Bull Latin American Res - 2021 - Hiner

Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.
679–695, 2021
LGBTQ+ Tensions in the 2018

Chilean Feminist Tsunami
HILLARY HINER
Universidad Diego Portales, Chile
LELYA TRONCOSO
Universidad de Chile, Chile
In this article, we will critically reflect on the 2018 feminist student mobil-
isations in Chile through an analysis of interviews and discussion groups
with LGBTQ+ students who participated in the feminist student protests
and occupations. We will argue that even though these feminist student
mobilisations can be considered an example of transfeminist coalitions,
some relevant conflicts and tensions remain, such as discourses and prac-
tices that still use an either/or, binary, cishet framework, maintaining a
problematic separation between feminist and LGBTQ+ agendas, under-
mining the intersectional feminist understandings necessary for a more
complex idea of social justice.
Keywords: alliances/coalitions, feminist student movement, hetero-cis-

patriarchy, LGBTQ+ students, sexual harassment, tomas de mujeres.
‘Badly Educated Travestis’ Shake Up the Student

Movement in Chile
Claudia Rodríguez is an historic trans and travesti leader in Chile, LGBTQ+ activist,
author and performance artist. In the context of massive student mobilisations in July
2011, Claudia and two travesti friends attended a student gathering at the University of
Chile Law School. After Claudia and her friends opened up an umbrella with the words
‘Travestis mal edukadas’ [sic] (‘Badly educated travestis’) they began to receive insults
from some of the students present (Orellana, 2016). As Claudia related:
We had to listen to these students, who were victims of the economic

model, yell insults at us. ‘Ugly fag!’ As though beauty would legitimate
some human right. ‘Faggot!!’ As though the sexual relations between
students were implacably monogamous and straight. And the women were
just silent. (Orellana, 2016)
© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies. 679

14709856, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/blar.13331 by Universidad Austral De Chile Sistema De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [30/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Hillary Hiner and Lelya Troncoso
We wanted to begin this article with this quote because it represents how trans struggles
were initially ignored and even rejected by the student movement in Chile. However,
since 2011 the demand for a non-sexist education made visible feminist issues within
the student movement, even though it has been slow to take into account variables
apart from class, such as gender or sexual orientation, when discussing issues such as
free, quality, public education for all (Cárdenas and Navarro, 2013: 164). For this same
reason, the majority of publications about the secondary school student movement (in
2006) and university student movement (in 2011) initially left gender and sexualities
out of their analysis, only more fully integrating gender into their analysis after the
2018 feminist student movement (Paredes, 2019). However, many publications about
the current feminist movement, as well as the 2018 ‘Feminist Tsunami’, do reference
quite thoroughly the history of the Chilean student movement and its opposition to
consensus democratic politics and neoliberalism, as well as how this movement opened
up new institutional and organisational spaces for feminist activism (Follegati, 2018;
Zerán, 2018; Troncoso, Follegati and Stutzin, 2019).
In this article, we interrogate the relationship between feminist and LGBTQ+
demands, with particular attention to trans and non-binary struggles, in the context of
the 2018 feminist student mobilisations. These were led exclusively by women, lesbians
and trans students, and their demands included both women’s and LGBTQ+ issues.
Building upon years of previous activism, we believe this to be an important landmark
for trans and non-binary participation in Chilean feminism, as trans student issues, for
example the right to using nombres sociales (social names) at universities, were present
in the majority of feminist student petitions and demands. While this would point
to a general level of unity between feminist and LGBTQ+ student demands, through
our own activism as feminist academics, we were also aware of remaining challenges.
This was also expressed in the interviews and groups discussions that we did with
LGBTQ+ and feminist students, many of whom participated directly in the ‘Feminist
May’ protests and university occupations.
We believe that it is vital for the Chilean feminist student movement to critically
recognise LGBTQ+ experiences within their mobilisations, in order to pose important
questions regarding ‘modern pedagogy and its binary, heterosexist and colonial stan-
dardisation technologies’ (Bello, 2018), and to stress the importance of recognising and
valuing differences as forces of change, devising ways ‘to use each other’s differences
to enrich our visions and our joint struggles’ (Lorde, 2007: 122). In this article, part of
a special section on LGBTQ+ rights in Latin America, we will analyse the 2018 femi-
nist student movement, as well as the experiences and discourses of LGBTQ+ students
within that movement, from an intersectional feminist perspective. Through our analy-
sis, we hope to pose constructive criticisms, in order to further strengthen the possibility
of transfeminist political alliances and address the complex articulation of the neolib-
eral, the colonial and the hetero-cis-patriarchal within the Chilean educational system.
Here, the following research questions come to the fore: what tensions and conflicts
between feminist and LGBTQ+ struggles and demands emerged during the 2018 Chilean
feminist student mobilisations? How do the experiences of LGBTQ+ students who par-
ticipated in the feminist student mobilisations contribute to a more complex problemati-
sation of remaining essentialist and exclusionary discourses and practices within Chilean
feminism? How can we critically interrogate these experiences but also promote con-
structive criticisms that can be used in order to promote coalitional (trans) feminist
struggles?
© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.
680 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 40, No. 5
(Neo)Liberalism and its Discontents in the Feminist and LGBTQ+

