Right, but "slur" by itself is used as shorthand for "offensive slur" - typically racially-offensive slurs or homophobic slurs, and so on - I'm not aware of normal public discourse referring to everyday insults as "slurs" - whatever the original definition slur had it now has a connotation of insulting the target by way of comparing the target to an intentionally hurtful stereotype. (I could enumerate examples but nothing good can come from that, methinks...)
Whereas "TERF" is an acronym - it isn't appealing to anyone's emotional opinions about what a "TERF" represents - that is if anyone is even clued-up enough to know what it actually means.
Maybe the people complaining are assuming that TERF is an offensive slur without doing their research first? I'll admit it does have that feel to it, the way it sharply rolls off the tongue...
TERF both manages to connote something that should be stepped upon and is used to box in a person's opinions to a caricature so that a label can be applied (a stereotype, in other words), rather than listening to what they say. I'd say that between that, karen, anti-vaxxer, and anti-masker, a number of niche slurs have been popularized recently.
It’s not shaming to say someone is against trans people nor is it disparaging unless someone is bringing politics and moralism into it. Like I said I don’t want even more gender politics from the other “side” as some kind of “backlash” journalistic piece. It’s all a wash of nonsense.
It's a disparaging remark to make it clear that the other person's opinions are wrong and that they as a person is of lesser value and should be ignored or attacked. It's used as a conversation stopper and to polarize the discussion, i.e. rally support from like minded and suppress the other party.
It's also not used merely to say that someone is against trans people, like you suggest. It's used by a toxic community that are immune to nuance and opposed to debate other than to force their own view on everyone else. Very few people are against trans people, but maybe some doesn't buy all of the identity politics. Saying that women menstruate is enough to be labeled a terf by the online mob. There's also rarely any radical feminism expressed by the people being labeled as terfs.
I would suggest that it is a slur because it is used as a term of disparagement that often doesn't even accurately describe the target. The label gets thrown at women who are not RF, and sometimes women who, for whatever reason (for example, a religion they adhere to) would be reluctant to even call themselves F. At that point, I don't see how the word is any different than people e.g. referring to any Arabs as "camel jockeys".
I think the economist's usage was OK, as it appears in the supplied context to have been used as a slur (I'm not adequately connected on the topic to know what the "normal" usage would be).
> The whole article is suspect to be sympathetic to anti-trans politics as a result.
Clearly, given what I said above, I don't agree with this diagnosis. In particular I think a few articles like this are a good antidote to the "the universities are insane and have been taken over by crazy extremists" narrative.
Perhaps if this commend page doesn't descend into vitriol, more contextual discussion could lead me or you to modulate our opinion. As I said I don't follow this topic particularly closely, so my interpretation could be naïve.
There’s a difference between saying it’s used as a way to disparage someone and as a slur here. I’ve generally associated the term slur with a significant history of using it against a demographic, such as fggot, nggr, ch*nk, etc. saying that TERF is on the same level as those terms struck me as politicking and not journalism, which made me suspect the rest of the piece as political nonsense from the right.
Language is dynamic. Use something as a slur often enough, and it becomes a slur. And here it's clearly being used as a slur. That doesn't make it always a slur (yet), but here it clearly is.
I’ve associated the term slur in the common understanding with an actual history of marginalization, and I think the claim is totally unnecessary politicking in the reporting.
A slur is any term that’s “a disparaging remark or slight” according to dictionary.com. It’s hard to argue they’re not using the term TERF as disparaging.
The problem is that you are saying "TERF" is a slur by using a wide definition but then using the narrow definition to claim it's a travisty to be called a "TERF". The point is that "TERF" is not on the same level as the n-word, f-word or the t-word which you are likening it to when you insist it's a slur. It's simply not harmful to call someone a "TERF" like it is to use slurs against the groups that TERFs are marginalizing.
Sure, if someone uses it in their paper on, for example, history of feminist thought I wouldn't assume it to be offensive. On the other hand I don't think that the intention behind a sentence like “shut the fuck up, terf” is very unclear.
It seems like the critical thing at stake in this thread is what 'slur' means. Like you, I think of slurs as being only the words associated with minority violence, maybe curse-words+, the sort of thing that would make me feel uncomfortably speaking aloud due to the associations. Evidently other people feel that it means something more like 'insult'. I can't say what this means in the broader context, but it might be a good signal to re-evaluate how you interpreted its use-age in the article.
> No one has successfully beaten and killed a woman while calling her a TERF and then got away with it in court like the gay panic defense and the trans panic defense has. No one was lynched for being a TERF like black people have been.
That is a bizarre standard for what constitutes a slur, and would exclude the vast majority of slurs. This reads more like an attempt to inject an emotional appeal to deny a point you personally disagree with.
TERF is a phrase pretty much always used to attack its target. Coupling it with "shut the fuck up" makes the intention pretty clear.
