Why are TERFs considered "not real feminists" ?

who cares

>>7848893
Because the essentially abandon the goal of liberating women (and other genders) from restrictive gender roles, instead calling for strict conformance with gender roles by calling them sex roles instead.

"On not real feminists": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

>>7848893
Because feminists believe everyone who does something good is a feminist and anyone who does something bad isn't. They can't seem to wrap their heads around their movement being ridiculous and unnecessary, so they create villains within their own ranks to blame their unpopularity and failures on.

File: bowtie.png (262KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 600x900px

>>7849408
Does not work for ideologies, religions or philosophies. I am justified in calling an alleged Christian who does not believe in Christ "not a real Christian", just as I am justified in calling an alleged Convervative who votes socialist "not a real Conservative". No True Scotsman only works for thing unrelated to belief; such as in the original example, whether or not one is a criminal or not has nothing to do with being of Scottish nationality or not.

>>7850583
But don't they believe there are two genders but you can not become a different sex? They seem very reasonable in their reasoning. But transgender people are constantly chanting for their death. I'm more willing to listen to them when provide back up and logic - rather than the Tumblrites screaming to lynching them.

>>7850583
>just as I am justified in calling an alleged Convervative who votes socialist "not a real Conservative"
Sounds like that's still a no true Scotsman. Besides if a conservative votes for a socialist candidate, all you can reasonably conclude from that vote is that they voted for a socialist candidate.

The only reason a no true scotsman fallacy wouldn't work for a religion ideology or philosophy is if you're talking with a disingenuous interlocutor that is willing to futz with a personal definition of that religion ideology or philosophy.

e.g.
>"No muslim would ever kill a person."
>"These muslims killed an apostate, and cited the hadiths that required her death."
>"No true muslim would kill a person, and those hadiths are false."

Lefties hate themselves

>>7850779
Yeah it CAN be a Scotsman with those things too, just isn't necessarily one. I mean if we have a Belief A, and it states clearly that a person is not to do Act B, and someone does Act B repeatedly, we might legitimatley conclude that said person is not a true supporter of Belief A.

Problem is, no philosophy, ideology or religion has clear cut definitions like that. Someone might legitimatley argue that, given their intrepretation of the Bible, a gay person cannot be a true Christian. Someone else might argue, with as much basis in scripture, that we are all sinners and that loving Christ is the only requirement for being Christian.

Point is, there's a discussion there about what constitutes a "real Christian", just like there is a discussion on what a "real feminist" is, and that's the important discussion to have. So saying that TERFS aren't real feminsita is not a fallacy so much as it's a call to have this discussion: can one have a movement that excludes and even hates a certain group of marginalised and oppressed women, as well as calls for strict confirmance of 'sex roles', and still call the movement "feminist", in the sense of truly being in the spirit of the history of the entire feminist movement and it's aim of female liberation and abolishment of strict gender roles? I'd say no, but someone else could argue something else based on another definition of "feminism.

In the Scotsman case, we have a clear definition of what a Scotsman is and we know that not being a criminal isn't a part of that definition, hence it being a fallacy. There's no discussion there.

>>7848893
Because they've been caught countless times taking Saudi and Republican dick inside of their cunts in exchange for money and book deals?

>>7850857
Yeah also this.

>>7850842
You do have a good point that a lot of philosophies ideologies and religions have vague definitions that make the scotsman fallacy difficult to apply.

It just annoys me when people claim that a "real X wouldn't do Y." When the definition of 'X' is already subject to debate, but someone still tries to pass off their personal interpretation of 'X' as the only true interpretation. [1]

>Someone might legitimately argue that, given their interpretation
Agreed 100%. I bet that if people would be honestly tentative this way when offering their litmus tests I'd be a much happier person.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05YuF73FRG8

because it became politically convenient for right wingers to lump trannies in with actual females and therefore stamp on problems actual women face, like reproductive rights and healthcare(for thiewr uteri, not their girl benises)

anytime you see the term terf, you're watching a fundie/islamist dude laughing up his sleeve

Feminists aren't real feminists.

>>7848893
Because they make feminists look bad.

>>7848893
Because real feminists are even worse.