The Great TERF Takedown?: Err No, Let’s Debunk this Pseudoscientific Nonsense

Oh, behold the nonsense of this “academic” masterpiece from Taylor & Francis A systematic review of TERF behaviour online in relation to sociopsychological group dynamics, where the socio-psychological group dynamics of TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) are dissected with all the rigor of a tabloid horoscope, or a lotto prediction from Mystic Meg. This article, dripping with assumptions about TERFs seeking solidarity, fearing trans people, and clutching their “femininity” like a Victorian fainting couch, deserves a roasting so savage it’ll leave the authors blushing harder than a sun-burnt British tourist, who feels to cool for sun cream. Let’s tear this tripe apart with facts, satire, and a hefty dose of reality.

The Binary Truth: Sex Isn’t a Spectrum

First, let’s address the elephant in the room….. or rather, the biology in the lab. The article’s implicit nod to gender fluidity flounders when faced with the unassailable fact that biological sex is binary. Male and female chromosomes don’t lie (XX or XY, even with exceptions they still prove the rule). As outlined in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth by Zachary A Elliott, the idea of a “spectrum” collapses under scrutiny when you consider the immutable markers of reproductive anatomy. This isn’t opinion; it’s science. Yet, the article tiptoes around this, preferring to paint TERFs as deluded by “illusory correlations” rather than acknowledging their stance might align with observable reality.

TERFs: Not All Feminists, Barely Radical

Next, the label “TERF” is flung around like confetti, implying a cohesive feminist bloc. Nonsense! Most women branded as TERFs aren’t feminists at all. Just women defending their spaces based on biological sex, not ideology. The article’s assumption that these women are quaking over their “group distinctiveness” and “femininity” is laughable. Many are mums, grandmas, and everyday ladies who’d rather discuss bin collections than deconstruct the patriarchy. The “radical” feminist stereotype is a caricature, most are too busy living to fit the academic mould.

Illusory Correlations? More Like Illusory Scholarship

The claim that TERFs suffer from an “illusory correlation” linking trans people to danger or paedophilia is peak projection. The article suggests TERFs see trans individuals as a homogenous “out-group,” yet it’s the authors who homogenise TERFs into a paranoid monolith. Where’s the evidence? A few cherry-picked anecdotes don’t cut it. Meanwhile, concerns about single-sex spaces stem from practical realities; biological males in female-only areas raise valid safety questions, not irrational fears. The “simplified world view” jab is rich coming from a study that reduces complex social debates to psychobabble.

Fear of Femininity? Please.

The pièce de résistance is the notion that TERFs fear losing their “femininity” and “social dominance.” Cue the laughter track! These women aren’t clutching pearls over their identity; they’re pointing out that sex-based right, hard-won through decades of struggle, aren’t infinitely elastic. The article’s psychoanalysis feels like a parody, imagining TERFs as fragile flowers trembling at the thought of being “unwomaned.” In reality, they’re more likely rolling their eyes at this overcooked drivel.

Conclusion: A Load of Old Tosh

This article is less a scholarly work and more a satirical skit gone wrong. It leans on shaky assumptions, ignores biological facts, and misrepresents the women it critiques. TERFs, mostly just women, not feminist ideologues deserve much better than this patronising tripe. Next time, stick to the data, not the daydreams. Until then, this study’s place is in the bin, not the bibliography.

FYI: It was this post, sent as a reply to me, on the cesspit that is Facebook, that inspired this piece!

Disclaimer: No feelings were spared in the making of this takedown. For more facts, check the references—or just ask a biologist.

Those “Scientific Articles” and a Reference: