In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.
Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
That's not true. JK Rowling is a good counterexample to your claim, as are the women who brought the FWS case to the UK's Supreme Court (and won), and as are so many other women whose feminist advocacy involves this topic.
JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke", which suggests multiple interesting facts about her political views:
* She thinks "woke" is a bad word, which would put her on the right.
* She thinks Reform UK is woke, which puts her on the far right.
* She's a very confused person, which I would expect from someone claiming to be a feminist while making her prejudice against an already persecuted minority her whole personality.
> JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke"
No she didn't.
What she actually said, in response to someone expressing surprise that Farage supports incarcerating males in the female prison estate, was this:
"Genuinely surprised anyone's shocked by this. Just because huge swathes of the left have revealed themselves to be dripping in misogyny doesn't mean a massive chunk of the right doesn't remain exactly as indifferent to women's rights and issues as it's always been."
She also wrote:
"All those people who tell me support for women's single sex spaces means I must support Reform (which I don't) appear to share exactly the same opinion on women's single-sex spaces as Reform."
Sorry but you've mischaracterised and misquoted her words, and used this to reach a false conclusion.
Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.
> Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative.
Who cares?
> TERFS are still feminists.
You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that.
The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them.
> Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.
What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?
If vegetarians did side with Hitler, then yeah, I would have an issue with them as a group. But that's completely different, can't you see? TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates, a lot of whom hold anti-feminist views. That's the issue.
You speak of "all these so-called TERFs", but the article you linked, in the very first sentence, qualifies this with "some":
"Some trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups and politicians who oppose legislation that would expand transgender rights in the United States."
As for "TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates", which you claim, the two articles in the citations for the Wikipedia quote above talk about how right-wing groups in the US are listening to feminists on this specific issue. So really it's the opposite way around to what you're saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...