Trans Feminism

Sexuality & Culture (2022) 26:1782–1803
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-09970-w
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization

of Trans Women
Meredith G. F. Worthen1
Accepted: 30 March 2022 / Published online: 26 April 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022
Abstract
Though there is evidence of an historical exclusion of trans women from lesbian
feminist separatist spaces supported by radical feminist lesbian anti-trans discourse
as well as modern examples of anti-trans perspectives promoted by feminists some-
times described as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, it remains unclear as to
if there is a significant association between being a lesbian cis woman feminist and
harboring negative attitudes toward trans women or alternatively, if the recent pro-
liferation of exclusionary tactics directed toward trans women’s rights (especially
via social media) has been the result of loud voices among a minority who have
been successful anti-trans mouthpieces as of late. The current study utilizes survey
data (N = 1461 cis women; n = 331 lesbian cis women) to investigate the following
research questions: (1) do lesbian cis women feminists express greater levels of neg-
ativity toward trans women than other cis women (heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual,
and asexual) do? and (2) is there a relationship between feminist identity among les-
bian cis women and the stigmatization of trans women (as undeserving of rights, as
incapable parents/mothers, as excluded from the military, and as sexually problem-
atic)? Results provide ample evidence of anti-trans perspectives among some lesbian
cis women feminists. Overall, the findings provide a starting point to begin to under-
stand how to dismantle the complexities embedded in the relationships between
feminism, lesbian identity, and trans negativity and work toward a trans-inclusive
future of feminism.
Keywords TERF · Trans exclusionary radical feminists · Transgender · Lesbian ·

