GC Participants: Do you consider yourself a radfem?

submitted by usehername from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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

[–]lefterfield 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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.

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

Most likely.