“You should be burnt alive TERF”: How a Neutral Descriptor Enables Misogynistic E-Bile and the Obfuscation of Progressive Feminist Ideology.

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Department of Social Science

Institute of Education

BSc Social Sciences

University College London

May 2019

Anna-Louise Adams

Acknowledgements

I would like to express gratitude to all the women who dedicated their time to participating in this research, without whom, this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to thank all the women who shared this project on Twitter, and all of those who supported this research.

Abstract

Denoting ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, the term TERF is repeatedly claimed by feminists to constitute a denigrating slur, whilst defenders maintain its neutrality as a shorthand. This thesis examines the lived experiences of women labelled TERFs in the context of the debate above. It explores how TERF is commonly used, whether TERF is an accurate shorthand, the implicit meanings of the term TERF, and whether TERF can be considered a slur using linguistic criteria. Guided by a feminist standpoint, the research gathers qualitative data using written accounts and semi-structured interviews. Researcher positionality is made transparent from the outset, and explored throughout the thesis. Ultimately, this paper concludes that while TERF bears slurring properties which perpetuate ‘e-bile’, its main finding is that its usage conflates progressive gender-critical feminisms with regressive right-wing politics, and as a result is used to obfuscate the aims of radical feminism.

Introduction

Employing qualitative research methods, this thesis uses women’s lived experiences to understand the term TERF. Initially devised as an acronym for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, TERF first appeared in an online blog post in 2008 (Smythe, 2008). It was originally intended as a differential shorthand between, what Smythe described as, self-identified radical feminists who do not “recognise transwomen as sisters” (Smythe, 2018) and self-identified radical feminists who do. Smythe has since acknowledged that the acronym has been “weaponised” beyond her intended usage. Gender-critical feminists understand TERF to constitute a dehumanising slur, whilst its advocates defend its usage as a neutral shorthand.        

    Figure 1                                

To access difficult-to-reach populations (O’Connor et al, 2014), I employed Twitter as the principal recruitment method, enabling trust and rapport to be established between participants and myself. When my recruitment tweet attracted over 600 retweets, an unforeseen consequence was that it laid me, personally, open to harassment and abuse (see Figure 1). It was unbeknownst to me, whilst designing the research, that I would inadvertently become my own participant due to first-hand experience of the label. Although such abuse was unpleasant, shared lived experience imbued within me greater empathy, and subsequent better insight, into women’s stories (Brooks, 2007).

As a result, I adopt a feminist standpoint which enables reflection upon the significance of my own lived experience in relation to my research (Harding, 1992). My position as a radical feminist was, and is, overt. Beyond its methodological scope, Twitter embodies the playground upon which TERF is so frequently cast. Thus, a statement of my position in my Twitter biography likely attracted those who showed hostility to the research, but crucially, also indicated to 102 women that they could entrust me with their stories.

Figure 2

A combination of the imagery depicted in Figure 2, the #punchaterf hashtag (Bartosch, 2019), and the juxtaposition of the term TERF in relation to a feminist being “punched” by a transgender woman (Mail Online, 2019), motivated my interests in studying the discursive applications, and subsequent female experiences, of the label TERF.

This thesis uses Jane’s (2014) theory of e-bile to guide its understanding of TERF, particularly in online spheres. Jane recommends publishing uncensored examples of “hostile misogynistic rhetoric” or “e-bile” (Jane, 2014, p.558). Following this convention, my data remains uncensored despite the inclusion of vitriolic language, misogynistic abuse, and threats of rape or other violent actions. I echo Jane’s concerns that censoring this type of discourse may prevent us from analysing its “distinct characteristics”, and “[blind] us to its existence and proliferation” (ibid).

The principle research question asks: what can women’s lived experiences tell us about the term TERF?

Subsidiary research questions include:

  • Within which contexts is TERF commonly used?
  • If TERF is a shorthand, is it accurate?
  • What are the varying implicit meanings of the label TERF?
  • Are there situations where TERF is used as a slur?

To address these questions this thesis is structured as follows. First, TERF is mapped within feminist and linguistic literature, accompanied by introductions to both radical, and gender-critical feminisms. Second, a rationale of the methodology employed also examines the relationship between the research and my positionality. Third, a description of the findings are provided and analysed thematically. Finally, the conclusions of the research are presented alongside the limitations of the study, and future recommendations.

Chapter 1 - Literature Review: What does TERF mean?

Throughout this chapter I use diverse media resources and blog posts to document TERF’s current usage, and highlight the debates surrounding the functionality of the term. A review of linguistic literature regarding slurs follows, with a view of providing tangible criteria to analyse TERF against. Third, a semantic deconstruction of TERF within the historical context of the development of the feminist movement traces the origins of ‘radical feminism’, and enables an understanding of what is meant by ‘trans-exclusionary’. Finally, I provide an account of ‘gender-critical feminism’ to familiarise the reader with the arguments made by such feminists.

Given that the first documented coinage of TERF appeared in 2008 (Smythe, 2008), its history as a term is relatively short. Consequently, there is a natural dearth across varying academic disciplinary literatures regarding its definition. Further, transcending its esoteric origins, TERF’s entrance into public and popular discourse has rendered it a buzzword (Ditum, 2017) enabling the misrepresentation of arguments made by so-called TERFs (Murphy, 2019). In accordance with the literature gap, the parameters of this review are widened, when appropriate, to include sources originating outside of the UK.

TERF in the Media

Gender-critical feminists have argued that TERF is: “a term of abuse” (Ditum, 2017), misogynistic (Bennett, 2018), and that it constitutes hate speech (Murphy, 2017). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the violent rhetoric which often accompanies online use of TERF promotes actual violence to women (Ditum, 2017; Murphy, 2017). This is aptly demonstrated by an incident where feminist Maria MacLachlan was punched by Tara Wolf, a transgender woman, at a 2017 meeting called “We Need to Talk About Gender” held at Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park (Izaakson, 2018). British media reported that prior to the incident Wolf posted on Facebook “that she wanted to “f**k up some TERFS”” (Bannerman, 2019). During Wolf’s trial, despite MacLachlan explaining that TERF is a “derogatory label”, it was used repeatedly during session (MacLachlan, 2019).

During a recent court case, transsexual woman Miranda Yardley, was ironically accused of a transgender hate crime against a transgender activist (Manning and Walsh, 2019). The case was dismissed following a one-day hearing which simultaneously acknowledged TERF as a “derogatory word [...] aimed at, primarily, gender critical women” (Poulton, 2019).

Figure 3

Additionally, website ‘terfisaslur.com’ collates screenshots taken from social media platforms, showcasing instances where TERF has been used alongside “threats of violence, harassment, and abuse” and “misogyny” (TERF is a slur, 2019). Furthermore, seven female philosophers formulated a public complaint regarding the usage of TERF in two papers, both published by Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. They argued that TERF is “at worst a slur and at best derogatory” (Allen et al, 2019).

Defenders of TERF refute claims that TERF bears pejorative functions, instead claiming the alleged impartiality of the term. As mentioned previously, TERF was devised as an acronym for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’. Thus, Williams (2019) maintains the neutrality of TERF by arguing that “none of those words in and of themselves is [sic] a slur because they can all be used in non-inflammatory sentences”. Further, Williams argues that since TERF was “coined not by trans people but by cis [non-trans] feminists” (ibid) it cannot constitute a slur. Since the terms increasing popularisation, opinion columns hosted by influential media outlets have also used TERF (Hay, 2019; Lewis, 2019). Hay (2019) states that “while some consider the acronym derogatory, it is a widely accepted shorthand for a literal description of the views these [gender-critical] feminists hold”.

TERF as a Slur?

Having presented the claims surrounding TERF’s functionality, this review now evaluates the claim that TERF is a slur against existing linguistic literature. For Hornsby (2001), derogatory words must satisfy two necessary conditions; “first, they apply to people and are commonly understood to convey hatred or contempt. Secondly, for each [...] word, there is, or [...] could be, [...] a neutral counterpart” (Hornsby, 2001, p.129). Ashwell defines neutral counterparts as “terms that have the same extension as the slur’s target group, but which are free of the slur’s derogating capabilities” (Ashwell, 2016, p.229). Consensus suggests that neutral, or comparatively neutral, correlates are necessary determinations of words as slurs (Richard, 2008; Camp, 2013).

