Ultimately, like a lot of transphobia, this hurts cis people too. There are cis women who get breast reduction surgery because their boobs are just too big! It's not difficult to imagine a cis woman who uses a binder or some equivalent until surgery is possible, not due to gender feelings, but due to practicality.
But of course, the defining trait of trans exclusionary radical feminists is not that they're feminists, it's that they're anti trans at any cost.
Calling themselves "feminists" is just a shield to accuse anyone who criticises them as misogynists just like calling anyone who supports LGBT-rights groomers and pedophiles.
It's to throw around morally unambigous accusations to keep the pretension of moral righteousness when in fact they are just hateful fashs.
Two things.
The first regards binders. This is not a "solution" to having breasts that are too big and the claim that this isn't "gender dysphoria" if the problem isn't related to physical pain by the large breasts would support the argument that "gender dysphoria" is not an impossible conception. A woman who finds her breast size dissatisfying is
normal, it is not dysphoria of any kind. A woman who finds them dissatisfying to the extent of wanting them to not exist is not an appeal to the validity of trans theories about gender. This post is completely absurd.
The second regards feminism. It's actually possible to read TERF arguments, they're available for free on the internet. I would never claim that all TERFs, especially not all people accused of being TERFs, to be feminists (let alone
radical feminists) but those who claim it often very clearly appeal to sex. They consider the "oppression" of females to be specifically sex-based. To
deny sex is to deny the existence of this oppression. To claim that males can simply claim the status of females is to deny the existence of this oppression. To claim that trans women are oppressed by cis women who believe in the primacy of sex is to deny the existence of this oppression. I don't think Joanne is a radical feminist, but she's very clearly appealing to the very same sex-based concerns. These feminists consider the violence that women suffer to be a condition of the male sex, not that all males are violent but that male violence against females stems from the power difference via sex. There is no condition in which they consider trans women to escape this power differential because trans women remain males. This is the complaint about allowing trans women (males) into female spaces. Not that all trans women (or cis men) are threats but that the male remains the threat represented by their sex. The argument is that in prioritizing trans womens interests they are prioritizing
male desires over female desires and I have yet to see anything other than a blanket dismissal of this argument as somehow bigoted from the "trans rights" activists. I'm not a feminist so I'm not required to accept their premises but by the same token I'm not required to accept those of the "trans right" crowd either, that said only one of these two groups has a clearly logical and rational argument on this point requiring me to effectively "side" with the feminists until the "trans rights" people find a way to conceptualize an argument rather than screaming "transphobe" or "TERF" or "fascist" at liberals who see the conflict of rights claims occurring.