Feminism
* Meredith G. F. Worthen
mgfworthen@ou.edu
1
Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, 780 Van Vleet Oval, KH 331, Norman,
OK 73019, USA
1Vol:.(1234567890)
3
This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of… 1783
Introduction
Relatively recently, social media has exploded with conversations about Trans
Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) who are opposed to the recognition of trans
women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnor-
mativity (Williams, 2014; Zanghellini, 2020). British author J.K. Rowling has been
at the center of recent pop culture (and sometimes academic) discussions about trans
exclusion due to her own comments and blog/essay in which she defends her stance
on sex essentialism (Rowling, 2020). In another recent instance, Australian radical
lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys declared that trans women are “parasites” when she
addressed the UK Parliament in 2018 (Gander, 2018). Lesbian feminist Kathleen
Stock, who self-identifies as a “gender critical feminist,” regularly expounds trans-
exclusionary viewpoints via social media and other non-academic platforms that
have been popularized in recent years (e.g., Twitter; see reviewed in Burt, 2020;
Zanghellini, 2020) and enforces sex essentialism in her newest book (Stock, 2021).
Though these are contemporary examples, these perspectives are not new. Trans
exclusionary practices have a long history in some radical lesbian feminist spaces
(e.g., Greer, 1999; Raymond, 1979; Stein, 1997; Weiss, 2004; Williams, 2020). Said
to have been coined by blogger Viv Smythe in 2008, even the term “TERF” itself is
more than a decade old (Smythe, 2018). Some have even argued that “TERF” has
become “everyday vernacular in discussing the politics of gender, sex and inclusion/
exclusion in feminism” (Pearce et al., 2020, p. 3). Yet academic studies using empir-
ical data to explore the relationships between lesbian feminism and the stigmatiza-
tion of trans women have been surprisingly sparse, with some important exceptions
(e.g., Hines, 2019; Pearce et al., 2020; Serano, 2007; Stein, 1997).
Notably, a recent special issue of The Sociological Review Monographs entitled
“TERF Wars: Feminism and the Fight for Transgender Futures” offers 11 articles on
the subject (e.g., Carrera-Fernández & DePalma, 2020; Hines, 2020; Jones & Slater,
2020; Koyama, 2020; Pearce et al., 2020; Williams, 2020) in which the authors of
the introduction define “The TERF wars” as “a series of complex discursive and
ideological battles within (rather than against) feminism” (Pearce et al., 2020, p. 10).
Thus, feminism is at the heart of these debates. Indeed, factions within feminism
have produced sustained antagonism toward trans women, specifically among some
lesbian radical feminists (Hines, 2019). Sometimes described as TERFs and other
times self-identifying as “gender critical feminists,” these groups represent “the
sex-essentialist wing of radical feminism” and “consider trans to undermine femi-
nism” (Nicholas, 2021, p. 2). Importantly, just as not all feminists are anti-trans, not
all radical feminists (or sometimes referred to as RadFems) are TERFs (Williams,
2016). Indeed, the term’s inception was brought about by the need to distinguish
TERF RadFems from non-TERF RadFems (Williams, 2014). Today, the existence
of anti-trans/trans-negative lesbian feminists (whether they be labeled as TERFs,
gender critical feminists, or something else) represents an important area of inquiry
that deserves to be unpacked (Hines, 2019; Valcore et al., 2021).
In the current study, I examine feminist identity among lesbian cis women as
it relates to the stigmatization of trans women. Though there is evidence of an
13
1784 M. G. F. Worthen
historical exclusion of trans women from lesbian feminist separatist spaces sup-
ported by radical feminist lesbian anti-trans discourse (Browne, 2009, 2011;
Currans, 2020; Greer, 1999; Jeffreys, 1997, 2014) as well as modern examples
of trans-exclusionary perspectives promoted by lesbian feminists (Burt, 2020;
Stock, 2021), it remains unclear as to if there is a significant association between
being a lesbian cis woman feminist and harboring negative attitudes toward trans
women or alternatively, if the recent proliferation of exclusionary tactics directed
toward trans women’s rights (especially via social media) has been the result of
loud voices among a minority who have been successful anti-trans mouthpieces
as of late. Specifically, the current study utilizes a subsample of data (N = 1461
cis women) from the 2018 LGBTQ and Hetero-Cis Population Study (Worthen,
2020) to investigate the following research questions: (1) do lesbian cis women
feminists express greater levels of negativity toward trans women than other cis
women (heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual) do? and (2) is there are
relationship between feminist identity among lesbian cis women and the stigma-
tization of trans women (as undeserving of rights, as incapable parents/mothers,
as excluded from the military, and as sexually problematic)? By examining these
questions, we can begin to understand how to dismantle the complexities embed-
ded in the relationships between feminism, lesbian identity, and trans negativity
to work toward a more inclusive trans feminism as suggested by trans feminist
scholars (Hines, 2019; Kirkland, 2019; Serano, 2007; Stone, 1992).
Trans Women’s Exclusion by Lesbian Feminists
Starting predominantly in the 1970s, some lesbian cis women began to vocalize their
concerns about trans women and this work has been the footing for many trans exclu-
sionary discussions that still take place today. For example, Janice Raymond’s horrifi-
cally damning views toward trans women in her book The Transsexual Empire: The
Making of a She-Male (Raymond, 1979) and decades later Germaine Greer’s chapter
entitled “Pantomime Dames” published in her book The Whole Woman (Greer, 1999)
have both been used to support a stance toward sex essentialism and trans exclusion.
Indeed, contemporary scholarship notes that Raymond’s work “has become the arche-
typal articulation of radical feminist hostility to transsexuality and has had a persistent
influence on feminist perceptions of transgender” (Heyes, 2003, p. 1099). The simple
argument of trans-negative feminists (both those of the 1970s and today) is twofold: (1)
sex essentialism: that trans women are not women because they do not have “female
biology” (for an extensive historical review of this argument, see Hines, 2020) and
as a result (2) trans exclusion: trans women should be rejected from “women’s-only”
spaces, “women’s-only” statuses, and “women’s-only” rights (e.g., see Browne, 2009;
Jones & Slater, 2020; Stone, 2009).
Radical Lesbian Feminism and Lesbian Separatism
Beyond this simplistic argument, however, negativity toward trans women has been
strikingly wrapped within some forms of radical lesbian feminism. More than just
13
a label for a (negative) perspective about trans people, the term TERF demon-
strates that feelings toward “trans exclusion” can be embedded within a particular
branch of radical feminism (Hines, 2019). Specifically, some radical lesbian femi-
nists have argued that in order to fight patriarchy, lesbian separatism must take place
wherein lesbian cis women have their own spaces that are exclusively for “womyn-
born womyn1” (Browne, 2009, 2011; Earles, 2019; Frye, 1983). As Heyes (2003)
cogently describes:
Stressing the realities of violence against women, economic dependence, une-
qual division of domestic labor, and an ideology of self-sacrifice, feminists
denaturalized heterosexual relationships…In this context, early lesbian femi-
nists created a new category of woman-identified women, resistant to the pull
of compulsory heterosexuality and likely to generate liberatory spaces…This
paradigm is conceptually and politically dependent on the radical separation of
women from men, and indeed lesbian feminists have continued to emphasize
the importance of self-definition and willful separation in creating feminist
communities (p. 1099).
Using this sex essentialist perspective to support the exclusion of both cis men
and trans women from lesbian spaces, some radical feminist lesbians have been
described as “the penis police” (Earles, 2019, p. 243) and more broadly, the “femi-
nist police” (Sweeney, 2004, p. 83). Thus, for some, radical lesbian feminism fights
patriarchy (and protects “womyn-born womyn”) through negativity toward trans
women via exclusionary tactics and sex essentialist perspectives that reinforce cis-
normativity. Though feminism is intended to both oppose and dismantle hierarchies,
radical lesbian feminism and lesbian separatism have sometimes worked together to
maintain a sex essentialist status quo with trans women excluded and stigmatized
(Earles, 2019). Put succinctly: radical lesbian feminism and the stigmatization of
trans women have been inherently entwined across multiple dimensions.
The Stigmatization of Trans Women by Lesbian Feminists
Radical lesbian feminism has been used to disregard and undermine trans women’s
rights, to police trans women’s identities, to exclude trans women from certain sta-
tuses/spaces, and to paint trans women as oversexualized predators (for summaries
see Hines, 2019; Saeidzadeh & Strid, 2020). Below, these damaging arguments are
discussed as they manifest across four areas of trans women’s stigmatization (defined
by the Trans Women Stigma Scale outlined by Worthen, 2020) as they relate to anti-
trans lesbian feminism: (1) trans women as undeserving of rights, (2) trans women
1
“Womyn-born womyn” is a phrase used to describe those who were born and labeled female as their
sex assigned at birth and who have lived their entire lives as females. It emphasizes the significance of
sex essentialism and the uniqueness of “female experiences.” In this conceptualization, females who are
“womyn-born womyn” endure the oppressions of patriarchy in distinct ways that differ from those are
not “womyn-born womyn” (Browne, 2009, p. 548).
13
as incapable parents/mothers, (3) trans women’s exclusion from the military, and (4)
discomfort with trans women’s sexual acts.
Trans Women as Undeserving of Rights
Trans women’s rights have been ignored and diminished by some lesbian feminists.
For example, some anti-trans feminists have asserted their cis privilege and have
attempted to argue that trans women do not deserve the same rights/protections as
they do as cis women (Ahmed, 2016; Greer, 1999; Jeffreys, 1997, 2014). In the
extreme, radical lesbian feminist Shelia Jeffreys states outright that “transsexualism
should be seen as a violation of human rights” (Jeffreys, 1997, p. 55). Thus, the
generalized disregard of trans women’s rights has been found within some lesbian
feminist discourse. Another particularly troubling instance of some lesbian wom-
en’s perspectives about trans women as undeserving of equal rights/access mani-
fested within the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival which took place from 1976 to
2015. Specifically, Michfest’s “womyn-born-womyn” policy wherein trans women
were excluded from attending situated trans women as not only outsiders, but also,
as categorically non-women (Browne, 2009). This stance was solidified and printed
in the festival program in 1992, the year after Nancy Burkholder (a trans woman)
was evicted from MichFest, and remained in place until 2015, the last year of the
festival (Currans, 2020). Though certainly not all Michfest attendees supported this
intention, some subsequent research indicates that many supported it as part of their
adherence to radical lesbian separatism (Currans, 2020). More recently, “gender-
critical feminists” have argued for “sex-based rights” for women (read: cis women)
and the explicit denial of the same rights for trans women in the U.S.2 (Burt, 2020)
and in the U.K.3 (see Stock reviewed in Zanghellini, 2020). Thus, for some trans-
negative lesbian feminists, trans women are not deserving of equal rights/access.
Trans Women as Incapable Parents/Mothers
Negativity toward trans women as parents is also evident among some lesbian
feminists. Some of these hostilities may be rooted in overt cis-normative hostili-
ties (e.g., Raymond’s outright disgust of trans women as detailed in her 1979 book).
For example, there is evidence of a stigmatizing concern that trans parents will dis-
rupt “appropriate” gender identity development in their children (McGuire et al.,
2016; Tornello et al., 2019; Veldorale-Griffin & Darling, 2016). But others may be
more specifically connected to some lesbian feminist dialogues that restrict trans
women from “women’s only” statuses, such as mother. In general, mothers are tra-
ditionally expected to be in charge of nurturing and care-giving tasks (Cowdery &
2
This is despite the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 statute that now (as of 2019) explicitly prohibits dis-
crimination on the basis of gender identity.
3
Reforms to the U.K. GRA Gender Recognition Act (GRA) were suggested in 2018 and were denied in
2020. If put into place, the reforms would have made it easier for trans people to self-identify their gen-
ders because the requirements to provide a Gender Recognition Certificate and gender dysphoria diagno-
ses from two different medical professionals would have been dropped.
13
Knudson‐Martin, 2005; Douglas & Michaels, 2005) and some argue that cis women
are best qualified to accomplish these tasks because the ability to nurture is per-
ceived as an inherent trait among cis women (Millbank, 2008). Embedded in this
argument is the perception that trans mothers are unable to successfully accomplish
motherhood (Douglas & Michaels, 2005; Nielsen, 1999; Short, 2007; Worthen &
Herbolsheimer, 2022). Indeed, anti-trans feminist rhetoric has troublingly and con-
cerningly centered around trans women’s bodies (e.g., lack of female reproductive
biology, lack of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth) as reasons to exclude
them from “women’s only” protections, spaces, and statuses (Burt, 2020; see Stock
reviewed in Zanghellini, 2020). By arguing that trans women’s bodies are not “real”
women’s bodies because they lack the ability to reproduce in the same way cis
female bodies do, trans-exclusionary feminists are also implying that trans women
cannot be “real” mothers. Thus, negativity directed toward trans mothers has been
integrated into some anti-trans lesbian feminist perspectives that deserve further
investigation.
Trans Women’s Exclusion from the Military
The exclusion of trans women from the military has a long history steeped in for-
malized tactics that stress the importance of traditionally and narrowly defined
military cultural constructs about gender (i.e., cisnormativity) and repercussions for
going against such norms (Allsep, 2013; Worthen, 2019; Yerke & Mitchell, 2013).
Banning trans people from serving in the military has been supported most strongly
by those who argue for exclusion, such as academy cadets and active/former mili-
tary members (Ender et al., 2016; Worthen, 2019). Some trans-exclusionary feminist
arguments have also suggested that trans women should be prevented from enter-
ing “women’s only” spaces (Browne, 2009, 2011; Burt, 2020; see Stock reviewed
in Zanghellini, 2020) which can be inclusive of military barracks that are segre-
gated by gender. Indeed, as described earlier, Michfest’s notorious “womyn-born-
womyn”-only policy is one example of trans women’s exclusion via radical femi-
nist lesbian tactics (Browne, 2011; Currans, 2020). Furthermore, concerns about the
possibility of “convicted male rapists [who] need only to state that they identify as
a woman” being included in women’s housing is yet another more recent prong of
trans-exclusionary feminism that has been argued to support trans women’s exclu-
sion from various spaces (Burt, 2020, p. 366). Thus, although not explicitly focused
on trans women’s exclusion from the military, some anti-trans lesbian feminist argu-
ments can be linked to negativity directed toward trans women in the military. The
current study offers further insight into these relationships through its investigation
of how being a lesbian feminist may relate to trans women’s stigmatization via mili-
tary exclusion.
Discomfort with Trans Women’s Sexual Acts
Trans women’s bodies are frequently sexually objectified and associated with
involvement in sexually “risky” behaviors, including sex work (Matsuzaka & Koch,
2019; Sausa et al., 2007; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Serano, 2007) which can lead
13
to stigmatizing attitudes toward trans women and their sexual behaviors. Beyond
this, some radical lesbian feminists have gone so far as to suggest that trans women
“mutilate” their bodies in order to participate in certain types of lesbian sex (Jef-
freys, 1997). Indeed, some lesbian feminists believe that any type of sexual encoun-
ter that includes differences in power (e.g., butch/femme roles, BDSM, and trans
women’s sex acts with other women) is inherently anti-feminist and thus, hugely
problematic (Currans, 2020).
This discomfort with trans women’s bodies and their sexual encounters has been
rooted in perceptions of trans women as “predatory” due to their penises (whether
they have them or not) and their perceived as “male” (read: aggressive) sexualities.
Discussed as a threat to cis women’s safety, trans women have been described by
radical lesbian feminists as “constructs of an evil phallocratic empire designed to
invade women’s spaces and appropriate women’s power” (interpretation of Ray-
mond, 1979, by Stone, 1992, p. 4). The dangerousness and sexual aggressiveness of
trans women (and their existent or non-existent penises) is also highlighted in other
notorious anti-trans works (Greer, 1999; Jeffreys, 1997, 2014). Again, we can look
to Michfest as an example. In general, lesbian women recognized this festival as a
space that allowed for the normalization of same-sex intimacies between womyn-
born womyn and this was supported by areas that were dedicated to sexual activities
(Browne, 2011). Thus, when a trans woman with a penis showered naked in one of
the open-air showers, the exposure of her penis was described by some anti-trans
lesbian feminists “as an attack on women’s space” that threatened the safety of being
sexually free that Michfest was supposed to offer to womyn-born womyn (Currans,
2020, p. 462). In another Michfest incident that took place during a masturbation
workshop, a trans woman’s comments about her penis (that she did not believe
would be read aloud by the facilitator) were shared with the group and viewed as
“aggressive in a space where women were trying to shed phallocentric sexual expec-
tations” (Currans, 2020, p. 462). Overall, discomfort with trans women’s penises
(existent or not) drove much of the trans-exclusionary dialogue at Michfest.
Though Michfest is now a cultural artifact, trans-negative feminists continue to
make similar arguments about the predatory nature of trans women’s bodies/sex acts
as support for trans exclusion. Indeed, such discourse states that legal statutes should
continue to support sex-segregated spaces for cis women (only) that exclude trans
women due to their supposed predatory [penis] potential4 (Burt, 2020) despite the
fact that ample evidence suggests otherwise.5 In these ways, trans women’s bodies
and their sexual acts continue to be conceived of as problematic to some trans-neg-
ative feminists.
4
Trans-exclusionary feminists who reinforce sex essentialism incorrectly argue that if trans women were
allowed into “women’s only” spaces, they could subject cis women to “unwanted exposure of male geni-
talia,” “male sexual objectification,” “male sexual violence,” and “male predation” (Burt, 2020, p. 375).
5
Numerous scholars have documented that trans women are at very high risk of sexualized violence
(James et al., 2016; Meyer, 2015; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Wodda & Panfil, 2014) and sexual objectifi-
cation (Sevelius, 2013) by hetero cis men.
13
Lesbian Feminism and the Stigmatization of Trans Women
Thus far I have provided evidence of trans exclusion and trans negativity directed
toward trans women that has been entwined within a certain kind of feminism and
in some cases more specifically lesbian cis woman feminist discourse (Burt, 2020;
Jeffreys, 2014; Raymond, 1979). At this juncture, it is important to acknowledge
that anyone of any gender or sexual identity as well as anyone of any feminist-lean-
ing (or not) can stigmatize trans women (Nagoshi et al., 2008; Willoughby et al.,
2010; Worthen, 2012, 2016; Worthen et al., 2017). However, at least partially due
to the historical processes specific to radical lesbian feminist separatism away from
all others who are not lesbian cis woman feminists, I argue that the ways feminism
can relate to trans exclusion/negativity may be rather uniquely found among some
lesbian feminist cis women. Indeed, the schisms between lesbian cis women and
trans women described above as well as divisions between lesbian cis women and
bisexual women (and others in the GBTQ spectrum including pansexual and asex-
ual women) have been aptly noted (Rust, 1995; Weiss, 2004, 2011; Worthen, 2013,
2020). Thus, the current study focuses specifically on lesbian cis woman feminists
and their attitudes toward trans women while recognizing that there are multiple
dimensions of trans negativity that also deserve further dismantling.
Current Study
In the current study, I examine feminist identity among lesbian cis women as it
relates to negativity toward trans women. Specifically, the current study investigates
the following research questions: (1) do lesbian cis women feminists express greater
levels of negativity toward trans women than other cis women do? and (2) is there
are relationship between feminist identity among lesbian cis women and the stigma-
tization of trans women?
Methods
Data and Sample Characteristics
The data come from the 2018 LGBTQ and Hetero-cis Population Study (Worthen,
2020). The data were collected using panelists recruited from Survey Sampling
International (SSI), an international survey research and survey sample provider
with over 5 million U.S. online panel participants. SSI panel members are recruited
from online communities, social networks, and the web. SSI profiles, authenticates,
and verifies each panel member as a reliable respondent for rigorous research par-
ticipation. SSI awards incentives to respondents upon survey completion.
A sample of U.S. adults aged 18–64 stratified by census categories of age, gen-
der, race/ethnicity and census region was obtained by SSI. For the first sampling
13
frame, a total of 63,4666 email invites were sent out by SSI to only heterosexual-
cisgender potential respondents. A quota of 1,500 respondents (750 hetero-cis men
and 750 hetero-cis women) was requested and met (n = 1,500). For the second sam-
pling frame, a total of 103,001 email invites were sent out by SSI to only LGBT
potential respondents. A quota of 1,520 respondents (330 each of lesbian women,
gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men; 100 each of trans women and trans men)
was requested and met for lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual women; however,
quotas were not met for bisexual men (n = 314), trans women (n = 74), nor trans
men (n = 5). A total of 4,994 individuals accessed the survey by clicking the sur-
vey invite link, 4,583 began the survey by answering one or more survey items, and
3,104 respondents completed all items in the survey for a survey start to completion
rate of 68%. To speak to this study’s goals, the current study’s sample includes only
cis women7 and excludes all men, as well as all transgender and non-binary/gender-
queer people for a total sample size of N = 1461 which is inclusive of 331 lesbian cis
women, 330 bisexual cis women, 36 pansexual cis women, 14 asexual cis women
(note that bisexual, pansexual, and asexual women were combined in order to create
a single group that represents those who are neither lesbian nor heterosexual), and
750 hetero cis women. See Table 1 for additional details.
Survey Design and Implementation
The author created the survey instrument via Qualtrics (an online survey platform).
The survey was live on the Internet from November 5, 2018 to November 23, 2018.8
Through the link provided in the invitation email from SSI, panelists could access
the survey via PCs, laptops, tablets and mobile phones. The survey included 184
closed-ended questions with both multiple- and single-response items. The average
time to complete the survey was 25.8 min.
6
It is unknown how many of these emails were actually received and read by the potential respondents
so an exact response rate is also unknown. For example, junk mail filters could have prevented potential
respondents from seeing the email invitation, some may have opened the email but decided not to click
the link to access the survey, and some may have been deemed ineligible due to identity quotas being met
as requested by the author set by SSI (5 of the 8 identity quotas were met).
7
For gender identity, respondents were asked “What best describes your gender?” with responses that
were coded as cis men (those that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was male”),
cis women (those that indicated: “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans
men (those that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans women
(those that indicated “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was male”), and non-binary
(those that indicated “I am gender-nonbinary, gender fluid, or genderqueer”).
8
The survey was held open for 19 days in efforts to meet the quotas set for the LGBT groups. Five
quotas were met as follows: gay men (5 days in), bisexual women (7 days in), lesbian women (8 days
in), cis men and cis women (16 days in). The quotas for the remaining three groups (bisexual men, trans
men, and trans women) were not met. The survey was closed because SSI believed it was not realistic to
expect these quotas to fill in a reasonable amount of time.
13
Table 1 Sample characteristics (N = 1461)

n %
Sexual identity among cis women

Lesbian/gay cis women 331 23
Bisexual/pansexual/asexual cis women* 380 26
Heterosexual cis women* 750 51
Socio-demographics
Caucasian/White* 1160 79
African American/Black 135 9
Asian American/Pacific Islander 70 5
Native American/Alaskan Native 24 2
Multi-racial 49 3
Other race 8 1
Latinx race 13 1
Latinx ethnicity 180 12
Mean (SD)
Education 3.57 (1.42)

Town type (rural—large city) 2.56 (.99)
Age 37.56 (13.54)
*Reference category in regression models
Dependent Variables: Stigmatization of Trans Women
Worthen’s (2020) full 14-item Tran Women Stigma Scale was utilized in its entirety
as a dependent variable in the current study with higher scores indicating greater lev-
els of stigma toward trans women (range = 14–70; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). In addi-
tion, each of the 14 items within the scale were included as a dependent variable in 14
separate regression models (results not shown but available upon request). To speak to
the current study’s goals, only those models that had significant findings related to les-
bian feminist identity were included in the current study. This included 5 items wherein
respondents were asked to indicate if they Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree to the
following statements on a five-point Likert item scale: (1) “Transgender women are not
capable of being good parents,” (2) “Transgender women should not be allowed to join
the military,” (3) “I believe transgender women should have all the same rights as other
people do” (reverse coded), (4) “I am comfortable with the thought of a transgender
woman having sex with a woman” (reverse coded), and (5) “I am comfortable with the
thought of a transgender woman having sex with a man” (reverse coded).
Independent Variables: Sexual and Feminist Identities
For sexual identity, respondents were asked “How would you describe your-
self?” with the following response options: heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual,
13
pansexual, and asexual (recall that bisexuals, pansexuals, and asexuals were grouped
together in order to create a single group that represents those who are neither les-
bian nor heterosexual).
For feminist identity, respondents were asked “Do you think of yourself as a fem-
inist?” with response options of (1) “No, I do not consider myself to be a feminist
and I disagree with feminism,” (2) “No, I do not consider myself to be a feminist,”
(3) “Yes, I consider myself to be a feminist,” and (4) “Yes, I consider myself to be a
strong feminist.”
Sociodemographic Controls
Attitudes toward trans women have been found to be significantly associated with
certain sociodemographic characteristics in previous studies (Nagoshi et al., 2008;
Willoughby et al., 2010; Worthen, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021), thus, the current study
includes racial/ethnic identity, education, town type, and age as sociodemographic
controls. For racial identity, the response options were: Caucasian/White, African
American/Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native,
Multi-Racial, and Other Race. In a separate question for Latinx Ethnicity, respond-
ents were also asked “Are you Hispanic or Latino/a/x? (A person of Cuban, Mexi-
can, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture of origin
regardless of race).” Education response options were: (1) less than high school, (2)
high school/GED, (3) some college, (4) Associate’s, (5) Bachelor’s, or (6) greater
than Bachelor’s. Town type (where the majority of life was spent) response options
were (1) rural, (2) small town, (3) suburb, and (4) large city. Age was measured in
years (18–64).
Method of Analysis
To speak to research question 1, the means of the measures of trans women stigma-
tization were compared using ANOVAS and post-hoc Tukey–Kramer tests for three
groups of “feminists” and three groups of “strong feminists”: (1) BPA cis women,
(2) lesbian cis women, and (3) hetero cis women in Table 2. To speak to research
question 2, OLS regressions were used to estimate how lesbian identity, feminist
identity, and interaction terms generated among lesbian and feminist identities relate
to trans women stigmatization in Table 3 among cis women (N = 1461).9 Specifi-
cally, six measures of trans women stigmatization serve as the dependent variables
for these models: the Trans Women Stigma Scale, trans women do not deserve the
9
Ancillary analyses (results not shown but available upon request) were conducted using (1) a subsam-
ple of only lesbian cis women and hetero cis women (n = 1081) so that lesbian women could be com-
pared to only hetero cis women and (2) a subsample of only lesbian cis women and BPA cis women
(n = 726) so that lesbian women could be compared to only BPA cis women. Results demonstrate similar
patterns to those presented in Table 3 and there were no new patterns found in any of these analyses
thus confirming that the relationships in Table 3 hold true even when the reference groups differ in these
ways.
13
Table 2 Means (standard deviations) of measures of negativity toward trans women among cis women feminists and strong feminists by sexuality with ANOVA results
(N = 1461)
Feminists Strong feminists
BPA cis women Lesbian cis women Hetero cis women BPA cis women Lesbian cis women Hetero cis women
n = 157 n = 165 n = 244 n = 89 n = 78 n = 77
Trans Women Stigma Scale (r = 14–70) 21.82 (9.48) 23.43 (8.90) 30.91 (11.40) * 18.46 (8.60) 21.35 (9.64) 30.94 (13.51) *
Trans women should not have same 1.27 (.66) 1.40 (.90) 1.93 (1.11) * 1.25 (.83) 1.23 (.68) 1.88 (1.26) *
rights as others (r = 1–5)
Trans women are not capable of being 1.42 (.94) 1.48 (.97) 2.01 (1.15) * 1.35 (.97) 1.47 (1.00) 2.16 (1.42) *
good parents (r = 1–5)
Trans women should not be allowed to 1.60 (1.11) 1.49 (.95) 2.23 (1.29) * 1.28 (.87) 1.49 (1.03) 2.13 (1.50) *
This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of…
join the military (r = 1–5)

Discomfort with trans woman having sex 1.64 (.92) 1.95 (.96) 2.59 (1.16) ** 1.30 (.70) 1.60 (.92) 2.13 (1.37) *
with a woman (r = 1–5)
Discomfort with trans woman having sex 1.59 (.85) 1.98 (.94) 2.60 (1.17) ** 1.34 (.81) 1.71 (.95) 2.13 (1.36) *
with a man (r = 1–5)
BPA = bisexual, pansexual, and asexual

ANOVA and post hoc Tukey–Kramer test results (p < .05) df(2)
*Lesbian cis women are significantly different from hetero cis women (only) at p < .05 level
**Lesbian cis women are significantly different from both hetero cis and BPA cis women at p < .05 level
1793
13
Table 3 OLS Regression Models Estimating the Effects of Feminist and Lesbian Identity on Negativity toward Trans Women among Cis Women (N = 1461)
1794
Model Trans Women Stigma Trans women do not Trans women are Trans women should Discomfort with trans Discomfort with trans
Scale deserve same rights as incapable of good not be allowed in women sex w/women women sex w/men
others parenting military
13
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Lesbian identity − 11.44* − 10.61* − 1.06* − 1.04* − 1.21* − 1.13* − 1.64* − 1.56* − 1.08* − 1.05* − 1.11* − 1.11*
Feminist identity
Not a feminist − 7.00* − 6.67* − .47* − .46* − .73* − .71* − .72* − .69* − .42* − .40* − .49* − .48*
Feminist − 11.66* − 11.16* − .81* − .78* − 1.00* − .97* − .94* − .91* − .87* − .83* − .91* − .87*
Strong feminist − 14.76* − 14.05* − .95* − .89* − 1.06* − 1.02* − 1.25* − 1.20* − 1.40* − 1.33* − 1.41* − 1.34*
Interaction terms
Lesbian*non-feminist 6.89 5.16 .58 .49 1.02* .88* 1.25* 1.06* .48 .34 .67 .55
Lesbian*feminist 7.51† 6.57 .79† .76† .91* .83† 1.15* 1.02* .81† .72 .89* .82†
Lesbian*Strong feminist 8.54† 7.75† .75† .71† .96* .90* 1.45* 1.35* 1.00* .90* 1.11* 1.04*
SociodEm. Controls
African Amer./Black 7.20* .47* .58* .57* .39* .47*
Asian Amer./Pac. Isl 4.78* .17 .45* .42* .23† .15
Native Amer./Alaskan 2.80 .49* .06 .15 .40† .13
Multi-racial − 3.78* − .23 − .29† − .47* − .32† − .28†
Other race 6.74† .03 1.20* .85* − .11 − .35
Latinx race − 2.93 − .27 − .47 − .22 .05 .20
Latinx ethnicity 3.81* .23* .40* .34* .17† .09
Education − .32 − .04* − .02 .00 − .00 − .02
Town type − 1.22* − .04 − .10* − .11* − .06† − .05†
Age .09* .01* .01* .01* .01* .01*
Adjusted R2 .13 .19 .08 .11 .07 .11 .08 .12 .11 .14 .10 .13
Mean VIF 1.12 1.11 1.08 1.09 1.06 1.09 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.09 1.10 1.09
†
M. G. F. Worthen
p < .10; *p < .05

same rights as others, trans women as incapable of good parenting, trans women
should not be allowed to join the military, discomfort with trans women having sex
with other women, and discomfort with trans women having sex with other men.
For each dependent variable, there are two models. Model 1 includes lesbian iden-
tity, feminist identity, and interaction terms generated among lesbian and feminist
identities as they relate to trans women stigmatization. Model 2 includes the addi-
tion of sociodemographic controls. Multi-collinearity was examined using STATA
command “collin” (P. Ender, 2010) which provides collinearity diagnostics for all
variables utilized in each model. The Mean VIF values ranged from 1.06 to 1.12
suggesting no issues with multicollinearity (Allison, 2012).
Results
Mean Comparisons
In Table 2, the means of the measures of trans women stigmatization were compared
using ANOVAS and post-hoc Tukey–Kramer tests. Among the three groups of femi-
nists, when compared to hetero cis women, lesbian cis women were significantly
less stigmatizing toward trans women across all six measures. In contrast, when
compared to BPA cis women, lesbian cis women were significantly more stigmatiz-
ing toward trans women among two measures: discomfort with trans women having
sex with women and discomfort with trans women having sex with men. Among the
three groups of strong feminists, when compared to hetero cis women, lesbian cis
women were significantly less stigmatizing toward trans women across all six meas-
ures. In contrast, lesbian cis women strong feminists were not significantly different
from BPA cis women strong feminists on any measures.
OLS Regressions
In Table 3, OLS regressions estimate how lesbian identity, feminist identity, and
interaction terms generated among lesbian and feminist identities relate to six meas-
ures of trans women stigmatization. Across all models, in comparison to all other
sexual identities among cis women (heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual),
lesbian identity among cis women is negatively related to all six measures of trans
women stigmatization. In addition, in comparison to disagreeing with feminism (ref-
erence group), being a non-feminist, a feminist, and a strong feminist are all nega-
tively related to all six measures of trans women stigmatization.
However, among the interaction terms, there are differences across the models.
In the first set of models, two interaction terms approach significance: being a les-
bian feminist (p = 0.10) and being a lesbian strong feminist (p = 0.07) are both posi-
tively related to the Trans Women Stigma Scale in Model 1, though in Model 2 when
sociodemographic controls are added, being a lesbian feminist no longer approaches
significance. A similar pattern is found in the second set of models: being a lesbian
feminist (p = 0.06) and being a lesbian strong feminist (p = 0.08) are both positively
13
related to the perspective that trans women do not deserve the same rights as others
in Model 1 and in Model 2. Among the interaction terms in the third set of models,
three interaction terms are significant at the p < 0.05 level: being a lesbian non-fem-
inist, being a lesbian feminist, and being a lesbian strong feminist are all positively
related to the perspective that trans women are not capable of being good parents in
both models with the exception of being a lesbian feminist in Model 2 which only
approached significance (p = 0.06).
In the fourth set of models, being a lesbian non-feminist, being a lesbian feminist,
and being a lesbian strong feminist are all positively related to the perspective that
trans women should not be allowed in the military in both models at the p < 0.05
level. Among the interaction terms in the fifth set of models, being a lesbian feminist
(p = 0.08) and being a lesbian strong feminist (p < 0.05) are both positively related to
discomfort with trans women having sex with women in Model 1; however, being a
lesbian feminist is no longer significant in Model 2. In the sixth set of models, being
a lesbian feminist and being a lesbian strong feminist are both positively related to
discomfort with trans women having sex with men in Model 1 at the p < 0.05 level
in Model 1; however, being a lesbian feminist only approaches significance in Model
2 (p = 0.07) while being a lesbian strong feminist remains significant at the p < 0.05
level in Model 2.
Controls and Goodness of Fit
Among the sociodemographic controls, many are significant. Measures of race