Anderson and Lepore (2013) afford greater credibility to the target group of slurs than other scholars by invoking social constructionist arguments: “once relevant individuals declare a word a slur, it becomes one” (Anderson and Lepore, 2013, p.21). From this perspective, then, TERF’s previous associations as a descriptive shorthand alongside its introduction via “cis feminists” (Williams, 2019) are irrelevant in light of gender-critical feminist claims that TERF is a slur.

Additionally, Richard (2008) argues that slurs function to “express strong attitudes towards members of a group, attitudes [...] grounded in nothing more than membership in the group” (Richard, 2008, p.12). Jeshion (2013) further centralises the importance of group membership; “slurs function to express the speaker’s contempt for his target in virtue of the target’s group-membership”, (Jeshion, 2013, p.243) adding that the primary function of slurs is to dehumanise. Thus, while Anderson and Lepore (2013) may be convinced that TERF is a slur, there are further conditions that must be satisfied to persuade other linguistic scholars.

To satisfy Hornsby’s first condition it must be commonly understood that TERF conveys hatred or contempt. Further, to claim that TERF is objectively derogatory, the plausibility of a neutral counterpart is required. TERF’s function must also be shown to dehumanise gender-critical feminists. Cameron (2016), as the only linguist commenting on the specific usage of TERF within a blog post, argues that TERF partially meets most criteria proposed for defining words as slurs. This thesis understands ‘gender-critical feminists’ to constitute a relevant neutral correlate, thus meeting one outlined requirement. The remaining conditions, that TERF functions to express contempt, that this is commonly understood, and that it dehumanises gender-critical feminists as a group, will be evaluated in chapter 3.

Deconstructing TERF and Radical Feminism

Having situated TERF within linguistic literature, oppositional claims that TERF constitutes a neutral shorthand can now be interrogated. To do so, a deconstruction of its acronymised usage is apt, beginning with feminism. As Delmar (1986) pointed out, while:

[m]any would agree that at the very least a feminist is someone who holds that women suffer discrimination because of their sex, that they have specific needs which remain negated and unsatisfied, and that the satisfaction of these needs would require a radical change (Delmar, 1986, p.8)

beyond this baseline, feminism becomes increasingly complex. In the UK, divergent factions within feminism materialised throughout the 70’s and 80’s, which, according to Delmar, resulted in a “sclerosis of the movement” (Delmar, 1986, p.9). The underpinning assumption of feminism is the unification of all women through their shared identities and lived experiences as women, whilst also acknowledging biological, reproductive, and socialised difference between ourselves and men (Delmar, 1986; Cott, 1986). Arising from this assumed solidarity is the question of whether women ought to be treated as a group; the varying answers to which inspired debates surrounding essentialism, intersectionality, and the evolving focus from equality to difference (Hague, 2016).

Acknowledging the aforementioned differences between women and men remains an important prerequisite to aligning with a radical feminist identity. Unlike economic class-based oppressions, radical feminism recognises that female oppression originates not from material history, but from biological reality alone (Firestone, 1972; De Beauvoir, 1953). Clarification regarding the semantics of the word ‘radical’ is noteworthy; as Sarachild (1978) explained, ‘radical’ should not be read as an indication of extremist ideology, but referred back to its Latin lineage - ‘radical’ meaning ‘root’. Radical feminists are concerned with “getting to the roots of problems in society” (Sarachild, 1978, p.144). Consciousness-raising groups were developed during the second-wave, armed with the challenge of, literally, raising consciousness amongst women of the roots, methods, and locations of our oppressions (Sarachild, 1978). The ensuing enlightenment from such groups paved way for the renowned mantra, “the personal is political” (Hanisch, 2000).

Mackay (2015) offers a useful criteria-based summary of the principal constitutive beliefs of radical feminism:

[F]irst, the acceptance of the existence of patriarchy alongside a commitment to end it; second, the use and promotion of women-only space as an organizing method; third, a focus on all forms of male violence against women and their role as a keystone of women’s oppression broadly; fourth and finally, an extension of the analysis of male violence against women to include the institutions of pornography and prostitution. (Mackay, 2015, p.334)

Highlighting the centrality of women-only spaces in radical feminist thought, Mackay acknowledges that the question of including transgender women within such spaces, and feminism as an extension, has led to fractured divisions (Mackay, 2015). Stonewall (2019) define trans as:

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of [the following] terms, [...] transgender, transsexual, gender-queer [...], gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois. (Stonewall, 2019)

Exclusion is defined by Cambridge Dictionaries as “the act of not allowing someone or something to take part in an activity or to enter a place” (Dictionary.cambridge.org, 2019). Thus, at this stage of the inquiry, it can be assumed that the deconstructed definition of TERF denotes a radical feminist fitting Mackay’s (2015) typology, who additionally excludes those people who identify as trans under the Stonewall (2019) umbrella. Whilst some radical feminists also identify as gender-critical feminists, and vice versa, this is not unanimous. Gender-critical feminism is explored in addition to radical feminism to understand concerns explicit to the former.

Gender-Critical Feminist Beliefs and Concerns

Gender-critical feminism is not, yet, an academically cited branch of feminism. This section provides a number of the central concerns, beginning with the current conflation of esoteric terms. Under the Stonewall (2019) definition of ‘trans’, both ‘transgender’ and ‘transsexual’ are listed as alternative terms, implying that a) transgender and transsexual are interchangeable, and b) that transsexual is synonymous with trans person (Ditum, 2018; Kirkup, 2018). Transsexual, however, is commonly understood to refer to individuals suffering gender dysphoria, who may receive varying gender-reassignment surgeries to make their physical sex congruent with their gender identity (Transsexual.org, 2019). Thus, the process of gender-reassignment surgery generally remains a prerequisite for many people’s semantic understandings of conditions of transsexuality. Despite this, a large majority of transgender women retain their male genitalia (Ditum, 2018; Kirkup, 2018; FairPlayForWomen, 2018), with one survey of 28,000 transgender adults reporting that only 12% of transgender women had undergone vaginoplasty or labiaplasty (James et al, 2016). Clearly then, positioning transsexual and transgender as synonymous is factually inaccurate. This has implications for public discourse; individuals unfamiliar with the topic are unlikely to be aware of these distinctions when discussing the impact of including transgender women in female-only spaces.

Obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) currently requires an individual (over the age of 18) to have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, lived in their acquired gender for a minimum of two years, and intend to live in their acquired gender for the remainder of their life. Seeking to understand “how best government might make the existing process [...] a better service for those trans and non-binary people who wish to use it” (GOV.UK, 2019), a public consultation pertaining to reforms of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) ran from the 3rd of July to the 22nd of October 2018. Central to the consultation is the notion of ‘self-identification’ – which would render the current GRC process obsolete, instead allowing individuals to legally self-identify as their preferred gender (O’Hagan, 2018; BBC News, 2017).

These proposed legislative changes have obvious consequences for sex-segregated spaces such as prisons, women’s refuges and domestic violence shelters, hospital and psychiatric wards, public changing rooms, and toilets. While these spaces are protected by law, debates pertaining to the inclusion of transgender women have arisen (Joyce, 2018). The Equality Act 2010 permits the legal exclusion of males (including trans-identifying males, or, transgender women) from single-sex services where the case of exemption constitutes a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019). Therefore, permission is granted at the discretion of individual institutions in line with opting for the least discriminatory option. However, the Equality Act 2010 is frequently misunderstood, leading to institutions using it to instead claim the illegality of excluding transgender women from female-only spaces (Fair Play For Women, 2018). Thus, when institutions have utilised the Equality Act’s exemption to exclude transgender women they have been labelled as transphobic (Madigan, 2018).

Gender-critical feminists have raised concerns that self-identification policies coupled with the estimated rates of male genitalia retention by transgender women would render it impossible, and illegal, for women to distinguish between transgender women and other men in female-only spaces (Sudyk, 2017). Predatory men have already claimed transgender identity under current policies to gain access to, and subsequently abuse, vulnerable women; Karen White, a legal male who identified as a transgender woman while retaining male genitalia, was housed in a female-only prison despite previous convictions of rape and paedophilia (Parveen, 2018). White went on to sexually assault two female inmates (BBC News, 2018). Freedom of Information requests from 2017 confirmed that out of 125 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, 60 had previous convictions for sexual offences (BBC News, 2018; Fair Play For Women, 2018). A convicted domestic abuser who made death threats to a former partner, was also permitted access to a female-only refuge since claiming transgender identity (Manning, Bindel, and Powell, 2019).

The Crime Survey for England and Wales 2018 estimated that 20% of women have experienced some form of sexual assault since turning 16 (Ons.gov.uk, 2018), substantiating women’s concerns regarding their safety. Additionally, men are the perpetrators of nearly all violent incidents committed in England and Wales (Cockburn and Oakley, 2011). Gender-critical feminists, including some transsexual women, argue that if self-identification is enshrined in law, it would allow predatory men to exploit “the notion of gender self-identity and take advantage of the new orthodoxy that someone can be trans without undergoing any physical changes [...] or changing their behaviour” (Harrison, 2018). Further, gender-critical feminists maintain that safeguarding female-only spaces is not about “transwomen per se[,] it is about male people – the sex class into which all transwomen were born” (Lawford-Smith and Vicendese, 2018).

Thus, unless evidence can show that the statistical threat of violence to women is significantly reduced when posed by trans-identifying males with penises, compared to non-trans-identifying males with penises, gender-critical feminists argue that female-only spaces must exclude all male-bodied people, regardless of how they identify (ibid). This argument relies upon the notion of gender-based socialisation whereby males and females are socialised differently according to their biological sex, and argues that all transgender and transsexual women have experienced male socialisation, and consequently may pose a threat to women (ibid). Whilst not exhaustive, this section has presented a number of gender-critical concerns which are deemed relevant to the present topic.

Having contextualised TERF within feminist and linguistic debates, the conflict arising from the term has been introduced. Furthermore, the ideas of gender-critical feminists, those who are most likely to be called TERFs, have been explored. Before presenting their lived experiences of the label TERF, I outline the methodology employed by the present research below.

Chapter 2 - Methodology

No research is free of the biases, assumptions, and personality of the researcher and we cannot separate self from those activities in which we are intimately involved. (Sword, 1999, p.277)

I do not hide from the reader that I was called a TERF throughout this research; this played an instrumental role in embracing reflexivity, not only as a theoretical concept, but as a process. I argue that my experiences of being labelled as a TERF, as a direct result of the recruitment stage, exemplified the inextricability of my positionality from this research. Resultantly, I employ a number of methods aimed at minimising my potential bias.

The term TERF is most frequently deployed through social media. I therefore initially turned to Twitter to find women who would be willing to share with me their experiences of being labelled as TERFs. However, I quickly encountered a methodological impasse. Guidelines provided by the British Sociological Association (BSA) acknowledge the importance of obtaining (as far as possible) informed consent, and the affordance to participants of anonymity and confidentiality (BSA, 2017). This is not without reason; 90% of surveyed Twitter users believe that if their tweets were republished without consent they ought to be anonymised (Williams et al, 2017). Twitter’s policy, however, requires a total republication of tweets (Developer.twitter.com, 2019). Thus, my original intention of analysing the discursive usage of TERF across Twitter could not be achieved; compliance with Twitter’s policy breaches anonymity of the participant, and vice versa. Further, obtaining informed consent from a large number of participants due to the required analysis of innumerable tweets would have been challenging (Ahmed et al, 2017). Consequently, I proposed qualitative research, investigating the experiences of women labelled as TERFs using two stages; online written accounts, and semi-structured interviews.

Initially I used Twitter to seek out women whose biographies bore the phrases ‘radical feminist’ or ‘gender-critical’, sending brief introductory messages explaining my research. One participant alerted me that some women may feel apprehensive about participating, due to a number of gender-critical feminists experiencing doxxing (the publication of private information by others), harassment, or threats online (Object Now, 2019; see Mumsnet, 2018; see Reddit, 2018). Sharing personal information with a stranger, therefore, may have represented a risk factor. To continue with the research, it was imperative to gain my participants trust. Thus, I adopted a feminist standpoint approach; viewing my politics not as “block[ing] the growth of knowledge but ... guid[ing] it” (Harding, 2004, p.2). Correspondingly, I modified my Twitter biography to reflect my feminist beliefs, accurately and transparently, self-identifying as a radical feminist.

Guided by developments to snowball sampling through the use of social media (Baltar and Brunet, 2012), I recruited participants by circulating a tweet detailing the required participation criteria - being a woman who has been labelled as a TERF. I asked women who were interested to contact me directly, and changed my direct messaging settings on Twitter to ‘open’. My recruitment tweet was retweeted over 600 times, providing me access to a wide pool of potential participants. The virality of the tweet also attracted hostility; a number of trans-rights-activists subsequently labelled me as a TERF, referred to my research as transphobic, and at one point, suggested that they were employees of my institution who held the power to shred my work.

Despite the conflict vis-à-vis Twitter’s privacy policy and sociological ethical guidelines, I have decided to publish these tweets in my dissertation; these were targeted public tweets designed to harass and intimidate myself, and in accordance with Jane’s (2014) concept of e-bile, I believe that this discourse is relevant to the present research. Further, where harm may be posed to the researcher, attempting to obtain informed consent over social media platforms is inappropriate (Townsend and Wallace, 2016) – while the level of risk was low, I deemed it both provocative and futile to further engage with individuals who were harassing me. Consequently, the relevant tweets are featured as images below.

Figures  4,5,6,7

Whilst I have been transparent regarding my feminist ideology throughout, it was through these tweets that I acquired first-hand experience of being labelled as a TERF. Prior to this research, I had no personal experience of the label despite my vested interest in the topic. Thus, I became my own subject of research. Treating my own experience of the label as an epistemic process enabled a feminist standpoint to emerge. Resultantly, my position granted me access to participants who, due to perceived shared lived experience, were willing to share personal accounts with me (Berger, 2015).

Stage One of Data Collection (Written Accounts)

Using SurveyMonkey I designed a combined information sheet, ethical consent form, and space to provide a written account regarding women’s experiences of being labelled as ‘TERFs’ (see A1). Prior to detailing their experiences, participants were required to agree to and understand: the purposes of the research, to share their written experiences, that their words may be used as anonymised direct quotes, and their right to withdraw their data at any point. Upon completion, participants were directed to an unlimited word textbox where they were asked to write about their experiences guided by five topic prompts (see A2). Participants were also asked to leave an e-mail address if they were interested in participating in the qualitative interview stage of data collection.

Participants

Out of 125 responses, 102 were usable resulting in an 81.6% completion rate. Incomplete responses were deleted. Of these participants, 96 were biological females, 4 were transsexual women, and 2 participants were labelled as no response. Participant ages are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Graph Depicting Participant Ages for Stage 1: Written Accounts

28 participants left e-mail addresses during stage one, signifying their interest in participation of stage two. I contacted 10 of these participants, namely those who had left extensive accounts which I believed would provide the richest data collection opportunities. Four out of these 10 responded to arrange interviews. Additionally, one woman who had not left a written account contacted me offering to be interviewed.

To circumvent potential bias resulting from my positionality, I hoped to interview individuals who might defend the usage of TERF as a neutral shorthand. Out of the 4 potential participants I identified and contacted, one declined, one did not respond, one expressed interest but due to logistics was unable to go ahead, and one agreed to participate.

This gave me a combined total of 6 interviews. Out of the 5 participants who had been labelled as TERFs, 4 were biological females, and 1 was a transsexual woman. The participant defending the term TERF was also female. The sum of participants who had been labelled as TERF’s totalled 102 individual women.

Stage Two of Data Collection (Interviews)

Using emergent themes from the written accounts, I devised a topic guide to implement during the semi-structured interviews. I utilised data from stage one to further rectify bias resulting from my experience of being labelled as a TERF. Whilst my experience was significant, I aimed to minimise researcher effects; I did not want my experience to influence the questions I asked my participants. Due to issues of locality, I conducted three phone interviews, with the remainder taking place in public spaces. Interviews ranged from between 30 to 60 minutes and were transcribed in full. Despite planning for semi-structured interviews led by a topic guide, the interviews generally evolved into unstructured interviews. Guided by Oakley’s (2013) contributions to feminist research methods, I allowed my participants to speak freely about the experiences which they perceived as significant. Often, my participants recounted lengthy and emotional stories which had occasionally resulted in trauma. It felt inappropriate during these personal recollections to revert to a topic guide; my research was designed to listen to women’s experiences of being labelled as TERFs, and these were the experiences that they were recounting to me.

Approach to Analysis

I listened to each interview twice; once within 72 hours of recording to extract the key themes, and a second time around two weeks later. This was done to reduce interpretation bias by analysing through a new lens (Berger, 2015). I treated my written accounts and interview transcripts as one dataset and used NVivo to code. My analytical method is contextual thematic analysis; bridging between reflecting the experiences, meanings, and reality of my participants, whilst also acknowledging that these may be affected by varying societal discourses (Braun and Clarke, 2006). I acknowledge that my role in identifying themes is active (Taylor and Ussher, 2001), however, given that the present topic is an under-researched area, I provide a rich description of the dataset to provide an account of the predominant themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Further, I adopt an inductive and data-driven approach to maximise accuracy when representing my participant’s experiences (ibid).

Chapter 3 - Findings and Analysis: What are the Lived Experiences of Women Labelled as TERFs?

Guided by a contextual thematic approach to understanding women’s experiences of being labelled as TERFs, I identified five key themes which answer the overarching research question, and its subsidiaries. Discussions surrounding e-bile and homophobia elucidate the contextual deployment of TERF; analysis of the inaccuracies of the term illustrate the non-self-identifying nature of TERF; the implicit meanings of the label are analysed in relation to discourse; and TERF’s slurring capacities are interrogated. Further, my data suggests that TERF enables the conflation of progressive, gender-critical feminism with far-right ideologies. As a number of quotes are taken from the written accounts, I provide the original quotes without using ‘sic’.

E-bile

Referring to a specific type of discourse “marked by graphic threats of sexual violence, explicit ad hominem invective and unapologetic misogyny” (Jane, 2014, p.558), my data suggested that the prevalence of e-bile in relation to the term TERF was significantly high. Threats of extreme sexual and physical violence in conjunction with TERF were common, with women reporting that even if they had not experienced this rhetoric themselves, they had personally seen it directed towards other women. These threats were overwhelmingly received over social media platforms, and in particular, Twitter, further emulating the common e-bile narrative. Three distinct threats were identified corresponding to: rape, death, and physical violence:

“On Twitter and Facebook I have had threats, been told that I am ‘TERF scum’ and that I deserve to be stamped on and raped”

“They [trans-rights-activists] started calling me Bigot and TERF and Nazi and that I should be raped and that for holding such evil disgusting views it would be better for me to just kill myself”

“I’ve been told on twitter to “choke on a dick TERF”, “If you don’t think that trans women are women, you can suck my cock TERF””

Within these quotes, TERF functions to legitimise subsequent threats of violence, or e-bile. If TERF was removed from the sentence and replaced with ‘woman’, the inherent misogyny would be obvious to most audiences. Yet I argue that by using TERF to ‘other’ the women labelled, the term serves to justify such misogyny. Fantasies of death are graphic; incorporating the imagery of fire or historical methods such as the guillotine:

“They [trans-rights-activists] called me a bigot that should die in a fire and a TERF”

“When I am called a TERF it is normally accompanied by sexist insults and rape or death threats. For example, ‘You should be burnt alive TERF cu*nt”

“I have had to step down from a university LGBT representative position after comments I had made regarding the existence of “transwomen lesbians” were brought into question. Members of the LGBT society threatened me online with physical violence, saying they would “guillotine” me, “punch” me, that I deserved to die, and that I was a Nazi”

Further, while many of these threats came from males, a number of threats were reported as issued by transgender women. These are identifiable by the presence of a ‘lady’ or ‘girl’ dick as the tool of rape or violence:

“[TERF] is often accompanied by threats of violence (sexual or otherwise) e.g. choke on my ladyd*ck TERF, die TERF”

“The violent imagery usually involves sexual violence and graphic sexual threats such as “choke on my girl dick” or similar”

One participant recounted the e-bile she received in response to posting about a female-only music festival on her blog:

“I got horrible (HORRIBLE) private messages that talked about trans women with their “ladycocks” coming onto the Land and raping and murdering all the TERFs”

Threats of rape or violence which implicitly infer that the sender is a transgender woman may be interpreted by gender-critical feminists as legitimising their concerns regarding the safeguarding of female-only spaces; they do not suggest that the statistical threat of violence to women is significantly reduced when posed by trans-identifying males (Lawford-Smith and Vicendese, 2018). E-bile which utilises threats of rape or physical violence is likely only to amplify gender-critical feminists concerns.

Mirroring Jane’s (2014) analysis, TERF deployed in these instances appears less concerned with individual women, instead reflective of an online culture of misogyny. Thus, the quotations above, whilst graphically personal within the context of threats to women’s bodies, are impersonal in that they are “generic, predictable and almost tedious as a result of their ubiquity” (Jane, 2014, p.566). This does not detract though, from the impact of e-bile upon individuals. It is well documented that recipients of online abuse and harassment experience significant emotional distress, and increased fear of physical attack (Van Laer, 2014; Maple, Short, and Brown, 2011; Vitak et al, 2017) - and my data supports this:

“The rhetoric of punching terfs, and terfs should die in a fire, or be raped etc, does make it intimidating, as so much of this spills over into real life confrontations”

“I was actually frightened I’d be attacked”

Other women reported that receiving rape and death threats had triggered existing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD):

“Because I am a victim of rape and child abuse this left me in a state of PTSD triggered trauma for about a month, I was disassociating”

“It [online attacks] did extrapolate my chronic anxiety and PTSD”

Women also experienced adverse public consequences as a result of online e-bile such as doxxing and employer harassment:

“I had an extremely aggressive trans activist do a public Facebook post, tagging in the company I work for and my direct boss, telling everyone I was ‘transphobic’ and a ‘TERF”

“I was doxxed on Twitter and called a Terf again and trans activists called for my employers to be found and contacted and for me to be sacked”

I propose that TERF has evolved into a word within its own right – specifically within the context of e-bile. This further questions the narrative that TERF is a neutral descriptor; its neutrality is compromised by its presence within such violent rhetoric.

Inaccuracy? TERF in Relation to Identities

Defenders of TERF have claimed that it is a shorthand for a “literal description” of the views held by those labelled (Hay, 2019). The validity of this claim is contingent upon the accuracy of the shorthand; that those who are labelled as TERFs are ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’. My data, however, contradicts both components of the label. A number of participants expressed confusion at being labelled trans-exclusionary, as they felt that they do support trans rights:

“I 100% respect transgender people’s rights to respect and dignity and to be free from abuse and discrimination. When I have been called a TERF it was for voicing opinions such as that Self-ID for transgender people could put women’s safety at risk, or that it is unfair for people with male bodies to compete in women’s sports”

“I believe that everyone’s human rights should be respected and where the law prevents some people from accessing their human rights, it should be reformed [...] While I may have no issues with sharing services or facilities with trans people, law and policy cannot be built on the views, wishes, or feelings of individuals. We have to consider the impact on everyone – especially those who already experience isolation or discrimination due to faith, age, patriarchal cultural practices, disability or long term health conditions, and trauma or experience of sexual violence”

Equally, a number of participants were previously unfamiliar with radical feminism prior to being labelled as a TERF, and have not identified as radical feminists as a result:

“I had never heard the word [‘TERF’] before nor Radical Feminism and had always considered myself to be pro-trans rights”

“I don’t know what type of feminist I am – radical or socialist”

“I have been a moderate feminist for 45 years”

Two transsexual women opposed the label ‘trans-exclusionary’, citing it as intrinsically paradoxical:

“I’ve been labelled a TERF for voicing my concerns on the modern trans movement. This is despite me not being neither trans-exclusionary (as I’m a transsexual myself) nor a radical feminist (or even feminist in general)”

“It has been applied to me, and I can’t be trans-exclusionary and although I’m a feminist ally, the very fact that I’m... I can’t be a feminist”

The present discussion serves to illustrate the heterogeneity within my sample - TERF does not accurately describe everyone that it is applied to. If TERF is an accurate shorthand, then there must be some unifying factor of homogeneity amongst those labelled. My data, however, suggests that there are women who are labelled as TERFs who neither subscribe to the trans-exclusionary component, nor radical feminism. Thus, the only apparent unification between these women is the fact that they have been labelled as TERFs, and that this is not a self-ascribed label. The literature review highlighted that many women who are labelled as TERFs refer to themselves as gender-critical, and my data suggests that voicing gender-critical concerns often resulted in experiencing the label TERF:

