Acclaimed feminist theorist Sara Ahmed in her 2017 book, Living a Feminist Life, defines feminism as “how we pick each other up (…) how to create relationships with others that are more equal; how to find ways to support those who are not supported by social systems.”
But progress is not always linear. While all waves of feminism contribute to where we find ourselves in this sociopolitical moment (for better or for worse), each wave is not without its own flaws (see our new web page, currently under construction, outlining the basic goals, limitations, and thinkers of each wave of feminism:
https://darlingmentalhealth.com/resource-directory/intro-to-feminism/) . Notoriously, the second wave of feminism centered the experiences and voices of white, middle class, and cisgendered women and purposely alienated itself from non-white feminist groups, such as the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO), Asian Sisters of America, Hijas de Cuauhtemoc, Women of All Red Nations, and more.
The second wave feminist’s use of the race-sex analogy, in particular, and its applied logic to their anti-imperialist agendas is one example of how “white feminists took advantage of the inequality endured by those who have been colonized, disenfranchised, or violently oppressed as a proving point of their legitimacy. Not only did damaging mentalities such as this deter Black and Latina Feminists from organizing or associating with hegemonic feminism, but inhibited healthy feminist discourse from occurring, thus continuing a model of exclusionary behavior” (Reicher, 2023). Similar tactics have actually been used by empires in justifying imperialism- namely the American intervention in Afghanistan- by purporting that the “War on Terrorism” can liberate and save Afgan women (Abu-Lughod, 2002). Similar tactics have been used in justifying contemporary right-wing movements like Trump’s “anti-gender” campaign (Bassi and Lafleur, 2022). Similar tactics continue to be used in divisive approaches to feminism, community, and coalition building.
The importance of highlighting women’s experiences in their own words, particularly when engaging in transnational feminism, cannot be understated. But essentializing experiences and applying them to other imperial contexts often devalues the initial shared experience by funneling it into one origin, therefore not leaving room for the nuances of specific histories, current conditions, and the potential of imagined futures. Moreover, it risks fueling anti-feminist agendas which aim to find flaws in theory through relying on blatant hypocrisy. For example, how can a feminist movement which aligns with the notion that patriarchy is a degree of a colonized condition also actively reject their sisters in India (hijras), Mexico (Muxes), Tiwi Islands (sistergirls), and more? They, too, are oppressed by patriarchy and to exclude them is to reproduce patriarchal and colonial structures.
This is an example of another idea born from the second wave of feminism: TERFism. “Typically described as an originally fringe group of Anglophone—largely American, British, and Australian— [TERFism is a] 1970s cultural feminism that has grown exponentially over the past decade partially due to heightened media exposure (Bassi and LaFleur, 2022). It is a shorthand (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist) to “describe a cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognize trans women as sisters, unlike other feminists who do” due to their conservative argument that the category of “woman” is one that must be reduced to biology. Their main viewpoints posit trans-femininity as an invasion of and a threat to women’s spaces and bodies, and trans-masculinity as a form of self-hatred and misogyny.
But, a “feminism” which is predicated on a supposed binary existence is one that perpetuates biological essentialism (and refuses the existence of a large population of people that fall outside this binary- intersex people deserve for their lives, bodies, and rights to be fought for, too). Amia Srinivasan (2022) reminds us that it is based, more than anything, on a body which determines a social purpose. For sex is not a supposed natural thing, but rather a cultural thing posing as a natural one: it is already gender in disguise.
Moreover, a “feminism” which additionally cannot separate itself from anti-sex work stances, yet still claims to be anti-imperialist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, etc. is an oxymoron. The anti-sex work agenda aligns with a politic of surveillance and policing: two institutions which make imperialism, colonialism, racism, white supremacy, and gendered discrimination both possible to exist and allowed to thrive. The two are inherently intertwined: for to create a categorization, a narrow idea of how a woman should be (or appear to be), you foreclose that very category in ways that, more often than not, reify hegemonic ideas of it. Therefore, biological essentialism, or group determinism, cannot be separated from racial determinism which reinforces stereotyping, social hierarchy, and discrimination through the argument that these, too, are “natural” traits which exist inside a vacuum. The same “natural traits” that define the female body and femininity as one that is equated to whiteness, thinness, etc.
The anti-sex feminist’s core values and concepts can be most easily reviewed in Valerie Solana’s SCUM Manifesto (1967). It’s problems are many, but central among them is the erasure of women’s desire through reinforcing the conservative idea that sexual desire is a male trait, while women merely put up with it. This idea restricts women’s autonomy both in and outside of the bedroom, through adopting the notion that since sex is always rape then giving consent is morally dubious, therefore constructing a sense of moral authoritarianism within feminism. Ellen Willis (2012) responds to this suppression of sexuality, autonomy, and more, by asking what it would mean to instead question why we choose what we choose, and what would we choose if we had a real choice? What anti-sex feminists fail to realize, in their devotion to binary, is that two truths can exist: that sex work can be viewed as legitimate work that is deserving of legal protections and security rather than just rescuing, and that you can also question why this work does not feel free under patriarchy. For all work- not just men’s work or women’s work; not just sex work, but also teaching, nursing, mothering—is never just work, it is also sexed.
A “feminism” which proudly names itself as exclusionary to transgender people, and actively fights against the rights of sex workers in the name of saviorism immortalizes the dangerous ideologies that make being trans or doing sex work dangerous in the first place. As history shows us, the “othering” of transgender people is what creates the conditions that make being a trans person risky and keep them from being allowed to thrive. As sex workers have long told us: the criminalization of sex work does not broadly protect sex workers, but rather allows acts of violence committed against them by johns, the police, and more, to be legal. Therefore, “it is only through the political recognition of sex workers as workers that they will be empowered to refuse the sex they don’t want to have” (Mac and Smith, 2018).
A movement dedicated to leaving out, putting down, policing, and separating people– a movement which must create otherness in order for its existence to be legitimate—is not one that should call itself a feminist movement. To put down rather than pick up, to divide rather than equalize, to rally against support for those in need of it, is a reflection of a history of separatism, hierarchy, and unequal exchange. It is a movement of backward motion. It is gatekeeping disguised as patriarchal fear.
For Further Reading:
Living a Feminist Life- Sara Ahmed
The Right to Sex- Amia Srinivasan
Sister Outsider- Audre Lorde
Black Sexual Politics & Black Feminist Thought- Patricia Hill Collins
Pleasure Activism- adrienne maree brown
Gender Trouble- Judith Butler
Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot- Mikki Kendall
Imagining Transgender- David Valentine
The Trans Midwest- Joy Ellison
Work Cited
Abu-Lughod, L. (2002). Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 783–790.
Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
Bassi, S., LaFleur, G. (2022). Introduction: TERFs, Gender-Critical Movements, and Postfascist Feminisms. TSQ 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-9836008
Reicher, M. (2023). Second Wave Feminism and its Systemic Racism: What the Educational System Does Not Explain. Journal of Student Research. DOI:10.47611/jsrhs.v12i1.4341
Srinivasan, A. (2021). The right to sex: Feminism in the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
DISCLAIMER: This post was written in response to active discussions happening in the Worcester, MA, community regarding a Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist and anti-sex work group holding a conference at Worcester State University. This post does not aim to holistically vilify any particular wave of feminism, but to provide context for the weaponization of certain second wave feminist ideologies against our transgender and sex worker community members. More information on the group and event can be found here: https://assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/terf-conference-worcester/