(African American/Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alas-
kan Native, and Other race), Latinx ethnicity, and age are all positively related to
measures of trans women stigmatization, though there is some variation across the
models. In contrast, multi-racial identity, education, and town type (rural—large
city) are all negatively related to measures of trans women stigmatization (with
some variability across the models). Adjusted R2 values range from 0.07 to 0.19.
Discussion
Though trans feminists have argued that transgender feminism/transfeminism/trans/

feminism is part of a new “third wave feminism” which recognizes trans women
as women and fights for their rights (Bettcher, 2017; Serano, 2007; Stryker, 2008;
Stryker & Bettcher, 2016), the current study’s findings demonstrate that there are
still some feminisms that are categorically anti-trans. Regarding research question
1, lesbian cis women feminists were found to express greater levels of some meas-
ures of negativity toward trans women than some BPA cis women did. In regard
to research question 2, there was a significant relationship between feminist iden-
tity found among lesbian cis women and the stigmatization of trans women. Indeed,
trans exclusion via lesbian cis women feminists’ attitudes toward trans women’s
rights, status (mother), and military membership were evident in the findings pre-
sented here, similar to those seen elsewhere (Browne, 2009; Burt, 2020; Jeffreys,
1997, 2014; Raymond, 1979). In addition, the sexual problematization of trans
13
women’s bodies was also found in the current study among lesbian cis women femi-
nists’ perspectives as evidenced in previous arguments as well (Browne, 2009; Burt,
2020; Jeffreys, 1997, 2014; Raymond, 1979). Such findings demonstrate that there
is a significant relationship among some forms of lesbian feminism and negativity
toward trans women that continues to deserve unpacking.
In the realm of trans women’s rights, the findings of the current study echo radi-
cal lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffrey’s troubling statement that “transsexualism should
be seen as a violation of human rights” (Jeffreys, 1997, p. 55). Indeed, compared
to those who disagree with feminism, there was a significant relationship found
between lesbian cis women strong feminists and the denial of trans women’s rights.
This concerning finding may be tapping into the perspectives of trans-exclusionary
lesbian feminists (who self-identify as “gender-critical feminists”) who are currently
arguing for “sex-based rights” for women (that is, cis women) and the denial of the
same rights for trans women in the U.S. (Burt, 2020) and in the U.K. (see Stock
reviewed in Zanghellini, 2020). Overall and quite disturbingly, the current study
shows that the perspective among some lesbian feminists that trans women are not
deserving of equal rights/access is evident in contemporary (2018) samples.
There was also evidence of negativity toward trans women as parents among
some lesbian feminists. Indeed, the current study’s findings suggest that the anti-
trans lesbian feminist dialogues that restrict trans women from “women’s only”
statuses could include “mother” and may operate through the argument that trans
women’s bodies are not “real” women’s bodies (due to their lack female reproduc-
tive biology including their lack of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth) (Burt,
2020; see Stock reviewed in Zanghellini, 2020) and thus, they cannot be successful
mothers (Douglas & Michaels, 2005; Nielsen, 1999; Short, 2007; Worthen & Her-
bolsheimer, 2022). Again, these findings are troubling because they demonstrate that
negativity directed toward trans mothers may have been integrated into some anti-
trans lesbian feminist perspectives.
Further demonstrating trans-exclusionary feminist arguments that suggest that
trans women should be prevented from entering “women’s only” spaces (Browne,
2009, 2011; Burt, 2020; see Stock reviewed in Zanghellini, 2020), the results from
the current study show that being a lesbian feminist relates to support for trans
women’s military exclusion. Indeed, trans women’s exclusion via radical feminist
lesbian tactics was evidenced in Michfest’s notorious “womyn-born-womyn”-only
policy (Browne, 2011; Currans, 2020) and is also found in arguments that highlight
concerns about trans women in women’s housing that have been used to support
trans women’s exclusion from numerous spaces (Burt, 2020). Thus, it appears that
although anti-trans lesbian feminist arguments have not explicitly focused on trans
women’s exclusion from the military, the findings here demonstrate that they may be
linked to negativity directed toward trans women in the military.
Anti-trans lesbian feminist concerns about trans women’s bodies, their penises
(existent or not) and their sex acts as found in previous work (Burt, 2020; Currans,
2020; Jeffreys, 1997; Raymond, 1979) were also evident in the current study’s find-
ings. Indeed, the problematization of trans women’s sex acts (most commonly their
supposed predatory [penis] potential) can be seen in (arguably) all trans-negative
lesbian feminist writings that support trans women’s exclusion (Browne, 2011;
13
Burt, 2020; Currans, 2020; Greer, 1999; Jeffreys, 1997, 2014; Raymond, 1979). The
results from the current study troublingly reinforce this rhetoric and demonstrate
that trans women’s bodies and their sexual acts continue to be conceived of as prob-
lematic to some trans-negative lesbian feminists.
Overall, trans women’s inclusion in lesbian spaces (most specifically) and even
more generally in the collective of “LGB(T)” have both been historically contested
(Rust, 1995; Stone, 2009; Stryker, 2008; Weiss, 2004, 2011; Worthen, 2013). Mor-
alistic arguments, scare tactics, and legal claims have all been used to support trans
exclusion by some anti-trans lesbian feminists for decades (Browne, 2011; Burt,
2020; Jeffreys, 1997; Nicholas, 2021; Raymond, 1979; Stone, 1992, 2009; Weiss,
2004; Williams, 2020). Yet it is important to clearly state that many feminists—
including lesbian feminists—are (and have historically been) supportive of trans
women. For example, at Michfest, “Camp Trans” began in 1994 as a protest to the
“womyn-born-womyn”-only policy and other groups such as the Lesbian Aveng-
ers, Transgender Women Belong Here, and members of the Yellow Armband cam-
paign emerged to support trans women’s inclusion (Browne, 2009; Currans, 2020).
Today, though the schisms between lesbian cis women and both trans and bisexual
women (and others in the GBTQ spectrum including pansexual and asexual women)
have been repeatedly highlighted (Rust, 1995; Weiss, 2004, 2011; Worthen, 2013,
2020) and despite the strains among the fractions of feminism, trans women and
their rights are important part of feminism and feminist activism as are lesbian
women and their rights (Hines, 2019; Stewart, 2016; Stryker, 2008). By focusing
specifically on lesbian cis woman feminists and their attitudes toward trans women,
the current study provides an important jumping off point to begin to work toward a
trans-inclusive future of feminism.
Limitations and Future Studies
There are several limitations to the current study. First, the measure of “feminist”
is limited to self-identification across four points ranging from non-feminist to
strong feminist and there is no direct measure of “trans-exclusionary radical femi-
nist/TERF” or “gender critical feminist” (which are often the labels associated
with the factions of feminism that are most anti-trans) (Jones & Slater, 2020).
Future work that includes more comprehensive measures of feminism would be
ideal to better examine the patterns found here. Second, the current study focused
exclusively on cis women’s perspectives toward trans women, thus research
involving gay and bisexual men, trans women and women, non-binary, gender-
queer, and gender diverse people would be especially helpful in future studies
(Stone, 2009; Valcore et al., 2021; Worthen, 2020). Related, perspectives about
trans men’s inclusion/exclusion and their rights is an important area of research
that connects well with the current study’s findings (Currans, 2020). Third, meas-
ures of race and ethnicity were only used as controls in the current study. Fol-
lowing the lead of intersectional scholars (Collins, 2002; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis,
2008), it would be ideal to utilize a more intersectional approach that consid-
ers how race, class, gender, sexual identity, and disability work together to shape
13
relationships between lesbian feminism and perspectives about trans women’s

