known than others, those who dare to speak up. That doesn't make them more right or anything they say law.

Also, I'm opposed to religion, which I don't think is good for people, so I don't really care for seeing anything used in the way religion is, not radical feminism, not science.

We can disagree without one of us being wrong, which is what makes this an interesting conversation. Thank you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know at least one woman who honestly believes that she was straight until her early 20s and became a lesbian.

She might be bisexual or she might be a lesbian. The fact is, it takes many people well into their 20s or beyond to figure out who they are & what their sexuality is. This is especially true for people who are lesbian, gay or bi.

The human brain doesn't stop developing until age 25 - which is one of the reasons I think it's damaging to expect pre-teens, teens & young adults to openly proclaim their sexual orientation & to applaud those who slap sexual-orientation identity labels on themselves & others. Moreover, many people - particularly those of minority sexual orientations & who grew up in religious & conservative families & milieus where homophobia & shame were rife - have to overcome a huge amount of real & perceived social stigma as well as their own internalized prejudices before they feel comfortable exploring, expressing & publicly stating their orientation.

Taking a longer view, some people do change apparent sexual orientation later in life. Many women who didn't realize they were bi in their youth enter lesbian relationships after they've been married to men & have borne & raised children. Quite a few women who were just an eensy bit bi in our college years & lived as straight women for most of our adult lives end up partnered with women in our retirement years.

Also, there are people today & in the past who are or claim to be entirely asexual & who don't deal with the issue by adopting lifestyles of celibacy. I knew many Roman Catholic nuns who lived & died without claiming or expressing sexual orientation. On the other hand, my own father in his mid-60s married a woman who had been an entirely celibate RC nun for 45 years, from the time she was 16 to 61. I had another friend who spent his early adulthood as an Episcopal priest & was celibate his whole life until nearly 70 when he came out as gay.

Neither position is scientifically provable, so therefore, saying one is anti-science is not true.

Are you saying that sexual orientation can't be determined using the methods of science? I don't think that's entirely true. Sexual attraction & arousal cause physiological responses that are observable & measurable. At the same time, however, I don't think there's always & necessarily a direct correlation between what stimuli individuals respond to physically & what their sexual orientation is. I think this is especially the case for women, but it might also well be true for boys & men. We humans are a complicated, funny lot.

[–]worried19 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'd say I'm radical feminist-leaning, but I'm definitely not a "pure" radical feminist. I'm more of a moderate who is also a gender abolitionist.

Also, do you believe in political lesbianism [the idea that any woman, regardless of sexuality, can make the conscious choice to "become a lesbian (homosexual female)"]?

They can live the way they want, but if they truly have zero sexual attraction to women, I think they'd be in for a bad time. I don't think this is a very common or popular belief among radical feminists, though. It's pretty fringe.

[–]usehername[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's pretty fringe.

I thought Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys were prominent figures?

[–]lefterfield 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

They are, but I don't know that that means everything they wrote was well-received and popular, even among radical feminists. For as long as I've been familiar with the community, political lesbianism has been an extremely controversial/offensive topic.

[–]purrfect 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No, I don't consider myself a radfem. I'm more second wave aligned than anything. For a long time I tried to get more into radical feminism, but in the end it hasn't worked. Sometimes I'm skeptical of the use of "The Patriarchy" as blanket term for all that is wrong between the sexes, at least in the westernized world. It feels more like a boogeyman to complain about, than an actual issue to be solved. I prefer it, when it's explained, how it manifests in certain situations (prostitution, porn,...), because then one can think of possible solutions and their pros and cons.

Also, I have a problem with the whole "abolishing gender" thing. I'm GC and I don't believe for a second women and men should conform to sex stereotypes (I certainly don't) and I think gender non-conforming people should never be punished for expressing themselves differently and should be able to participate in society fully, but what does "abolishing gender" mean? What does it imply?

I'd rather examine different claims separately. I'm not a good consumer of entire ideologies.

[–]Aaran 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think gender non-conforming people should never be punished for expressing themselves differently and should be able to participate in society fully, but what does "abolishing gender" mean?

But wouldn't abolishing gender be the best way for helping GNC people participate in society? In a society that concept of gender exist, some things are considered manly, others are girly/ladylike. there are certain standards for how man and women should act/dress/etc. And there's a pressure to conform and being GNC basically means going against social norm. If gender is abolished. Gendered hobbies, clothes, behaviors wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be any gendered ideals to conform to. Which anyone can dress how they want without any pressure to change themselves or be a certain way.

[–]purrfect 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is that what "abolish gender" means? The prohibition of the concept? How does one go about it? Should parents be punished for buying pink dresses for their daughters? Shouldn't science study this issue seriously first? Does "gender" emerge naturally and then it's reinforced socially or is it a purely a social construct? Does it make sense to punish a majority, instead of making discrimination against GNC unlawful? There will always be ideals to conform to, whenever there is a behavior practiced by a majority.

[–]grixit 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am anti sexist.

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't really consider myself a radfem. I'm more critical of gender than I am a radical feminist. I'm not really a libfem either, I guess I'm sort of homeless in the feminist movement. I've don't really believe that people can make a conscious choice to be attracted to another sex, I believe that sexuality is hardwired.

[–]MaleFriedanFan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do not. I usually agree with Betty Friedan, who was a second-waver but not a radfem. From my limited understanding, she believed that many women still wanted to start families along with their other aspirations, it was just the suffocating expectations of the feminine mystique that transformed this into something harmful.

I don't know that I can speak about political lesbianism, but maybe I can offer my thoughts on the male equivalent. I think that sometimes what happens is that a man accumulates enough bad experiences with women that they give up on women categorically, despite having sexual attraction towards them. In that way, it could be considered a form of misogyny. While some of these men do seem actively hateful towards women, others seem more tense and avoidant, almost as though they had developed a phobia. Sometimes it does mesh with their politics, but in my limited experience it does not start from politics but rather from painful experiences.