“I feel very much that TERF is used as a way of dismissing, ridiculing and silencing the very real concerns that the majority of women have with the transgender agenda”

“I have also been called a TERF for taking issue with allowing males to play female sports”

“Sometimes because I have posted gender critical thoughts myself. Sometimes when commenting on others gender critical posts. Sometimes for merely liking a GC post”

The inability to identify any homogeneity between women who are labelled as TERF’s, other than sharing gender-critical concerns, renders TERF an inaccurate shorthand for three reasons. First, a number of women did not believe that safeguarding women’s rights and supporting trans rights were mutually exclusive, suggesting that ‘trans-exclusionary’ did not apply to them. Second, some women rejected a radical feminist identity, citing other strands of feminism as more applicable to them. Third, the concept of trans-exclusionary transsexuals is oxymoronic, as highlighted by two transsexual women. TERF’s inaccuracy as a term, situated within the context of e-bile, strengthens gender-critical feminists claims that TERF is a pejorative. As a term, TERF functions to stereotype those who are labelled as a homogenous group, yet the assumed homogeneity, ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, is inaccurate.

Misogyny and Homophobia

My data suggests that TERF is a gendered label, which is utilised by men to legitimise misogynistic language and behaviour:

“It is a misogynistic term. TERFs are women. I can’t think of a similar label term applied to men who hold controversial opinions”

“It is a misogynistic term, aimed predominantly at women to denigrate them”

“A lot of men use this term as a cover to be extremely misogynistic”

While this finding is unsurprising, particularly within the context of e-bile which is typified by misogyny (Jane, 2014; Banet-Weiser and Miltner, 2016), the research found that women also experience TERF as a homophobic label. Participants described the usage of TERF in situations where lesbians had asserted sexual preferences which did not include transgender women. This is anecdotally referred to as the ‘Cotton Ceiling’ (TERF is a slur, 2019; Yardley, 2014; Jeffreys, 2014), which argues that lesbians who reject the sexual advances of transgender women are transphobic (Reed, 2012). This is contested by lesbians, and gender-critical feminists, who defend the right of lesbians to define themselves as a minority group premised upon exclusive female same-sex attraction (Barnes, 2017; Stock, 2019; Fair Play For Women, 2017). Lesbian homosexuality supersedes the notion of gender identity; lesbians are not attracted to male-bodied people who identify as women, they are attracted to biological females. My data suggests that TERF not only functions as gendered e-bile, but that it is used to express homophobia towards lesbians in particular:

“One transwomen stated that I should accept their cock and balls as just a “birth defect” and when I said I couldn’t do that I was called a shallow and superficial bigoted TERF”

 “I was first called a TERF when I said to a friend, who identifies as a transwoman, that I wasn’t interested in him because he is male and I’m a lesbian”

Further, a number of participants suggested that ‘lesbian’ and TERF have become synonymous:

“For me at least, and a lot of other lesbians, we’re called TERFs for simply existing openly as lesbians”

“Terf is practically interchangeable with lesbian”

“I am an exclusively same-sex attracted lesbian so I’m automatically a TERF anyway”

The notion that lesbians are ‘transphobic’ for rejecting transgender women who retain male genitalia, has been criticised by gender-critical feminists as indicative of rape culture (Wild, 2018), which refers to the systemic tolerance, acceptance and minimisation of sexual violence within society (Powell and Henry, 2014). One woman recounted an event which happened to a lesbian peer in Korea:

“AL tweeted her experiences of being sexually harassed and raped by MTF [male to female transwoman]. [...] AL said in her tweet “I could not say ‘no’ to the attacker’s demand. I was afraid that if I reject the attacker, I will be labeled as ‘TERF’ because the attacker was MTF. So I did sex with ‘her’, but I didn’t wanted to because I am only sexually attracted to female. The attacker still had ‘her’ penis.” [...] Eventually, AL was cyberbullied severely by trans activists and queer-feminists, so she erased her account”

AL’s story provides evidence for the ‘Cotton Ceiling’ as promoting rape culture; sex without full and un-coerced consent is rape. The fear of being labelled as a TERF in AL’s case can be seen as a coercive threat (Wild, 2019). Fear of this label is legitimate; this thesis has already shown that recipients of the label are susceptible to rape and death threats, and consequent fear of physical attack. Using TERF to denigrate lesbians by simultaneously labelling them as transphobic serves to delegitimise lesbians’ status as victims. By being othered as TERFs, lesbians are predisposed to victim-blaming in cases of sexual assault, as illustrated in the incident reported by AL.

Further, that AL was cyberbullied to the point of deleting her social media account exemplifies the exclusion that lesbians face following their labelled status as TERFs. After questioning the notion that transgender women can identify as lesbians, a lesbian feminist group were publicly condemned by Pride as showing “bigotry, ignorance and hate” (Pride in London, 2018; BBC News, 2018). Evidence suggests that lesbians have suffered exclusion from their LGBT groups in the format of bans due to allegations of transphobia (Wild, 2019). However, my research indicates that lesbians are voluntarily excluding themselves from support groups out of fear of being labelled as TERFs:

“To be honest, I try to avoid LGBT spaces as much as possible now. My concern with being labelled a TERF is the risks that go with it – The absolute vitriol and violent hatred towards those labelled TERF and the justification of violence against us”

“I definitely feel like lesbians aren’t welcome in LGBT spaces any more – and that our so-called community is a dangerous place to be if you are a lesbian rather than a queer woman who includes males in her sex life”

Thus, whilst TERF is frequently deployed within misogynistic discourse, it also functions to exude homophobia. As a result, TERF is used to stigmatise lesbians, elevating their vulnerability to sexual coercion and social exclusion.

Esotericism and Duality of Uses of TERF

A number of participants reported that prior to their first experience of being labelled as a TERF, they had not known what the term meant. Despite this, some participants immediately felt that it constituted a term of abuse. This may, to a greater or lesser extent, be due to the term being used in conjunction with e-bile:

“I didn’t even know what TERF meant at the time. But I immediately got the vibe of it being an insult”

“I had absolutely no idea what this meant but it felt abusive and I was shocked and hurt”

“The first time I heard the word TERF I didn’t know what it was”

TERF’s esotericism is not isolated to my participants; articles from various media outlets and blogs position TERF as a term that the wider population may be unfamiliar with (Beresford, 2017; Williams, 2019; Ditum, 2017). As discourses both constitute and reproduce knowledge (Foucault, 1972; Burr, 2003; Gergen, 1985), and are produced and reproduced by social processes (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2011; Burr, 2003; Gergen, 1985), perceptions about TERFs based on the implicit assumptions instigated by discourse are relevant. Thus, if the discursive assumptions about TERFs are negative (which is likely given the hyperbolic nature of e-bile), then the esoteric nature of TERF is problematised. Dehumanising e-bile such as:

“keep TERFs out of Pride”

“No TERFs on our TURF”

“You should be burnt alive TERF cu*nt”

act as signifiers to those who do not know who TERFs are, that TERFs are bad nonetheless.

Thus, the concerns held by women labelled as TERFs are deemed illegitimate by virtue of being labelled as TERFs. Consequently, these concerns are dismissed:

“I think that’s why I find it so sad – before I knew about the issues, the word TERF was used successfully to obscure and reduce the person’s arguments, so that newcomers to the debate don’t actually get to see the arguments in full. They are just told, “this person is bad, like homophobes or racists – don’t listen to them”

“It’s such a term that when somebody is saying the ‘terfs’ are saying this, the implication is that these people are not worth listening to, their arguments are fallacious, they are full of hate, before the actual, what’s actually been said has been analysed”

My interview of a defendant of the term TERF further supported this claim; when asked what they think of in response to TERF, they replied:

“Um, I think it brings to mind behaviour which I honestly find quite shameful, you know, so the description recently of the two women who went to America and attacked some transwomen”

The description in question refers to an incident where two women, who have been labelled TERFs, posted a video on Facebook which depicts them allegedly harassing a transgender woman (Vagianos, 2019). In response to this, a number of gender-critical feminists distanced themselves from the two women’s behaviour (Reddit, 2019). Further, allegations of association between the two women and a far-right organisation led some gender-critical feminists to question the motives of the two women. It was posited that gender-critical feminism was being used to advance the two women’s own agendas, despite being unreflective of gender-critical feminists as a wider group (ibid). This instance draws attention to a potential conflation of gender-critical feminism with far-right politics. The former aims to balance trans rights within a framework of safeguarding women (through sex-segregated spaces), whilst the latter represents transphobia in its primary definition. My participants were familiar with this conflation:

“Groups which purport to represent the LGBT community, like Stonewall or Diva, will also use ‘TERF’ and transphobe alongside homophobe. This conflates these very different issues in public consciousness. I think many people essentially think us TERFs are fanatical right-wing conservatives”

This is further illustrated by an interview with a transsexual woman:

“The whole gender critical movement is, in the UK, different to elsewhere, everywhere else in the world it seems to be a right wing reaction to left wing progressiveness, whereas in the UK things have been different, it cuts across the political spectrum [...] I’ve not met anybody who would describe themselves as on the left in the gender critical movement who would deny my access to housing, employment and really support my right to express myself as I feel comfortable”

This conflation of polarised political attitudes (gender-critical feminism which is left-leaning and rooted in social progression, and right-wing conservatism which does not support trans rights), resulted in the identification of a duality in the usage of TERF. Discussing e-bile highlighted that TERF is often used in conjunction with misogyny, however some participants felt that young women who were influenced by hyperbolic discourse used TERF out of misguided attempts to be socially progressive:

“I feel there are two types of people who use the word terf. Those who accompany it with the violent language of abuse and harm [...] and those who are as yet still slightly more naïve to the depth of trans activism and who still see it as a genuine descriptor”

“I think what’s happening is that men are using this term to bully and insult women online but women are also using this term (misguidedly) to protect trans rights”

“I feel exasperated and sad when silly young women call me it online as they have no idea what a misogynist term it is”

Thus, that TERF acts as a signifier for dehumanisation is a prerequisite to its esoteric nature. Challenging this esotericism within discourse is difficult due to the misguided conflations of gender-critical feminism with far-right politics. Resultantly, a dichotomy of intent behind the usage of TERF exists – one branch representing misogyny and e-bile, and the other representing the impact of esotericism and discourse.

Is TERF a Slur?

Analysis has so far shown that TERF is regularly used within e-bile; that TERF is an inaccurate shorthand; that TERF is used to convey both misogyny and homophobia; and that TERF’s esoteric nature enables its continued distortion and misrepresentation of arguments within discourse. Subsequently, there is prudence in evaluating TERF’s function against the previously listed linguistic criterions of slurs. During the literature review, the satisfaction of two conditions were speculated. Firstly, that TERF has a neutral correlate – gender-critical feminists. Evidence that TERF is an inaccurate shorthand further elevates this claim. Secondly, according to Anderson and Lepore (2013), a word is a slur when the targets of the term have declared it a slur. My research supports this:

“It’s a slur, akin to “witch”, “bitch”, or cunt”

“In the dozen or so instances where the term has been used it has been used as a slur or derogatory insult”

However, as previously outlined, there are still criteria which must be satisfied:

  1. That TERF dehumanises gender-critical feminists as a group
  2. That TERF functions to express contempt
  3. That this contempt is commonly understood

My data supplied significant evidence that TERF dehumanises gender-critical feminists. The fact that TERF in itself is used as a word to describe women alongside violent rhetoric such as: punch a TERF, rape a TERF, kill a TERF, highlights its dehumanising nature. Further, a number of participants reported that they had seen TERF used alongside words which represent uncleanliness, filth, or disease:

“I’ve also been told “all TERFS are irredemable filth””

“It is used aggressively, linked with ‘turd’, ‘turf’ as in something underfoot, that you can walk all over and is dirty”

“Prof Alex Sharpe referred to ‘TERFs’ as akin to the ‘bubonic plague’ lurking in the earth”

“poisonous TERF”

Dehumanising language is not only relevant to the context of slurs, but is also concerning, given the link between dehumanisation and hostile attitudes, legitimisation or endorsement of violence, and sexual aggression, against the target group (Goff et al, 2008; Tipler and Ruscher, 2019; Rudman and Mescher, 2012). This is further elucidated by the fear instilled in some of my participants that this online rhetoric translates into real life confrontation, and where the desire to ‘f**k up some TERFs’ (Bannerman, 2019) was expressed online by the transgender woman who punched Maria MacLachlan.

Second, it must be shown that TERF functions to express contempt. While the level of e-bile and dehumanising language used in conjunction with TERF clearly supports this, I provide further evidence to substantiate this claim:

“It was clearly said dismissively as an insult and a slur. The implication being that anything I now said could be ignored now that I had been labelled as one of the outgroup”

“Some women who have been labeled TERFs have been fired or kicked out of organisations. TERF is often used to dismiss women’s arguments or views and I can see the speaker was using it towards me to shut me down”

“It’s telling others in the discussion not to listen to you”

The quotes above, in conjunction with all of the quotes used elsewhere in this analysis, clearly show that TERFs are treated with contempt; that the women who are labelled as TERFs are not worthy of respect or consideration, and ultimately that they should not be listened to. The cycle of esoteric discourse previously discussed also serves to highlight that the contempt which TERF serves to express is commonly understood, even if the user of the term is inhibited by this cycle of discourse from understanding the semantics of the term. Actually, it is this very cycle of esoteric discourse which enables this contempt to be commonly understood. The fact that TERF is inaccurate as a short-hand necessitates the common understanding of this contempt. Women are labelled as TERFs even when they do not agree to the identity TERF ascribes. It is the shared concerns of gender-critical feminism which unifies those who are labelled as TERFs, and the term TERF serves to express contempt towards those who share gender-critical concerns.

In sum, this chapter has illustrated that TERF is commonly distributed within the context of e-bile, alongside threats of rape, death, and physical violence. Secondly, TERF as a label is duplicitous; the heterogeneity within my sample contravenes the assumed shared identities, which TERF ascribes. I have shown that TERF is not only used to convey misogyny, but that it is used to express homophobia towards lesbians too. The cycle of esoteric discourse shows that the only shared understanding of TERF is that it expresses contempt towards those who are so labelled. When combined, these findings enable the recognition that TERF bears slurring capacities. This is not to say that TERF is exclusively used as a slur; due to its esotericism, individuals might believe that TERF does, simply function as a shorthand descriptive. However, within the contexts of these findings, the slurring capacities of TERF are plain to see.

Chapter 4 - Discussion: TERF and feminism

This research focused on a qualitative description of women’s experiences of being labelled as TERFs. It has also delivered an account of gender-critical feminism; the branch of feminism which is typically afforded the status of TERF. It has explored the way that TERF is deployed, highlighting its presence within misogynistic e-bile. Furthermore, it has argued that TERF functions to legitimise homophobia towards lesbians, enabling the perpetuation of rape culture. The accuracy of the term has been discredited; the heterogeneity of women labelled as TERFs highlights that the term does not accurately describe the ideologies of all the women that are labelled. This is further supported by the usage of the term to conflate gender-critical feminism with far-right politics – two polarised ideologies. This conflation perpetuates e-bile and renders TERF esoteric. My data show the duality of usage present within TERF; many users of the term use it in the knowledge that it legitimises misogyny and violent threats towards women. Others are unfamiliar with this dichotomy and thus use the term as a descriptor, despite the fact that this thesis has shown that it is inaccurate.

Resultantly, there are two key conclusions. First, the qualitative research evidence is sufficient to substantiate the claim that TERF is used as a slur. While I disagree that a word can bear intrinsically slurring properties, I argue that in the context of discourse, and in line with social constructivist accounts of language, TERF is commonly used with full knowledge of its slurring capacities. This thesis has also shown that even if individuals believe that they are using the term as a neutral descriptor, TERF’s claims to both neutrality, and accuracy, are invalid.

Second, by looking analytically at the usages of TERF, my research has tapped into important debates around contemporary feminism. By understanding that TERF is used as a slur, and in conjunction with e-bile, another use of TERF has emerged; TERF enables the conflation of progressive, feminist ideologies with right-wing conservatism and resultantly obfuscates the goals of radical feminism. Whilst not all gender-critical feminists refer to themselves as radical feminists, it is fair to say that gender-critical feminism originated within radical feminism. As such, it is radical feminism which is being obscured by this conflation.