exclusion as others have demonstrated (Currans, 2020; Koyama, 2020; Patel,
2017). Fourth, because the current study’s data collection site (the United States)
has its own unique cultural history that informs the patterns found here, it would
be especially useful to examine other geographic locations taking into considera-
tion how different cultural historical complexities contribute to the relationships
between lesbian feminism and trans exclusion, as demonstrated by UK-specific
conversations about feminism and trans (Hines, 2019) as well as work in South
Africa (Patel, 2017). Future studies should also consider the far-reaching rami-
fications of trans exclusionary perspectives and policies across multiple fronts
including how trans-negativity impacts trans people’s experiences in schools and
other public places such as bathrooms (Carrera-Fernández & DePalma, 2020;
Jones & Slater, 2020). Indeed, although one sex-segregated space (i.e., the mili-
tary) was utilized to understand trans attitudes in the current study, this is limited.
To best understand trans prejudices, attitudes about other sex-segregated insti-
tutional spaces including sports/locker rooms and prisons should be considered
in additional work (Burke, 2022; Hines, 2019), especially as they relate to mis-
understandings and more precisely, fears about trans women’s bodies. Ideally,
such research could work toward “disrupting the phallus as the ‘source’ of sexual
violence…to reduce the assumption that trans women are sexual predators” (Boe
et al., 2021, p. 319).
Forward Thinking and Thinking Forward
Though the findings presented in the current study are troubling and somewhat
mimic some of the disturbing modern examples of trans-exclusionary perspec-
tives promoted by lesbian feminists (Burt, 2020; Stock, 2021), understanding the
patterns among some lesbian cis women feminisms and their trans negativity is
one of the first steps to moving forward. Indeed, feminist calls to fight against
trans-exclusionary thinking have suggested that we should move beyond the “old
binary” (Stone, 1992, p. 14) and recognize that that neither gender nor sex are
binary and that supporting the gender/sex binary can be harmful (Morgenroth &
Ryan, 2020). Specifically, the need to utilize a categorically trans-inclusive defi-
nition of “woman” and a trans-inclusive approach to feminism are both crucial in
our united efforts as feminists to combat women’s oppression (Hines, 2019; Kirk-
land, 2019; Valcore et al., 2021).
Funding The author would like to acknowledge the University of Oklahoma Office of the Vice President
for Research who provided financial support for the data collection utilized in this project via the Faculty
Investment Program.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author has no competing interests.
13
References
Ahmed, S. (2016). An affinity of hammers. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1–2), 22–34.
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-3334151
Allison, P. (2012). When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? Retrieved January 7, 2019, from
https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity
Allsep, L. M. (2013). The myth of the warrior: Martial masculinity and the end of don’t ask, don’t tell.
Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2/3), 381–400.
Bettcher, T. M. (2017). Trans feminism: Recent philosophical developments. Philosophy Compass,
12(11), e12438. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12438
Boe, J., Jordan, L., & Ellis, E. (2021). #ThemToo?: Trans women exclusionary discourses in the
#MeToo Era. Women & Therapy, 44(3/4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2021.
1961437
Browne, K. (2009). Womyn’s separatist spaces: Rethinking spaces of difference and exclusion. Transac-
tions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.
2009.00361.x
Browne, K. (2011). Lesbian separatist feminism at Michigan Womyn’s music festival. Feminism & Psy-
chology, 21(2), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510370185
Burke, M. (2022). Trans women participation in sport: A feminist alternative to Pike’s position. Journal
of the Philosophy of Sport. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2022.2043754
Burt, C. H. (2020). Scrutinizing the U.S. Equality Act 2019: A feminist examination of definitional
changes and sociolegal ramifications. Feminist Criminology, 15(4), 363–409. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1557085120918667
Carrera-Fernández, M. V., & DePalma, R. (2020). Feminism will be trans-inclusive or it will not be:
Why do two cis-hetero woman educators support transfeminism? The Sociological Review, 68(4),
745–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934686
Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empower-
ment. Routledge.
Cowdery, R. S., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2005). The construction of motherhood: Tasks, relational con-
nection, and gender equality*. Family Relations, 54(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2005.00321.x
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against
women. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Currans, E. (2020). Transgender women belong here: Contested feminist visions at the Michigan Wom-
yn’s Music Festival. Feminist Studies, 46(2), 459–488. https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.
46.2.0459
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a
feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.
Douglas, S., & Michaels, M. (2005). The mommy myth: The idealization of motherhood and how it has
undermined all women. Free Press.
Earles, J. (2019). The “Penis Police”: Lesbian and feminist spaces, trans women, and the maintenance
of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 23(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10894160.2018.1517574
Ender, M. G., Rohall, D. E., & Matthews, M. D. (2016). Cadet and civilian undergraduate attitudes
toward transgender people: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 42(2), 427–435. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095327X15575278
Ender, P. (2010). Collinearity issues. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from http://www.philender.com/courses/
categorical/notes2/collin.html
Frye, M. (1983). Politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Crossing Press.
Gander. (2018). Trans women were compared to parasites during an event held in the U.K. Parliament.
Retrieved September 27, 2020, from Newsweek website: https://www.newsweek.com/trans-women-
are-parasites-occupying-bodies-oppressed-says-academic-846563
Greer, G. (1999). The whole woman. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Heyes, C. J. (2003). Feminist solidarity after queer theory: The case of transgender. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 28(4), 1093–1120. https://doi.org/10.1086/343132
Hines, S. (2019). The feminist frontier: On trans and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 145–
157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411791
13
Hines, S. (2020). Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK
feminism. The Sociological Review, 68(4), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934684
James, S., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Ma’ayan, A. (2016). The report of the
2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
Jeffreys, S. (1997). Transgender activism: A lesbian feminist perspective. Journal of Lesbian Studies,
1(3–4), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v01n03_03
Jeffreys, S. (2014). Gender hurts: A feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism. Routledge.
Jones, C., & Slater, J. (2020). The toilet debate: Stalling trans possibilities and defending ‘women’s
protected spaces.’ The Sociological Review, 68(4), 834–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120
934697
Kirkland, K. L. (2019). Feminist aims and a trans-inclusive definition of “Woman.” Feminist Philosophy
Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2019.1.7313
Koyama, E. (2020). Whose feminism is it anyway? The unspoken racism of the trans inclusion debate.
The Sociological Review, 68(4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934685
Matsuzaka, S., & Koch, D. E. (2019). Trans feminine sexual violence experiences: The intersection of
transphobia and misogyny. Affilia, 34(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109918790929
McGuire, J. K., Kuvalanka, K. A., Catalpa, J. M., & Toomey, R. B. (2016). Transfamily theory: How the
presence of trans* family members informs gender development in families: Transfamily theory.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12125
Meyer, D. (2015). Violence against queer people: Race, class, gender, and the persistence of anti-LGBT
discrimination. Rutgers University Press.
Millbank, J. (2008). The limits of functional family: Lesbian mother litigation in the era of the eternal
biological family. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22(2), 149–177. https://doi.
org/10.1093/lawfam/ebn001
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2020). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical frame-
work of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological
Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender dif-
ferences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59(7–8), 521–531. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
Nicholas, L. (2021). Remembering Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘ethics of ambiguity’ to challenge contempo-
rary divides: Feminism beyond both sex and gender. Feminist Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647
00120988641
Nielsen, L. (1999). Stepmothers: Why so much stress? A review of the research. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage, 30(1–2), 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v30n01_08
Patel, N. (2017). Violent cistems: Trans experiences of bathroom space. Agenda, 31(1), 51–63. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2017.1369717
Pearce, R., Erikainen, S., & Vincent, B. (2020). TERF wars: An introduction. The Sociological Review,
68(4), 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934713
Raymond, J. G. (1979). The transsexual empire: The Making of the She-Male. Teachers College Press.
Rowling, J. K. (2020). J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues.
Retrieved February 19, 2021, from J.K. Rowling website: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-
rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Rust, P. C. (1995). Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex, loyalty, and revolution. NYU
Press.
Saeidzadeh, Z., & Strid, S. (2020). Trans* politics and the feminist project: Revisiting the politics of
recognition to resolve impasses. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.17645/
pag.v8i3.2825
Sausa, L. A., Keatley, J., & Operario, D. (2007). Perceived risks and benefits of sex work among
transgender women of color in San Francisco. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(6), 768–777. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9210-3
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender Normals”, transgen-
der people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464.
Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity.
Seal Press.
Sevelius, J. M. (2013). Gender affirmation: A framework for conceptualizing risk behavior
among transgender women of color. Sex Roles, 68(11), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-012-0216-5
13
Short, L. (2007). Lesbian mothers living well in the context of heterosexism and discrimination:
Resources, strategies and legislative change. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0959353507072912
Smythe, V. (2018). I’m credited with having coined the word “Terf”. Here’s how it happened | Viv
Smythe | Opinion | The Guardian. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-
happened
Stein, A. (1997). Sex and sensibility: Stories of a lesbian generation. Cham: Univ of California Press.
Stewart, A. A. (2016). Survival. Activism. Feminism?: Exploring the lives of Trans* Individuals in Chi-
cago. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.iastatedigitalpress.
com/jctp/article/id/560/
Stock, K. (2021). Material girls: Why reality matters for feminism. Little Brown Book Group.
Stone, A. L. (2009). More than adding a T: American lesbian and gay activists’ attitudes towards
transgender inclusion. Sexualities, 12(3), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460709103894
Stone, S. (1992). The empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. Camera Obscura: Feminism,
Culture, and Media Studies, 10(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1215/02705346-10-2_29-150
Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender history. Seal Press.
Stryker, S., & Bettcher, T. M. (2016). Introduction: Trans/feminisms. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quar-
terly, 3(1–2), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-3334127
Sweeney, B. (2004). Trans-ending women’s rights: The politics of trans-inclusion in the age of gender.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 27(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2003.12.004
Tornello, S. L., Riskind, R. G., & Babić, A. (2019). Transgender and gender non-binary parents’ path-
ways to parenthood. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6(2), 232–241. https://
doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000323
Valcore, J., Fradella, H. F., Guadalupe-Diaz, X., Ball, M. J., Dwyer, A., DeJong, C., & Worthen, M. G.
F. (2021). Building an intersectional and trans-inclusive criminology: Responding to the emergence
of “Gender Critical” perspectives in feminist criminology. Critical Criminology. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10612-021-09590-0
Veldorale-Griffin, A., & Darling, C. A. (2016). Adaptation to parental gender transition: Stress and resil-
ience among transgender parents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10508-015-0657-3
Worthen, M. G. F., & Herbolsheimer, C. (2022). “Mom + Dad = cis woman + cis man” and the stigma-
tization of trans parents: An empirical test of norm-centered stigma theory. International Journal of
Transgender Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2021.2016539
Weiss, J. T. (2004). GL vs. BT: The archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the US gay and les-
bian community. Journal of Bisexuality, 3(3–4), 25–55.
Weiss, J. T. (2011). Reflective paper: GL versus BT: The archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within
the U.S. gay and lesbian community. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(4), 498–502. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15299716.2011.620848
Williams, C. (2014). TERF: What it means and where it came from. 16.
Williams, C. (2016). Radical inclusion. Recounting the trans inclusive history of radical feminism. TSQ:
Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1–2), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-3334463
Williams, C. (2020). The ontological woman: A history of deauthentication, dehumanization, and vio-
lence. The Sociological Review, 68(4), 718–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120938292
Willoughby, B. L. B., Hill, D. B., Gonzalez, C. A., Lacorazza, A., Macapagal, R. A., Barton, M. E., &
Doty, N. D. (2010). Who hates gender outlaws? A multisite and multinational evaluation of the gen-
derism and transphobia scale. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(4), 254–271. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15532739.2010.550821
Wodda, A., & Panfil, V. R. (2014). Don’t talk to me about deception: The necessary erosion of the trans
panic defense. Albany Law Review, 78, 927–972.
Worthen, M. G. (2016). Hetero-cis–normativity and the gendering of transphobia. International Journal
of Transgenderism, 17(1), 31–57.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2012). Heterosexual College student sexual experiences, feminist identity, and atti-
tudes toward LGBT individuals. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9, 77–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361
653.2012.649613
Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual
men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68(11), 703–723. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1
13
Worthen, M. G. F. (2018). “Gay Equals White”? Racial, ethnic, and sexual identities and attitudes toward
LGBT individuals among college students at a Bible Belt University. The Journal of Sex Research,
55(8), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1378309
Worthen, M. G. F. (2019). Transgender under fire: Hetero-cis-normativity and military students’ attitudes
toward trans issues and trans service members post DADT. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
16(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0340-2
Worthen, M. G. F. (2020). Queers, bis, and straight lies: An investigation of LGBTQ stigma. Routledge.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2021). The young and the prejudiced? Millennial men, “Dude Bro” disposition, and
LGBTQ negativity in a US National Sample. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 18(2), 290–308.
Worthen, M. G. F., Lingiardi, V., & Caristo, C. (2017). The roles of politics, feminism, and religion
in attitudes toward LGBT individuals: A cross-cultural study of college students in the USA,
Italy, and Spain. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13178-016-0244-y
Yerke, A., & Mitchell, V. (2013). Transgender people in the military: Don’t ask? Don’t tell? Don’t enlist!
Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2/3), 436–457.
Zanghellini, A. (2020). Philosophical problems with the gender-critical feminist argument against trans
inclusion. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020927029. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927029
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Trans Feminism

