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 →

[–]Radish 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 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.

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 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.

[–]Radish 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (13 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.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[removed]