So What Is Exclusionism, Anyway?
As I've looked through inclusionist circles, I've come to a startling realization that most of them have an extremely skewed understanding of what exclusionism is (along with its various offshoots, subtypes, and related beliefs). They equate it to hatred of whatever group is being excluded, and they don't think people part of the excluded group could ever support exclusionism.
So, I've decided to write a long post to clear up some of those misconceptions. This post is mainly targeted to inclusionists and people wondering where they stand on the inclus/exclus sides of various types of discourse, but if you're exclusionist already, please feel free to reblog or boost it. <3 Thanks in advance for reading!
I'll start by introducing myself. Hi, I'm Ivy, or at least that's what I go by on here. I am a heterosexual, aromantic female. I am neurodivergent (ADHD, so forgive me if I ramble or write in a scatterbrained way) and have several other mental illnesses that I don't wish to talk about online. I do not have gender dysphoria, but I do not "feel feminine," and my personality has been described as rather masculine. In fact, many people in the inclusionist trans community have tried to convince me that I'm nonbinary because I don't feel a strong connection to a female gender, and I'll talk about that more later in this post.
I'm going to put all my relevant discourse opinions on the table right now. (In the next paragraph, I'm going to explain what all these labels actually mean and why they don't automatically make someone a horrible person.) Contrary to popular belief, I am not a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), an aphobe, a transphobe, or a bigot. I am ace-exclusionist, aro-exclusionist, trans-exclusionist, transmedicalist, pro-LGB, and gender-critical.
Now here's the fun part. Bear with me -- we're about to debunk the myths about these opinions, explain each term's real definition, and talk about some of the reasoning behind the beliefs.
Exclusionism, as a blanket term, is the belief that gatekeeping is necessary to make any group or community meaningful and safe. Various types of exclusionists fight against the lumping together of various marginalized identities or groups, because they believe that letting different types of people into spaces meant for more specific groups will detract from the safety and functionality of those spaces. They do not hate the groups they are excluding, and they typically want to exclude both ways. For example, ace exclusionists don't want allosexual LGBT let into ace spaces any more than they want asexuals let into LGBT spaces. Many exclusionists in LGBT discourse support the exclusion of groups that they themselves are part of, because in addition to the idea that it's harmful to the main LGBT community to lump them into it, they also think their group deserves its own recognition as a separate thing from the LGBT community. Exclusionism is not hatred.
Time to get into more specific terms. Let's start pretty simple, with truscum and transmeds. Someone who is truscum believes that people must have dysphoria to be trans. Someone who is transmedicalist believes that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and that transness is a medical condition synonymous with gender dysphoria. All transmeds are truscum, but not all truscum are transmeds. Most truscums and transmeds are against MOGAI, neopronouns, gender microlabels (e.g. genderflux or demiboy), and xenogenders. Most truscums believe in nonbinary people. There are some transmeds who don't believe nonbinary dysphoria is real, but they're not the majority.
The direct opposite of truscum and transmed is "tucute," which denotes a belief that dysphoria is not required to be transgender and gender identity is completely unrelated to biological sex or medical disorders/conditions. Tucutes also generally support MOGAI, xenogenders, neurogenders, microlabels, and neopronouns.
Next, we have bio-essentialism. Bio-essentialism is the belief that oppression is based on biological sex, not gender identity, and that identifying as a different gender than your birth sex doesn't automatically mean you are oppressed. This doesn't necessarily mean bio-essentialists believe that gender doesn't exist or that you can't identify as whatever you want, just that your social oppression is based off your biological sex. Not all bio-essentialists are truscum or transmeds, but most are. Bio-essentialists prominently use the terms "male" and "female" to describe biological sex rather than gender identity, and non-radical ones will use "man" and "woman" as blanket terms that include transmen and transwomen while maintaining "male" and "female" as words for biological sex only.
Then, we have the big bad term, TERF. I've seen a lot of people misuse the TERF label, so I'm going to try to clarify its actual meaning. The acronym stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." It's important to break that down into two main parts -- TE and RF -- because trans-exclusionists are often called TERFs when most of them don't fit the "RF" part of the acronym at all.
Trans-exclusionism (TE) means that you believe transgender issues/discourse/activism should be separated from LGB issues/discourse/activism because they are fundamentally different. L, G and B all have one thing in common: being attracted to people of the same sex as you. T is about someone's gender, not their sexual orientation, so trans-exclusionists believe that the LGB and the T should not be lumped into the same community. It doesn't mean they think trans people deserve less respect or are not real. Most trans-exclusionists are also truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are. Many trans-exclusionists who are also feminists are gender-critical, but not all are. Pro-LGB is a synonym of trans-exclusionist, but in my experience, people who describe themselves as "pro-LGB" are more likely to also be gender-critical than those who identify themselves as "trans-exclusionist."
Radical feminism (RF) is a subset of feminism that -- in addition to general feminist beliefs -- is anti-porn, anti-kink, against the makeup industry, and very often openly misandrist. Radical feminists are not always trans-exclusionist, and trans-exclusionists are not always radical feminists (in fact, most aren't). Most radfems are anti-capitalist, and all are against pink capitalism and rainbow capitalism (the commercialization of feminist ideas, gay rights, etc.) Most radfems are truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are.
All TERFs are also gender-critical. "Gender-critical" people are bio-essentialist, but they go a step further to say that gender identity is a meaningless term, and that biological sex is the sole basis of oppression. However, one can be gender-critical and still support trans people if one is a transmedicalist. GC transmeds believe that trans people are still oppressed in society according to their biological sex, not their gender identity, but that social/physical transitioning is acceptable as a treatment for the mental disorder known as gender dysphoria.
Neither trans-exclusionism nor radical feminism is inherently transphobic or hateful toward transgender people. To differentiate a regular trans-exclusionist from a TERF, ask yourself if the person fits the radfem beliefs outlined above. If not, they aren't a TERF.
Now that all of that is covered, we can talk about the last couple types of exclusionism I want to touch on -- asexual exclusionism and aromantic exclusionism. These almost always come together as a package called aro/ace-exclusionism or aspec-exclusionism, but it is technically possible to be ace-exclusionist and not aro-exclusionist (or vice versa), though I've never personally met someone with such beliefs. Aspec-exclusionists believe that aspec people should not be included in the LGBT community because the lack of sexual or romantic attraction is a completely separate struggle and involves separate experiences than having attractions that exist, but are not heterosexual. Some more extreme aro/ace exclusionists strongly gatekeep aromanticism and asexuality. These ones don't believe in microlabels on the "aro spectrum" or "ace spectrum" such as demisexual or grayromantic. They maintain the belief that if someone has sexual attraction (regardless of whether they actually pursue people sexually) then they are not asexual, and if someone feels romantic attraction at all (even if they don't pursue romantic relationships) they are not aromantic.
Aro/ace-exclusionists, regardless of their beliefs on aromantic and asexual spectrums or microlabels, are not inherently aphobic. They only want aromanticism and asexuality to be separated from the rest of the LGB or LGBT community, and treated as their own distinct identities.
I hope this post was informative, and if anyone has feedback on anything I should edit, they should let me know in replies. Regardless of your beliefs, if you actually read this whole post or even just scrolled to the bottom, I'd like to offer a sincere thanks for bearing with me thus far. If you are an inclusionist or otherwise disagree with the things in the post, but you read it anyway, I have a lot of respect for your willingness to hear opinions other than yours rather than blindly blocking out everything you disagree with.
No matter who you are, I hope you have a great day. <3