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Trans Feminism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sexuality & Culture (2022) 26:1782–1803

This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization

Accepted: 30 March 2022 / Published online: 26 April 2022

Keywords TERF · Trans exclusionary radical feminists · Transgender · Lesbian ·

Trans Women’s Exclusion by Lesbian Feminists

Radical Lesbian Feminism and Lesbian Separatism

The Stigmatization of Trans Women by Lesbian Feminists

Trans Women as Undeserving of Rights

Trans Women as Incapable Parents/Mothers

Trans Women’s Exclusion from the Military

Discomfort with Trans Women’s Sexual Acts

Lesbian Feminism and the Stigmatization of Trans Women

Data and Sample Characteristics

Survey Design and Implementation

Table 1 Sample characteristics (N = 1461)

Sexual identity among cis women

Education 3.57 (1.42)

*Reference category in regression models

Dependent Variables: Stigmatization of Trans Women

Independent Variables: Sexual and Feminist Identities

join the military (r = 1–5)

BPA = bisexual, pansexual, and asexual

p < .10; *p < .05

Controls and Goodness of Fit

Among the sociodemographic controls, many are significant. Measures of race

Though trans feminists have argued that transgender feminism/transfeminism/trans/

Limitations and Future Studies

relationships between lesbian feminism and perspectives about trans women’s

Forward Thinking and Thinking Forward

Conflict of interest The author has no competing interests.

You might also like