Movements in Chile
Since the early 1990s, neoliberal rationality (Brown, 2015) has been part of hegemonic
feminist discourses and practices in Chile, particularly among state entities and large
NGOs that primarily promote neoliberal public policy on women’s issues related
to maternalism and the heterosexual family (Haas, 2010; Hiner, 2020; Ramm and
Gideon, 2020). The state, through the Servicio Nacional de la Mujer (SERNAM,
National Women’s Service), focused on public policy that sought to protect women
and children from family violence or help poor single mothers fight for better access
to jobs, housing and childcare (Hiner and Azócar, 2015; Hiner, 2019). Feminist texts
have underscored how many feminist groups and feminist intellectuals rejected this
neoliberal, technocratic model (Richard, 2008), resulting in the formation of a strong,
autonomous, radical, lesbian, feminist movement in Latin America, led by the Chilean
feminist Margarita Pisano (Mogrovejo, 2010).
In tandem with this, the Chilean LGBTQ+ movement has also wrestled with neolib-
eral rationality, particularly with regard to pinkwashing and class differences within
the movement, lesbo- and transphobia within mainstream LGBT movements domi-
nated by cis gay men, and new political challenges, particularly concerning how some
centre-right parties have begun to look for alliances with members of the LGBT elite. The
public prominence of ‘sexual diversity’ discourses and the ‘homonormative’, predomi-
nantly seen in gay men’s group Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual
(MOVILH, Homosexual Liberation and Integration Movement), has been discussed at
length in the literature on the Chilean LGBTQ+ movement (Robles, 2008; Núñez, 2010;
Barrientos, 2011; Díez, 2015; Hiner and Garrido, 2017, 2019; Garrido and Barrien-
tos, 2018). Literature on trans/travesti organising, as well as the tensions between these
two groups, has also highlighted how trans and travesti organisations have sometimes
espoused discourses that tend to ‘normalise’ trans individuals and their bodies through
a liberal, human rights-based discourse and focus on state public policy (Berkins, 2003;
Miles, 2013, 2015; Garriga-López, 2016; Galaz et al., 2018; Wayar, 2018).
Due to these two interlocking social movement contexts, it should not surprise us that
LGBTQ+ students also tend to frame their demands within these rights-based, neoliberal
frameworks, as a way of both asserting their gender identity and combatting transphobic
bullying in school settings (Platero, 2014: 189). A report published by OutRight Action
International, ‘Mapping Trans Rights in Chile’ (2016), for example stated the follow-
ing about trans rights with regard to education: ‘For trans people, discrimination in the
education system is constant and begins early on, manifesting itself in anything from
the obligation to wear male or female uniforms and undertake male or female activities,
to institutional and peer bullying’ (OutRight Action International, 2016: 21). It is of
course relevant to identify how the educational system is managing gender according
to a binary and cishet framework, but we also have to critically interrogate how pos-
sible solutions to this problem are reduced to demanding legal reforms (Spade, 2015).
For example, solutions to the trans ‘problem’ in the educational system, then, would
have to do with appropriate public policy and interventions and training on the part
of the Ministry of Education in order to eliminate prejudicial barriers to trans stu-
dents. However, these solutions tend to reproduce and maintain an individualisation
of social problems, being unable to go beyond liberal understandings of recognition and
inclusion, hindering more collective, structural and transformative political actions. As
Hill-Collins and Bilge state when referring to intersectionality and critical education,

Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 40, No. 5 681
to use intersectional frameworks to rethink social inequality means rejecting ‘neoliberal

tendencies to assess knowledge based on its “use” or “function” for one’s individual
project’ (Hill-Collins and Bilge, 2016: 168), resisting ‘neoliberal pressures to focus on
individual and personal causes of social inequality, pointing out how structural factors
are always at work’ (Hill-Collins and Bilge, 2016: 189).
Intersectional Feminist Politics: Building Trans-Feminist Coalitions

The political tensions, encounters and conflicts between feminist and LGBTQ+ students
are discussed in this article from a feminist intersectional perspective (Crenshaw, 1991;
Hill-Collins and Bilge, 2016). In particular, we are indebted to women of colour the-
orisations regarding coalition building and political intersectionality. Recognising the
simultaneity of oppression and the articulations of gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity
and other social differences is crucial for feminist perspectives, discourses and strug-
gles aiming to address social inequality from an integral perspective. Intersectionality
is a theoretical, epistemological, methodological and political proposal (Viveros, 2016),
and a critical praxis informing both analytical strategies and practices of social justice
(Hill-Collins and Bilge, 2016).
A macro/micro analytical duality characterises intersectional research (Bilge, 2010),
incorporating both ‘the ways in which multiple systems of power are involved within
the production, organisation and maintenance of inequalities [ … ] [and] a considera-
tion of the interlocking of social categories and of the multiple sources of power and
privilege’ (Bilge, 2010: 60), by which we mean analysing the impact and materialisation
of complex systems of power in concrete experiences of privilege/oppression and inclu-
sion/exclusion (Troncoso, Follegati, and Stutzin, 2019: 5). In the case of Latin America,
this means understanding how hetero-cis-patriarchy has also been constructed in rela-
tion to settler colonialism and capitalism. Maria Lugones (2011) has named this the
‘coloniality of gender’, as racism, sexism and heteronormativity were installed from the
colonial period on, promoting specific acts of violence against First Nations women and
women from the African diaspora, as well as lesbian and trans women.
Not only is an intersectional analysis important to accomplish a more complex under-
standing of social inequality, but its political goal should also always be to understand
oppression in order to change it, thus promoting social justice (Rice, Harrison and Fried-
man, 2019). In this article we focus on LGBTQ+ experiences within the feminist student
mobilisations as a way to ‘deploy research methods that authorise marginalised voices
and de-center the experiences/interests of privileged groups’ (Rice, Harrison, and Fried-
man, 2019: 4). These voices are important in order to promote the building of political
feminist coalitions, based on the recognition of differences and the need to understand
the connections between different struggles. At the same time, it is also important to
stress that ‘intersectionality is not only a tool for understanding difference but also a
way to illuminate less obvious similarities’ (Cole, 2008: 443). In this article we want to
promote a deeper understanding of the interlocking nature of heteronormativity, patri-
archy, cisnormativity and neoliberalism in order to have a broader understanding of
sexism in education, and how it affects the experiences of different social groups and
bodies.
Feminist coalitional work has been considered paramount for intersectional fem-
inism, and inevitable for feminist political activism considering the constitutive het-
erogeneity of social life (Cole and Luna, 2010). The 2018 Chilean feminist student
mobilisations can be read as a landmark of transfeminist alliances, but this does not
mean that conflicts and tensions were not part of these mobilisations. As Troncoso, Fol-
legati and Stutzin (2019) point out, a problematic aspect of the demands posited by the
2018 student feminist mobilisations is that some tended to be in line with liberal fem-
inist notions of equality, individuality and state ‘protection’, particularly with regard
to sexual harassment, a key issue of the movement, and, in this manner, more revolu-
tionary prospects for intersectional, liberating student feminisms were undermined. An
intersectional lens invites us to embrace these conflicts and use them to create critical
constructive insights that can further promote coalitional feminist work. We hope this
article can be valued as a critical insight focusing on concrete, situated and localised
experiences of feminist and LGBTQ+ activism.
Methodology
Research for this article was done by each author separately and in relation to their
participation in specific research projects. In the case of the first author, this research
was undertaken as part of a line of investigation related to social movements and collec-
tive action in post-dictatorial Chile. She is currently finishing fieldwork in Santiago and
Valparaiso on feminist and LGBTQ+ movements in the post-2011 student movement
context. This article primarily uses this project’s discussion groups, done with young
feminists and LGBTQ+ people, many of whom participated in the 2018 feminist stu-
dent mobilisations at different public and private universities in Santiago and Valparaiso.
The second author has been carrying out personal semi-structured interviews with stu-
dents and academics from the University of Chile’s Social Science department, regarding
the different experiences of the 2018 three-month feminist occupation there. All inter-
views and discussion groups were carried out under strict ethical guidelines and by using
informed consent procedures.
It is also relevant to note that both authors are feminist activist academics who also
directly participated, as feminist professors, in the 2018 feminist student mobilisations
at their universities. While they had also participated in many feminist student activities
prior to the 2018 mobilisations, organising workshops and talks, that year marked a
more intense participatory agenda, as their universities were occupied by student femi-
nist groups. Both authors took part in student feminist assemblies and debates, as well
as activities oriented directly towards university women workers, both academics and
staff.
The knowledges presented in this article are situated in two senses. First, they are
situated through our own positionalities as feminist researchers, with particular per-
spectives as a feminist historian and a feminist social psychologist, and our political
understanding of feminism as a broad intersectional field of studies, knowledge produc-
tion and struggles that is not compatible with trans-exclusionary politics. We agree with
Sara Ahmed when she states that: ‘No feminism worthy of its name would use the sexist
idea “women born women” to create the edges of feminist community, to render trans
women into “not women”, or “not born women”, or into men’ (Ahmed, 2017: 14–15).
Secondly, the interviews and discussion groups analysed in this article are also situated
knowledges (Haraway, 1995), partial accounts and experiences that do not intend to
represent the whole feminist student movement, but rather stress the importance of tak-
ing trans and non-binary experiences of discomfort and exclusion seriously as a feminist
issue.
The Feminist Tsunami Comes Crashing Down: The 2018 Feminist

Student Mobilisations in Chilean Universities
For the last decade young women and feminists inside student organisations at high
schools and universities have systematically problematised gender-based discriminations
and violence that they confronted daily in their institutions and political organisations.
In 2011, in the thick of strong student movement protests, ‘non-sexist education’ began
to appear as a rallying cry in marches and assemblies, bolstered by the participation of
young feminists in these arenas. In 2012 and 2013 there were various feminist meetings
and seminars that focused on the relationship between young feminists, the university
and non-sexist education. In 2014 the First National Congress for a Non-Sexist Edu-
cation took place and the first openly feminist president of the University of Chile’s
student federation (historically the strongest in Chile), was elected, Melissa Sepulveda,
who promoted both the formation of the Coordinadora Feministas en Lucha (CFL,
Feminists in Struggle Coordinating Committee), an umbrella organisation of feminist
groups that supported free and safe abortion, and its organisation of the 8 March and
25 July marches that year (Follegati, 2018; Hiner and Vivaldi, 2019).
The 2018 Feminist Tsunami, as the feminist student movement is sometimes called,
was initially focused on cases of sexual harassment and gender violence in universi-
ties and the ineffectiveness of institutional measures, deploying activist tactics such as
occupations and funas (public callouts against perpetrators). During 2018, more than
132 cases have been reported in 16 universities (Muñoz, 2018), including events that
occurred in previous years that have led to local protests, without unleashing a mas-
sive protest like 2018. In addition to demands regarding sexual harassment and sex-
ual violence protocols, feminist student demands also included many issues related to
trans student rights. For example, in many universities the feminist student petitions
included requests for unisex bathrooms, the use of chosen names (social names), and
the possibility of using gender-inclusive language in official university communications
and/or student academic writing. However, even though trans demands were added, in
many universities there were frequently heated, uncomfortable or confusing discussions
regarding the role and participation of trans and non-binary students in self-declared
‘feminist separatist spaces’ or ‘feminist safe spaces’. In large part this had to do with
how these spaces were defined in general terms using biological, determinist criteria
regarding who qualified as a ‘woman’.
When feminist student mobilisations started organising their assemblies and actions
many called themselves as asambleas de mujeres (women’s assemblies) or tomas de
mujeres (women’s occupations), and most of the mobilisations identified as separatist,
that is that only ‘women’ could participate, separated, primarily, from ‘men’. To a certain
extent this had to do with the historic over-representation of male students in university
student mobilisations, primarily due to their participation and leadership in political
parties. It was also related to the idea of constructing ‘safe spaces’ in which female stu-
dents could share stories of harassment and abuse. At some universities, there was an
explicitly stated goal of including ‘women’ and ‘sexual dissidences’, but excluding het-
erosexual cis ‘men’. Ergo, after the first few weeks, and facing internal criticisms, some
tomas changed their names to Toma de mujeres, lesbianas y disidencias (occupation of
women, lesbians and [sexual] dissidences) or to Toma feminista (Feminist occupation).
This would seem to be more inclusive for trans and non-binary students. However, it
should be noted that not all feminist student mobilisations went through this process (in
fact, they were probably the minority of cases, considering the vast number of women’s

occupations that took place) and, additionally, what dissidence or feminist implied was
not always directly spelled out or understood. As we shall explore in greater detail in the
analysis of our group discussions and interviews, the end result was commonly a certain
amount of confusion concerning who counted as ‘women’, and if trans and non-binary
people would be welcome to participate.
Although access by the outside community to feminist student movements at the uni-
versities could be very limited, particularly in the case of occupations, both paros (class
stoppages) and tomas (occupations) were filled with different activities, many focused on
gender, feminism and women, such as talking about cases of gender and sexual violence
on campus and society at large, self-organised lessons on feminist history and theory,
seminars and workshops with feminist teachers and non-academic feminist activists,
committees dealing with different themes that included alliances between teachers and
students (and sometimes, non-academic staff), workshops on gender and sexual vio-
lence, and specific negotiations with the university on protocols and regulations, among
other things. However, while all of these activities required a great deal of participation
on the part of feminist and LGBTQ+ students, not all of these activities were necessarily
welcoming for trans and non-binary students.
Within the 2018 feminist student mobilisations, the decision to organise separatist
occupations was often justified by a call to form ‘safe spaces’. But for whom were the
tomas safe spaces? The feminist attempt to create ‘safes spaces’ has been questioned
by black and queer feminists for decades (Reagon, 1983; Mohanty, 2003; Phipps, 2016;
Bello, 2018), generally due to their problematic assumptions of homogeneity, their ignor-
ing of internal power relations and their modes of exclusion, which emerge when such
spaces are ‘based on narrow identity politics’ (Cole, 2008). In her article, ‘“Everyone but
Cis Men”: Creating Better Safe Spaces for LGBT People’, Brook Shelley (2016) poses
some very provocative questions, when asking,
What are the behaviors we want to encourage or discourage? Are we trying

to create a space for people who are often marginalised to feel safer explor-
ing their sexuality, or meeting others they might be interested in dating or
befriending? How does any rule around identity limit or aid these goals?
Are we actually punching up when we try to make these spaces, or are we
creating new ways of attacking some of the same people often targeted by
the patriarchal or heterosexual mainstream we declaim? (Shelley, 2016: n/p)
Shelley’s questions become particularly relevant when considering the fact that within
many student feminist occupations, trans and non-binary student did not feel that these
spaces were safe for them. Additionally, conflicts often also arose between trans and
transfeminist students and those cisgender feminist students who identified as ‘radical
feminists’, also called ‘Radfem’ in Chile, and many of whom were specifically lesbian,
separatist radical feminists. In order to understand this more fully, we must first briefly
summarise how the recent Chilean feminist movement has developed and its relation to
lesbian feminists and radical feminists.
‘Don’t be Fooled!’: Radfems and Alt-Right United in Anti-‘Gender

Ideology’ Hate Speech
In Latin American activist circles, it is quite well known that many radical, autonomous
feminists are also lesbian feminists. What is generally silenced or avoided is any

discussion of how some of them can also be quite transphobic. Reproducing and
recontextualising discourses presented by radical feminists in the 1970s and 1980s
in the Global North, especially those who are now recognised in that context as
trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), such as Germaine Greer or Janice Ray-
mond, many of these individuals and groups, for example Margarita Pisano (2004) or
Andrea Franulic (2016) in Chile, vehemently criticised trans women and their partici-
pation in the feminist social movement and ‘women’s spaces’. In Chile, and even within
younger women’s or student feminist groups, there is still a strong showing of radical,
autonomous, lesbian feminists who are deeply suspicious of any and all issues related
to ‘trans’ or ‘queer’ feminisms. Many times in recent years, they have combatively
constructed themselves as self-styled young, lesbian ‘Radfems’, posting inflammatory
transphobic diatribes and videos on social media. This also drives considerable political
wedges between the ‘L’ and the ‘T’ of LGBTQ+ social movement activism, wherein
many lesbian Radfems strongly criticise the possibility of any ‘queer’ or ‘sexual dissi-
dence’ organising as being merely spaces for promoting the misogyny and machismo of
gay men and trans women, whom they do not perceive as really ‘women’, but rather
men ‘dressed up in women’s clothes’. For example, ‘The transvestite man is nothing
other than the stereotype of the stupid woman, subordinate to masculinity’s desires and
abuses’ (Pisano, 2004: 90).
Theoretical discussions concerning what ‘woman’ means within feminisms today,
particularly after Judith Butler’s formulation of her theory of performativity (1990),
which nurtured the production of Latin American feminist texts working from outside
the gender binary or from an explicitly queer or trans point of view (flores, 2013;
Bello, 2018; Rodríguez, 2014, have been heated. Some Chilean ‘Radfems’, many
younger women or students, for example, often post inflamed diatribes on social media
against Judith Butler, rejecting or misquoting her texts, or share memes and images that
insult Butler and other authors perceived as being ‘queer’ or ‘trans’ feminist, accusing
them of depoliticising the movement and hindering feminist collective action. However,
on the other hand, these conflicts also have to do with the fact that more and more
young LGBTQ+ activists have also begun to define themselves as lesbian, trans or queer
feminists and participate in feminist movement activities. If, during the 1990s, this
movement was largely focused solely on issues related to cis gay men and the decrim-
inalisation of gay sex (through the derogation of the ‘Sodomy Law’ in 1999), by the
early 2000s this model had already begun to show serious signs of wear. Additionally,
traditionally conservative, Catholic Chilean society also began a process of ‘opening’
during the 2000s, questioning the status quo, duopoly of Chilean consensus politics
as well as the ‘hypocrisy’ and double standards of many on the right who sought to
protect the heteronormative family. In this vein, numerous new LGBTQ+ organisations
were founded, particularly by feminist lesbians, trans/travesti and queer people.
In this manner, from the early 2000s on, some lesbian Radfems have begun to express
feelings that ‘their’ feminist spaces and funding are now under attack by feminists whose
bodies are rejected as not being ‘authentically’ woman enough. Many stereotypes are
invoked in this discussion, as trans women are seen as being inherently more combat-
ive, loud and ‘violent’ since they are ‘really men’ or ‘raised as men’, not ‘women born
women’. As Sayak Valencia (2018) states, it seems like the feminisms that are becom-
ing more popular transnationally are the neoliberal and radical trans-exclusionary ones.
This is a very unfortunate situation and one that has been somewhat ignored in the lit-
erature on Latin American feminisms, particularly that available in English, although
all too common and present in large feminist activist spaces. Additionally, and perhaps
ironically, transphobic, lesbian Radfems in Chile often echo the same determinist, biolog-
ically based hate speech of the alt-right concerning ‘gender ideology’. But, what, exactly,
is ‘gender ideology’?
Since at least the 1990s, Chilean feminist and LGBTQ+ groups have denounced
the rampant (hetero)sexism in primary, secondary and university education, and both
right-wing parties and the Catholic Church’s roles in preserving this educational system.
However, it is only in the last decade that they have been confronted with important
resistance and criticism from religious and far-right groups opposing Gender Ideology
(Corredor, 2019; Troncoso and Stutzin, 2019). These groups have been particularly
obsessed with issues such as reproductive rights, the mainstreaming of gender policies,
trans rights and non-sexist education (Corredor, 2019). The far right and evangelical
Christians in Chile have increasingly associated themselves with anti-trans discourses in
the name of ‘saving the children’ (El Mostrador, 2017). In 2017 the Spanish conserva-
tive group ‘Hazte Oir’ sponsored the visit of the ‘Freedom Bus’ (alternatively called the
‘Hate Bus’) to Chile, which had the words, ‘Boys have penises. Girls have vulvas. Don’t
be fooled’ emblazoned on the side. The idea that ‘girls’ are born with vulvas and that
we should not be ‘fooled’, of course, is a sentiment echoed by many lesbian Radfems in
Chile. The Hate Bus is slated to reappear in Chile in November–December 2020.
Trans and Non-Binary Students in the Tomas de Mujeres?

In several interviews with students who participated in the 2018 feminist mobilisations
at universities in Santiago the inclusion of trans and non-binary people and sexual dis-
sidences is referred to as a main tension and issue to be discussed:
Another thing that kept coming up a lot was the issue of sexual dissidences
and what was happening with our trans mates. I personally think that the
trans classmates and the dissidences clearly have a terribly important place
here in feminism and in the movement in general, but there were other
students who did not think alike, and it was a complicated conversation.
(Personal communication No. 6, 15 May 2019)
Being transgender I had a problem with radical feminists, it was very serious
[ … ] I told a student you really can’t be a spokesperson if your politi-
cal position is transphobic, because that’s a strong political statement. So
I think it opened up the subject and afterwards the space was declared
open to non-binary people, despite the fact that many non-binary people
continued to not feel included [ … ] because the characterisation of the occu-
pation was very much linked to women. (Personal communication No. 4,
13 May 2019)
Even though it is recognised that the ‘trans issue’ was a main tension and problem to be
addressed, many interviewees also affirm that deeper discussions regarding separatism,
the political subjects of feminism, and what kind of feminism was being constructed did
not take place as expected. Therefore, this feminist/trans issue appears as something that
was not properly discussed or resolved:
It was never resolved later on and I think that it has to do with the fact
that there are kind of ignorant people [ … ] people really didn’t know what
non-binary was. So, we would agree on certain things in the assembly and
then I would come with a non-binary friend to the university occupation
and they told her: you can’t be here. (Personal communication No. 4, 13
May 2019)
But of course, those were the conversations that I feel were left aside, things
we said we would discuss, and then a month passed … we should start talk-
ing about how we locate ourselves, what we understand by feminism, what
about transfeminism? But the eagerness to solve things on a daily basis,
to solve the most practical things, I feel as if we postponed that conversa-
tion, perhaps it took place in more intimate friendly spaces, but not really
at the assembly level, I don’t think so. (Personal communication No. 6, 15
May 2019)
Even when explicit and public conflicts between lesbian Radfems and trans feminists
took place, these conflicts were often resolved without deeper discussions and treated
as personal conflicts. It seems that LGBTQ+ issues remained a secondary problem and
also something that students did not want to discuss in depth because of the tensions it
created.
As we mentioned before, in many universities, the feminist student petitions included
requests made by trans and non-binary students for unisex bathrooms, the use of
social names, and the possibility of using gender-inclusive language in official university
communications and/or their own academic writing. However, in discussion groups
some LGBTQ+ students had doubts about whether or not such initiatives really showed
progress for trans students and whether this type of individualist, liberal approach to
changing educational spaces was for the best. For example, a cis male, queer film
student, who studied at a professional institute and was member of a queer group,
stated:
Really the only reflection of LGBT community demands has been the name,
the social name. That is what it has ended up being [ … ] and that there
are even bathrooms, like non-binary bathrooms, as they are called in these
spaces. (Discussion Group No. 2, Santiago, 12 August 2019)
However, in a rebuttal to what this student saw as a ‘win’ at his professional institute,
a female trans student, from a private university and member of a trans group, argued:
Intersex bathrooms [ … ] also have to do with conservatism. Because, in the

end, what does a trans woman have to do with that? It’s like, wow, maybe I
am too ashamed to go into a woman’s bathroom so I will go in here? In fact,
you are not eradicating a problem of discrimination or gender. Simply, you
are saying: ‘don’t make other people uncomfortable and if you are ashamed,
go in here.’ No, that doesn’t solve any problem except for the non-binary
community – ok, that’s a bathroom for me – but for the rest, it doesn’t do
anything. (Discussion Group No. 2, Santiago, 12 August 2019)
We can appreciate how from a trans student perspective gender-inclusive bathrooms

do not deal with more profound issues and changes, even though they are considered
important for LGBTQ+ daily lives. But these changes can be viewed at the same time as
reformist changes (hooks, 2017) focused on a notion of equality within existing struc-
tures of inequality. Also, these changes avoid conflict. Making others uncomfortable
and ashamed is avoided by keeping LGBTQ+ people out of sight, using their own
bathrooms and spaces. In this manner, an interrogation of hetero-cis-patriarchy in edu-
cational spaces is displaced. This individualised focus is also considered problematic by
this trans student who studies in the Social Sciences department at a public university:
Since I entered the University, I feel that the trans issue has been poorly
addressed [ … ] Even though everybody is very trans-friendly and open to
accepting trans people, when they have a trans student in the classroom
they do not know what to do. [ … ] I actually feel like people think they are
doing me a favour [ … ] like you are doing me a huge favour treating me like
a woman, as if I was one. And maybe today I care less about being treated
as a he, but during my freshman year I would have a panic attack and I
really needed people to be more prepared, but nobody cared … transition
is a process, and when I most needed support and safe spaces it was not
possible, and it still isn’t even though there’s more openness now. (Personal
communication No. 4, 13 May 2019)
Everybody being ‘very trans-friendly’ can be lived as a very condescending and victim-
ising attitude towards trans students. While perhaps better than outright hostility or
violence, it is also worthwhile to consider how simply being trans in the university
continues to be framed as a ‘problem’ that individual students must try to overcome.
Additionally, it also points to that level of not knowing ‘how to address it’, in the sense
that there is little organised university discussion on the matter and university mem-
bers must simply now abstain from being openly transphobic, which can also manifest
as ‘insincere’ or simply being ‘politically correct’ (while not changing deep, ingrained
prejudices).
The following quote, taken from an interview with a trans woman student at a public
university, also points to a nuanced aspect of the debate on feminist ‘safe spaces’ and
trans or non-binary students. Since she was already undergoing hormonal treatments,
she could ‘pass’ more readily as a trans woman, in this manner eliding discussions of the
gender binary at the women’s occupations:
I do not think they were safe spaces, even though maybe they were safe
for me, but this had to do with the fact that I was under hormonal treat-
ment and that I entered the binary in a certain way and had a certain social
acceptability. But for other trans people it was not. If I think of myself
starting transition with a beard, I would not have participated in the same
way. I would have hated being treated as a ‘him’ all the time. (Personal
communication No. 4, 13 May 2019)
However, trans students and non-binary students who could not so readily ‘pass’ encoun-
tered more serious problems during the feminist student occupations. Here, arguments
about ‘safe spaces’ went so far as to present blatantly transphobic hypotheses about how
trans and non-binary people could be violent towards cis women. This is a clear example
of how ideas about ‘feminist’ and ‘sexual dissent’ occupations as somehow unified could
become very confusing, as well as how the determinist, biological conceptualisation of
‘woman’ continued to be hegemonic. As a non-binary social work student recalls:
I remember problems regarding who could or could not enter the faculty
under occupation. They were saying trans people could not enter, but
non-binary people were left aside; it was not an issue until we made it an

issue. Then they said trans and non-binary people could enter but could
not sleep over. [ … ] I remember that a trans person was not admitted
because her biological sex was male, but then she could enter, but both
trans and non-binary people were asked not to sleep over, because we
could do something to the women … this was discussed in an assem-
bly. And me and another non-binary student insisted on discussing this
issue further because we thought it to be really problematic. And the
rest, all cis women, all said yes this is really important, but it is so late,
let’s talk about it tomorrow. [ … ] Another person said: I could discuss
this, but I have never seen a non-binary person, what is that really?
And we were like: Wow! We are here! (Personal communication No. 7,
18 May 2019)
As should be quite clear by now, there were many conflicts related to queer and trans
subjectivities, and some of these spilled over into direct, transphobic violence. This is
what motivated one cis female, feminist student in a discussion group, a law student at
a private university, to vehemently reject the role of lesbian Radfems in feminist mobil-
ising:
Those same radical compañeras, you know? They want the sexual dis-
sidence people far away, and that’s horrible. They end up being just as
machistas as nazis [ … ] they throw us out of [a large feminist group related
to gender violence] and they want to punch people with sexual conditions,
the trans compañeras, it’s horrible. (Discussion Group No. 1, Santiago,
1 August 2019)
Final Reflections: How Can We Queer the Demand for a Non-Sexist

Education?
In May 2019, Emilia Schneider, a trans woman and feminist law student active in the
Law School occupations at the University of Chile, was officially elected president of the
largest and oldest student federation in Chile, the FECH. For many this was a potent
symbol of how trans student rights have also been incorporated into student movement
demands. The University of Chile was also one of the first universities to promote the use
of social names and the protection of trans and non-binary students on an institutional
level. All of this would seem to point to a certain degree of trans student ‘victory’. How-
ever, to what extent did Schneider’s election work to bridge student trans and feminist
activisms? We are reminded of what trans activist academics Lucas Platero and Ester
Ortega have stated:
We do not claim that relationships between cis and trans feminists have
been unproblematic, but that they do break with the traditional Anglo
narrative (and also the Latin American one) of being two different and
opposing movements. Their leaders recognise that they are interdependent
movements, wherein sexual and gender rights are intertwined. There-
fore, women’s rights have to include transwomen’s rights. (Platero and
Ortega, 2016: 61–62)
Through the arguments presented in this article, we hope to have contributed to transna-
tional discussions on student movements, feminism(s) and LGBTQ+ rights. As feminist
activist academics, who take many cues from anti-racist, intersectional and queer fem-
inisms, we feel that it is completely imperative that an intersectional perspective be
present in all social movements, as that would allow for opening up more dialogue,
constructive discussions and potential coalitions and alliances, recognising the inter-
connectedness of oppressions based on race/ethnicity, gender/sex, sexuality and hete-
rocisnormativity. In this manner, for example, feminist student movements would be
able to focus on the structural dimensions of power without disregarding the ways in
which these complex articulations of structures of oppression materialise in concrete
experiences of privilege and disadvantage within the universities themselves. We need
to continue to ask ourselves why, despite decades of feminist and LGBTQ+ movements
in Chile, and the formulation of theories that point to interconnections, dialogues and
articulations, the possibility of intersectional feminist activism continues to encounter
obstacles.
Here, of course, we must return to the pull of identity politics and transphobia within
certain manifestations of radical, autonomous, separatist lesbian feminism, particularly
that of young, lesbian Radfems. Again, this type of feminism is present throughout Latin
America and has a strong presence in many universities and young women’s groups,
even though its members may be relatively few. These are extremely endogenous organ-
isations, whose members often are extremely sensitive to being labelled as ‘TERFs’ or
associated with ‘transphobia’, even if their public discourses and positions, as proud les-
bian Radfems, are extremely clear. Additionally, this is a group that, in many cases, also
confronts institutionalised lesbophobic discrimination and daily misogynistic violence,
especially those lesbian women who present as more ‘masculine’. These are feminists
who are highly defensive and very vocal on social media – any statement perceived as
being against their transphobia is often quickly and viciously rejected as ‘lesbophobic’
– but often these same feminists can be much more elusive in large feminist gath-
erings, like feminist student assemblies. In large part, this is part of why trans and
non-binary students specifically asked for these ‘Radfem’ students to not be allowed
to be spokeswomen for the movement. From what we have managed to glean from our
interviews and discussion groups, we need to be much more vigilant about excluding any
and all transphobia from university settings, including student feminist mobilisations.
Finally, we would also like to propose the radical possibility of incorporating a
‘trans-pedagogy’ into universities, which would be a profoundly feminist gesture. We
believe that the discussions and practices to further a non-sexist education can be
enriched taking feminist, queer and trans pedagogies contributions seriously. This is of
course particularly problematic if we consider that feminist knowledge has not been
valued by mainstream academia, and is mostly excluded from educational curricula
(Troncoso, Follegati and Stutzin, 2019). A less individualised and more structural
understanding of heterosexism in education is vital to ask broader and more complex
questions. In this sense, the Argentine lesbian feminist activist valeria flores (2017),
for example, has addressed the challenge of de-heterosexualising pedagogy, in order to
overcome traditional approaches to sexual education that do not interrogate heterosex-
ual modes of thinking and teaching. Another example is the trans-pedagogy proposed
by the Colombian trans teacher, Alanis Bello (2018):
It is a contagious drive towards new ways of educating, other ways of think-

ing about and creating community. Trans-pedagogy is a way of thinking

in a movement that rejects identity’s safe spaces and proposes a transitive

consciousness that invites us to build bridges (puentear) between different
points of view, creating connection and intimacy through political alliances,
an ethic of love and a disruptive disposition against all forms of normalisa-
tion, no matter where they come from. (Bello, 2018: 126)
In this article, we hope to have helped to puentear ideas about the importance of trans-
feminist alliances, as well as point out how trans-pedagogy could help us to radically
reform our ideas about education and the disruptive power of intersectional and queer
feminisms in educational spaces.
Acknowledgements
H. Hiner’s research has been funded by the Anillo SOC180007 state grant (2018–2021),
‘Political culture and Post-dictatorship: memories of the past, struggles of the present and
challenges of the future’. As part of this project she would like to thank project team
members A. López, M. G. Acuña, M. R. Verdejo and D. Castro, as well as feminists and
LGBTQ+ people who took part in discussion groups used in this article. She would also
like to thank the special issue editors, especially P. Miles for her helpful questions and
comments. She also deeply thanks her mother and her sister for vital childcare help with
her young daughter while completing this article’s revisions during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. L. Troncoso’s U-Inicia research project ‘Challenges of a ‘non-sexist education’:
resistances and potentialities for the incorporation of feminist knowledges and practices
in social sciences’, was funded by the Vice-rectory of Research and Development (VID)
of the University of Chile. She thanks L. Follegati, V. Stutzin and J. Undurraga for their
help with this research, as well as those who participated in interviews that are cited in
this article.
References
Ahmed, S. (2017) Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press: Durham.
Barrientos, J. (2011) ‘Discriminación y victimización: marcha del orgullo LGBT en Chile’.
Debate Feminista 42(April): 113–132.
Bello, A. (2018) ‘Hacia una trans-pedagogía: reflexiones educativas para incomodar, sanar y
construir comunidad’. Debate Feminista 28(55): 104–128.
Berkins, L. (2003) ‘Itinerario político del travestismo’ in D. Maffia (ed.) Sexualidades
migrantes. Género y transgénero. Feminaria: Buenos Aires, 143–155.
Bilge, S. (2010) ‘Recent Feminist Outlooks on Intersectionality’. Diogenes 225: 58–72.
Brown, W. (2015) El pueblo sin atributos: la secreta revolución del neoliberalismo. Malpaso
Ediciones: Barcelona.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. Routledge: New York.
Cárdenas, A. and Navarro, C. (2013) Redefiniendo límites, acortando distancias: el
movimiento estudiantil en Chile. RIL: Santiago.
Cole, E. (2008) ‘Coalitions as a Model for Intersectionality: From Practice to Theory’. Sex
Roles 59(1): 443–453.
Cole, E. and Luna, Z. T. (2010) ‘Making Coalitions Work: Solidarity across Difference within
US Feminism’. Feminist Studies 36(1): 71–98.
Corredor, E. (2019) ‘Unpacking “Gender Ideology” and the Global Right’s Antigender Coun-
termovement’. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society 44(3): 613–638.

Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence
against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.
Díez, J. (2015) The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Latin America: Argentina, Chile and
Mexico. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
flores, v. (2013) Interruqciones. ensayos de poética activista. Editora La Mondonga Dark:
Neuquén.
flores, v. (2017) Tropismos de la disidencia. Editorial Palinodia: Santiago.
Follegati, L. (2018) ‘El feminismo se ha vuelto una necesidad: movimiento estudiantil y orga-
nización feminista (2000–2017)’. Revista Anales 7(14): 261–292.
Franulic, A. (2016) Breve comentario sobre los Cis sexual y otras reflexiones. [WWW doc-
ument]. URL https://andreafranulic.cl/misoginia/breve-comentario-sobre-lo-cis-sexual-
y-otras-reflexiones/ [accessed 7 October 2019].
Galaz, C. et al. (2018) ‘Derechos LGTBI en Chile: tensiones en la constitución de otredades
sexualizadas’. Psicoperspectivas 17(1): 1–11.
Garrido, J. C. and Barrientos, C. (2018) ‘Identidades en transición: prensa, activismo y
disidencia sexual en Chile, 1990–2010’. Psicoperspectivas 17(1): 1–11.
Garriga-López, C. (2016) ‘Transfeminist Crossroads: Reimagining the Ecuadorian State’.
Transgender Studies Quarterly 3(1–2): 104–119.
Haas, L. (2010) Feminist Policymaking in Chile. Pennsylvania State University Press: Univer-
sity Park.
Haraway, D. (1995) Ciencia, cyborgs y mujeres: la reinvención de la naturaleza. Ediciones
Cátedra: Madrid.
Hill-Collins, P. and Bilge, S. (2016) Intersectionality. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Hiner, H. (2019) Violencia de género, pobladoras y feminismo popular: Casa Yela, Talca
(1964–2010). Tiempo Robado: Santiago.
Hiner, H. (2020) ‘LGBTQ-IPV and the Case for Challenging Maternalist Family Violence
Paradigms in Chile’ in A. Ramm and J. Gideon (eds.) Motherhood, Social Policies and
Women’s Activism in Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, 195–218.
Hiner, H. and Azócar, M. J. (2015) ‘Irreconcilable Differences: Political Culture and Gen-
der Violence during the Chilean Transition to Democracy, 1990–2000’. Latin American
Perspectives 202(42/3): 52–72.
Hiner, H. and Garrido, J. C. (2019) ‘Antitrans State Terrorism. Trans and Travesti Women,
Human Rights, and Recent History in Chile’. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly 6(2):
194–209.
Hiner, H. and Garrido, J. C. (2017) ‘“Porque ser pobre y maricón es peor”: la violencia
anti-queer en Chile, 2000 2012’ in M. A. Vera (ed.) (ed.) Malestar social y desigualdades
en Chile. Ediciones Universidad Alberto. Hurtado: Santiago, 195–223.
Hiner, H. and Vivaldi, L. (2019) ‘¡Aborto libre ya! Nuevas generaciones de feministas y las
luchas por el aborto en Chile’ in K. Glavic (ed.) (ed.) Aborto Libre. Materiales para la
lucha y la discusión en Chile. Pólvora: Santiago, 73–95.
hooks, b. (2017) El feminismo es para todo el mundo. Editorial Traficantes de sueños: Madrid.
Lorde, A. (2007) Sister Outsider. Crossing Press: New York.
Lugones, M. (2011) ‘Hacia un feminismo descolonial’. La manzana de la discordia 6(2):
105–119.
Miles, P. (2013) ‘ID Cards as Access: Negotiating Trans and Intersex Bodies into the Chilean
Legal System’ in A. Wilson (ed.) Situating Intersectionality. Palgrave Macmillan: Hound-
mills, 63–88.
Miles, P. (2015) ‘Brokering Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Chilean Lawyers and
Public Interest Litigation’. Bulletin of Latin American Research 34(4): 435–450.
Mogrovejo, N. (2010) ‘Itineraries of Latin American Lesbian Insubordination’ in E. Maier
and N. Lebon (eds.) Women’s Activism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Rutgers
University Press: New Brunswick, 187–202.
Mohanty, C. (2003) Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity.
Duke University Press: Durham.