These conclusions enable me to make two recommendations. First, to media outlets that wish to use the term TERF that they ought to express caution and responsible journalism when presenting the term. Presenting TERF as a neutral shorthand is at best, disingenuous, and at worst, guilty of perpetuating misogynistic e-bile and the corresponding consequences borne by women. Thus, media outlets ought to present the term, instead, as a slur. Further, when presenting debates surrounding transgender ideology, ‘gender-critical’ should be used to fairly and accurately describe the concerns of feminists. Second, while the scope of this project was not to affirm correlations between violent rhetoric used in conjunction with TERF and actual cases of violence, this thesis has provided numerous examples of the former. Thus, I recommend that further studies might attempt to quantitatively explore this link. Dehumanising language has already been shown to endorse violence (Goff et al, 2008; Tipler and Ruscher, 2019; Rudman and Mescher, 2012), and I believe that this could be true of the term TERF.

The above conclusions and recommendations are based on the participant’s responses. However, I acknowledge that the sampling posed a number of limitations due to the self-referential nature of recruitment; specific pools of women might have been more or less drawn to the study. Further, the fear of negative repercussions such as doxxing, harassment, and abuse, may have dissuaded some women from participating. My sample is also likely only to be representative of women who have been labelled as TERFs and who use Twitter.

I have acknowledged the impact of my positionality upon the present research throughout and, accordingly, tried to minimise effects of bias. It is only fair then that I return to this issue, as my vested interest in the topic is undeniable, and I do not purport otherwise. My experience of being labelled as a TERF added another facet to my positionality; I acquired shared lived experience with each of my participants. I do not believe that this has precluded me from undertaking rigorous and informed research. However, I acknowledge that my active presence in the selection and identification of analytical themes may reduce the objectivity of my conclusions. This topic exemplifies an under-researched area: to the best of my knowledge, there is no existing or more expansive literature surrounding the specific term TERF. Thus, I have provided what I hope to be a useful, preliminary overview of the dominant themes arising from my dataset, which by the nature of this project cannot be exhaustive. This thesis has contributed to previously non-existent academic literatures regarding gender-critical feminism, and the term TERF. It has argued that within current discourse, TERF bears slurring and dehumanising capacities and consequently this should be taken into account by responsible authors when using the term. Finally, TERF’s presence within discourse contributes to the obfuscation of radical feminism, specifically by conflating progressive theories of feminism with regressive far-right politics. Ultimately, this results in the dismissal of legitimate concerns raised by gender-critical feminists, regarding the safeguarding of women within a public debate pertaining to proposals of self-identification policies.

Bibliography:

Ahmed, W., Bath, P.A. and Demartini, G., 2017. Using Twitter as a Data Source: An Overview of Ethical, Legal, and Methodological Challenges. In The Ethics of Online Research(pp. 79-107). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Allen, S., Finneron-Burns, E., Jones, J., Lawford-Smith, H., Leng, M., Reilly-Cooper, R. and Simpson, R. (2018). Derogatory Language in Philosophy Journal Risks Increased Hostility and Diminished Discussion (guest post) (Update: Response from Editors) - Daily Nous. [online] Daily Nous. Available at: http://dailynous.com/2018/08/27/derogatory-language-philosophy-journal-hostility-discussion/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Anderson, L. and Lepore, E., 2013. Slurring words. Noûs, 47(1), pp.25-48.

Ashwell, L., 2016. Gendered slurs. Social Theory and Practice, 42(2), pp.228-239.

Baltar, F. and Brunet, I., 2012. Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet research, 22(1), pp.57-74.

Banet-Weiser, S. and Miltner, K.M., 2016. # MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), pp.171-174.

Bannerman, L. (2019). Trans attacker is a thug, says feminist. [online] Thetimes.co.uk. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-attacker-tara-wolf-is-a-thug-says-feminist-maria-maclachlan-pq0bwvthv [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Barnes, J. (2017). Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/08/lesbianism-attack-though-not-usual-suspects/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Bartosch, J. (2019). When did women's rights stop being human rights? - UnHerd. [online] UnHerd. Available at: https://unherd.com/2018/08/womens-rights-stop-human-rights/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

BBC News. (2017). Do trans rights affect women's rights?. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40713645 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

BBC News. (2018). Pride sorry after anti-trans protest. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44757403 [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

BBC News. (2018). Reality Check: How many transgender prisoners are there?. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

BBC News. (2018). Trans inmate jailed for prison sex attacks. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Bennett, C. (2018). Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet’s ‘incels’ | Catherine Bennett. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/29/violent-misogyny-not-confined-to-internet-incels [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Beresford, M. (2017). What is a TERF and why should you be worried?. [online] PinkNews. Available at: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/16/what-is-a-terf-and-why-should-you-be-worried/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Berger, R., 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research, 15(2), pp.219-234.

Blackmore, G. (2019). We are Gender Critical Feminists. That's It.. [online] Speakupforwomen.nz. Available at: https://speakupforwomen.nz/we-are-gender-critical-feminists-thats-it/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.

British Sociological Association (2017). BSA Statement of Ethical Practice 2017. [online] BSA Publications. Available at: https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24310/bsa_statement_of_ethical_practice.pdf [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Brooks, A., 2007. Feminist standpoint epistemology: Building knowledge and empowerment through women’s lived experience. Feminist research practice: A primer, pp.53-82.

Burr, V (2003). Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. p1-28.

Cameron, D. (2016). What makes a word a slur?. [online] language: a feminist guide. Available at: https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/what-makes-a-word-a-slur/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Camp, E., 2013. Slurring perspectives. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3), pp.330-349.

Cockburn, C. and Oakley, A. (2011). The culture of masculinity costs all too much to ignore. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/25/dangerous-masculinty-everyone-risk [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Cott, N.F., 1986. Feminist theory and feminist movements: The past before us. What is feminism, pp.49-62.

De Beauvoir, S. 1953. The second sex (p. 105). New York: Vintage books.

Delmar, R. (1986). What Is Feminism?. In: Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. What is feminism?. Oxford: Blackwell. p8-34.

Developer.twitter.com. (2019). Display Requirements. [online] Available at: https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/display-requirements.html [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Dictionary.cambridge.org. (2019). EXCLUSION | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online] Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exclusion [Accessed 12 Apr. 2019].

Ditum, S. (2017). What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur. [online] Newstatesman.com. Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/what-terf-how-internet-buzzword-became-mainstream-slur [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Ditum, S., (2018). Six years in the gender wars. [online] Available at: https://sarahditum.com/2018/09/10/six-years-in-the-gender-wars/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Fair Play For Women. (2017). Lesbians and a cotton ceiling – This is feminism 6. [online] Available at: https://fairplayforwomen.com/lesbians-erasure-feminism-6/ [Accessed 7 May 2019].

Fair Play For Women. (2018). How many transgender prisoners are there and where are they.... [online] Available at: https://fairplayforwomen.com/trans_prison_stats_2018/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Fair Play For Women. (2018). The Equality Act 2010: A woman’s right to single-sex spaces and.... [online] Available at: https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/ [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].

Fair Play For Women. (2018). The vast majority of male-born transwomen still have a penis. [online] Available at: https://fairplayforwomen.com/penis/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Firestone, S. (1972). The Dialectic of Sex. London: Paladin.

Foucault, M (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. London: Tavistock Publications. p106-118.

Gergen, K.J., 1985. The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American psychologist, 40(3), p.266.

Goff, P.A., Eberhardt, J.L., Williams, M.J. and Jackson, M.C., 2008. Not yet human: implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(2), p.292.

GOV.UK. (2019). Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004 [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

GOV.UK. (2019). Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004 [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Hague, R., 2016. Between the waves: currents in contemporary feminist thought. Political Studies Review, 14(2), pp.199-209.

Hanisch, C., 2000. The Personal Is Political. Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader.

Harding, S. (2004). Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a site of Political, Philosophic, and Scientific Debate. In: Sandra Harding The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, Intellectual & Political Controversies. New York and London: Routledge. p1-13.

Harding, S. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. New York: Routledge.

Harding, S., 1992. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is" strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review, 36(3), pp.437-470.

Harrison, K. (2018). A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk. [online] The Economist. Available at: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/a-system-of-gender-self-identification-would-put-women-at-risk [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].

Hay, C. (2019). Opinion | Who Counts as a Woman?. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/trans-women-feminism.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Hornsby, J., 2001. Meaning and uselessness: how to think about derogatory words.

Izaakson, J. (2018). Trans-identified male, Tara Wolf, convicted of assault after Hyde Park attack. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

Jane, E.A., 2014. ‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny. Continuum, 28(4), pp.558-570.

Jeffreys, S., 2014. Gender hurts: A feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism. Routledge.

Jeshion, R., 2013. Expressivism and the Offensiveness of Slurs. Philosophical Perspectives, 27(1), pp.231-259.

Jørgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2011). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications. p1-23.

Joyce, H. (2018). The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves - Quillette. [online] Quillette. Available at: https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Kirkup, J. (2018). Trans rights have gone wrong | The Spectator. [online] The Spectator. Available at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Lawford-Smith, H. and Vicendese, E. (2018). Penises don’t kill people, people with penises do. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/08/16/penises-dont-kill-people-people-penises/ [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].

Legislation.gov.uk. (2019). Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Lewis, S. (2019). Opinion | How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Mackay, F., 2015. Radical Feminism. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(7-8), pp.332-336.

MacLachlan, M. (2019). Blog: A year ago I was instructed by District Judge Kenneth Grant to pretend my male assailant was a woman… | Peak Trans. [online] Peak Trans. Available at: https://www.peaktrans.org/district-judge-kenneth-grant/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Madigan, L. (2018). Gyms should challenge transphobia, not remove trans women to please others | Metro News. [online] Metro.co.uk. Available at: https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/22/gyms-should-challenge-transphobia-instead-of-removing-trans-women-to-please-others-8274521/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Mail Online. (2019). Radical transgender group says it is FINE to punch women. [online] Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4914582/Radical-transgender-group-says-FINE-punch-women.html [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Manning, S. and Walsh, J. (2019). Britain's first transgender hate crime trial is halted after one day. [online] Mail Online. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6764763/Britains-transgender-hate-crime-trial-halted-one-day.html [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Manning, S., Bindel, J. and Powell, M. (2019). When he was a man he was locked up. [online] Mail Online. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6894599/When-man-called-Mark-locked-threatening-kill-mother-child.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Maple, C., Short, E. and Brown, A., 2011. Cyberstalking in the United Kingdom: An analysis of the ECHO pilot survey. University of Bedfordshire.

Mumsnet.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3381154-Posie-Parker-Doxed-Over-Night [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Mumsnet.com. (2019). Let's meet up - find/start gender critical feminist groups. [online] Available at: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3259777-Lets-meet-up-find-start-gender-critical-feminist-groups [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].

Murphy, M. (2017). ‘TERF’ isn’t just a slur, it’s hate speech. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/21/terf-isnt-slur-hate-speech/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Murphy, M. (2019). ‘TERF’: A handy guide for irresponsible journalists, shady academics, and irate men. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/04/01/terf-a-handy-guide-for-irresponsible-journalists-shady-academics-and-irate-men/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

NBC News. (2019). U.S. gender confirmation surgery up 19% in 2016, doctors say. [online] Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/u-s-gender-confirmation-surgery-19-2016-doctors-say-n762916 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

O’Hagan, E. (2018). Back the Gender Recognition Act reform. It’s the feminist thing to do | Ellie Mae O’Hagan. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-feminist-self-identification-consultation [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Oakley, A., 2013. Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Doing feminist research (pp. 52-83). Routledge.

Object Now. (2019). Guidance: 'Doxxed' For 'Transphobia' — Object Now - Feminist Campaigning Group - Women Not Sex Objects -. [online] Available at: https://www.objectnow.org/guidance-for-being-doxxed [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

O'connor, A., Jackson, L., Goldsmith, L. and Skirton, H., 2014. Can I get a retweet please? Health research recruitment and the Twittersphere. Journal of advanced nursing, 70(3), pp.599-609.

Ons.gov.uk. (2018). Sexual offences in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017 [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].

Parveen, N. (2018). Karen White: how 'manipulative' transgender inmate attacked again. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Poulton, S. (2019). Twitter. [online] Twitter.com. Available at: https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/1101565071820554240 [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Powell, A., and Henry, N. (2014). Framing Sexual Violence Prevention, What Does It Mean To Challenge a Rape Culture?. In: Henry, N., Powell, A. Preventing Sexual Violence Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan. p1-21.

Pride in London. (2018). Statement from Pride in London regarding the 2018 protest group. [online] Available at: https://prideinlondon.org/news/2018/7/8/statement-from-pride-in-london-regarding-the-2018-protest-group [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Reddit. (2019). GenderCritical. [online] Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].

Reddit.com. (2018). A TiM just doxxed dozens of radical feminists on twitter, and in the vast majority of them, he included pictures of their children. (I censored everything) : GenderCritical. [online] Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/8yool1/a_tim_just_doxxed_dozens_of_radical_feminists_on/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2019].

Reddit.com. (2019). What have Posie Parker and Julia Long been up to in Washington? : GenderCritical. [online] Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/alsts9/what_have_posie_parker_and_julia_long_been_up_to/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Reed, N. (2012). Caught Up In Cotton. [online] Sincerely, Natalie Reed. Available at: https://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/04/caught-up-in-cotton/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Richard, M., 2008. When truth gives out. Oxford University Press.

Rudman, L.A. and Mescher, K., 2012. Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), pp.734-746.

Sarachild, K., 1978. Consciousness raising: A radical weapon. na.

Stock, K. (2019). Can biological males be lesbians? | TheArticle. [online] TheArticle. Available at: https://www.thearticle.com/can-biological-males-be-lesbians/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Stonewall. (2019). Glossary of terms. [online] Available at: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].

Sudyk, B. (2017). It shouldn’t be controversial to maintain women-only spaces. [online] Feminist Current. Available at: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/18/shouldnt-controversial-maintain-women-spaces/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Sword, W., 1999. Accounting for presence of self: Reflections on doing qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), pp.270-278.

Taylor, G.W. and Ussher, J.M. 2001: Making sense of S&M: a discourse analytic account. Sexualities 4, 293/314.

TERF is a slur. (2019). 4. Cotton ceiling and autogynephilia. [online] Available at: https://terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

TERF is a slur. (2019). TERF is a slur. [online] Available at: https://terfisaslur.com/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Tipler, C.N. and Ruscher, J.B., 2019. Dehumanizing representations of women: the shaping of hostile sexist attitudes through animalistic metaphors. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), pp.109-118.

Townsend, L. and Wallace, C., 2016. Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen, pp.1-16.

Transsexual.org. (2019). What. [online] Available at: https://www.transsexual.org/What.html [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Vagianos, A. (2019). 2 Women Disrupt Meeting To Harass Transgender Activist In Appalling Video. [online] Huffingtonpost.co.uk. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/two-women-disrupt-meeting-to-harass-trans-woman-in-appalling-video_n_5c52fe89e4b04f8645c84ee0 [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Van Laer, T., 2014. The means to justify the end: Combating cyber harassment in social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), pp.85-98.

Vitak, J., Chadha, K., Steiner, L. and Ashktorab, Z., 2017, February. Identifying Women's Experiences With and Strategies for Mitigating Negative Effects of Online Harassment. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(pp. 1231-1245). ACM.

Wild, A. (2018). Why “Get The L Out” ?. [online] Get The L Out. Available at: https://getthelout.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/the-journey-begins/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Wild, A. (2019). Lesbians at Ground Zero: How transgenderism is conquering the lesbian body. [online] Get The L Out. Available at: http://file://ad.ucl.ac.uk/homed/zctyaad/Documents/lesbiansatgroundzero3.pdf [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Williams, M.L., Burnap, P. and Sloan, L., 2017. Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), pp.1149-1168.

Williams, R. (2016). Yes In Fact You Are a TERF. [online] Rachel Williams. Available at: https://transphilosopher.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/yes-in-fact-you-are-a-terf/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].

Williams, R. (2019). Are You a TERF?. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@transphilosophr/are-you-a-terf-9c1e06ce5cca [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Yardley, M. (2014). The Cotton Ceiling - Miranda Yardley. [online] Miranda Yardley. Available at: https://mirandayardley.com/en/the-cotton-ceiling/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].