Núñez, H. (2010) ‘Political Practices and Alliance Strategies of the Chilean GLBTT Move-
ment’ in J. Corrales and M. Pecheny (eds.) The Politics of Sexuality in Latin America.
A Reader on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights. University of Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh, 381–386.
OutRight Action International (2016) Mapping Trans Rights in Chile. OutRight Action Inter-
national: New York.
Paredes, J. P. (2019) ‘De la Revolución Penguina a la arena de la gratuidad. Balance de 10
años de luchas estudiantiles en Chile (2007–2017)’ in R. Díez and G. Betancor (eds.)
Movimientos sociales, acción colectiva y cambio social en perspectiva. Fundación Betiko:
Abadiño, 133–147.
Phipps, A. (2016) ‘Whose Personal Is more Political? Experience in Contemporary Feminist
Politics’. Feminist Theory 17(3): 303–321.
Pisano, M. (2004) El triunfo de la masculinidad. Fem-e-libros/creatividad feminista: Santiago.
Platero, L. (2014) ‘La agencia de los jóvenes trans* para enfrentarse a la transfobia’. Revista
Internacional de Pensamiento Político 1(9): 183–193.
Platero, L. and Ortega, E. (2016) ‘Building Coalitions: The Interconnections between
Feminism and Trans* Activism in Spain’. Journal of Lesbian Studies 20: 46–64.
Ramm, A. and Gideon, J. (eds.) (2020) Motherhood, Social Policies and Women’s Activism
in Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham.
Reagon, B. (1983) ‘Coalition Politics: Turning the Century’ in B. Smith (ed.) Homegirls: A
Black Feminist Anthology. Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press: New York, 356–368.
Rice, C., Harrison, E. and Friedman, M. (2019) ‘Doing Justice to Intersectionality in
Research’. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 19(6): 409–420.
Richard, N. (2008) Feminismo, género y diferencia(s). Palinodia: Santiago.
Robles, V. H. (2008) Bandera Hueca: historia del movimiento homosexual en Chile. Editorial
ARCIS/Cuarto Propio: Santiago.
Rodriguez, C. (2014) Cuerpos para odiar. Self-Published. Fanzine: Santiago.
Shelley, B. (2016) ‘Everyone But Cis Men’: Creating Better Safe Spaces for LGBT People,
The Toast, 18 April 2016. [WWW document]. URL http://the-toast.net/2016/04/18/
everyone-but-cis-men-creating-better-safe-spaces-for-lgbt-people/ [accessed 30 Septem-
ber 2019].
Spade, D. (2015) Normal Life. Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits
of Law. Duke University Press: Durham, NC.
Troncoso, L., Follegati, L. and Stutzin, V. (2019) ‘Más allá de una educación no sexista:
aportes de pedagogías feministas interseccionales’. Pensamiento Educativo 56(1): 1–15.
Troncoso, L. and Stutzin, V. (2019) ‘La agenda heteropatriarcal en Chile: Cruces entre
política, moral y religión en la lucha contra la ’ideología de género’. Nomadías 28:
9–41.
Valencia, S. (2018) ‘El transfeminismo no es generismo’. Pléyade: Revista de Humanidades
y Ciencias Sociales 22: 27–43.
Viveros, M. (2016) ‘La interseccionalidad: una aproximación situada a la dominación’.
Debate Feminista 52: 1–17.
Wayar, M. (2018) Travesti: una teoría lo suficiente bueno. Editorial Muchas Nueces: Buenos
Aires.
Zerán, F. (2018) Mayo feminista: la rebelión contra el patriarcado. LOM: Santiago.
Newspapers
El Mostrador (2017) ‘Qué es la ideología de género? ¿Existe el concepto que separó
a Marcela Aranda y a su hija?’. 29 November 2017. [WWW document]. URL
https://www.elmostrador.cl/braga/2017/11/29/que-es-la-ideologia-de-genero-existe-el-
concepto-que-separo-a-marcela-aranda-y-a-su-hija/ [accessed 29 April 2019].

Muñoz, D. (2018). ‘Acoso sexual: investigan 132 casos en 16 universidades. La Tercera’.

[WWW document]. URL https://www.latercera.com/nacional/noticia/acoso-sexual-
investigan-132-casos-16-universidades/252893/ [accessed 26 September 2019]
Orellana, A. (2016) ‘Claudia Rodríguez: “Para el sistema es horroroso que una travesti fea
como yo escriba”’. El Desconcierto. 28 June 2016. [WWW document]. URL https://
www.eldesconcierto.cl/2016/06/28/claudia-rodriguez-para-el-sistema-es-horroroso-
que-una-travesti-fea-como-yo-escriba/ [accessed 26 September 2019].
Interviews and Discussion Groups

Discussion Group No. 1 (2019) Feminist university students, 1 August, Santiago.
Discussion Group No. 2 (2019) LGBTQ+ university students, 12 August, Santiago.
Personal communication No. 4 (2019) University of Chile student, 13 May, Santiago.


Bull Latin American Res - 2021 - Hiner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bull Latin American Res - 2021 - Hiner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.

LGBTQ+ Tensions in the 2018

Keywords: alliances/coalitions, feminist student movement, hetero-cis-

‘Badly Educated Travestis’ Shake Up the Student

We had to listen to these students, who were victims of the economic

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies. 679

(Neo)Liberalism and its Discontents in the Feminist and LGBTQ+

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

to use intersectional frameworks to rethink social inequality means rejecting ‘neoliberal

Intersectional Feminist Politics: Building Trans-Feminist Coalitions

The Feminist Tsunami Comes Crashing Down: The 2018 Feminist

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

What are the behaviors we want to encourage or discourage? Are we trying

‘Don’t be Fooled!’: Radfems and Alt-Right United in Anti-‘Gender

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

Trans and Non-Binary Students in the Tomas de Mujeres?

Intersex bathrooms [ … ] also have to do with conservatism. Because, in the

We can appreciate how from a trans student perspective gender-inclusive bathrooms

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

Final Reflections: How Can We Queer the Demand for a Non-Sexist

It is a contagious drive towards new ways of educating, other ways of think-

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

in a movement that rejects identity’s safe spaces and proposes a transitive

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

Muñoz, D. (2018). ‘Acoso sexual: investigan 132 casos en 16 universidades. La Tercera’.

Interviews and Discussion Groups

© 2021 Society for Latin American Studies.

You might also like