Collective article record

You might be a TERF if…

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-0632-6AEA Permanent resolver

Source Summary

I’ve noticed that there seems to be some confusion about what a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) is so, here’s a quick guide to help you figure out if you’re someone who pushes TERF ideology, which is to say, someone who’s a TERF. Chances are that you’re a TERF if you believe that you’re a feminist when you… 1.) Claim that trans women are cis men, that trans men are cis women and purposefully misgender trans people. 2.) Out trans people to employers. 3.) Tell trans women their surgery is about supporting rape culture. 4.) Assert that lesbian-identified trans women can’t be lesbian. 5.) Claim that a world without trans people is preferable.1 6.) Find that your anti-trans arguments and the anti-trans arguments of far right-wing groups match.2 7.) Assert cis privilege isn’t real; that non-trans people aren’t privileged in a society that’s hostile to trans people. 8.) Assert that

The Source Summary reproduces the first 150 words of the source article unless a Collective editor has explicitly locked a replacement.

Read the original article View inbound sources

Interpretive context

Why this article may matter

Community significance

“You might be a TERF if…” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to feminism and gender politics, while also engaging transgender identity and history. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

As a publication record from 2013 at Transadvocate.com, “You might be a TERF if…” provides dated evidence of how feminism and gender politics was being argued in relation to transgender identity and history. Comparing it with earlier and later records can reveal changes in vocabulary, evidence, and emphasis.

Policy significance

The article’s strongest policy connection is public accommodations and facilities. It links that institutional frame to feminism and gender politics and transgender identity and history, making it potentially useful for tracing how an argument moves from description or history into law, regulation, administration, or public practice.

Content analysis

Ranked themes and framings

Rank 1 is the dominant inferred theme or framing. Parent labels identify broader theme families; the relationship key beneath the diagram explains the line styles used for hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes.

Themes

1
Feminism and gender politicsTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
100%
2
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
50%
3
Culture, identity, and representationTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
17%
4
Healthcare and medicineTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
17%
5
Community and organizingTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
13%
6
Public policy and governanceTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
11%

Academic framing

1
Philosophical and ontological analysis
100%
2
Critical theory
100%
3
Clinical and medical analysis
83%
4
Psychological analysis
33%

Policy framing

1
Public accommodations and facilities
100%

Editorial function

Source topics

Relationship key

Separate but related themes

The diagram distinguishes hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes inferred within this article. It does not assert that all themes are mutually exclusive.

These classifications are inferred from article text and source metadata and remain directly editable. Relationship labels express corpus-analysis judgments, not immutable facts.

Granular comparative context

How “Feminism and gender politics” appears across the Collective corpus

This article was published during the theme’s highest-presence year in the registered corpus (2013).

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

2 2006

16 2007

2 2008

3 2009

2 2010

7 2011

9 2012

94 2013

44 2014

21 2015

21 2016

43 2017

7 2018

3 2019

3 2020

3 2021

1 2024

1 2025

Presence by member publication

Frequently co-occurring concepts

Academic framings in this topic

Policy framings in this topic

Values measure relative presence in the registered Collective corpus, not public search interest or public opinion.

Inbound-link and citation evidence

Documented circulation and reception

54 source-held references record early links or citations; the documented sources span 48 distinct domains. The dated evidence currently spans 2013–2017. These observations describe circulation and reuse; they do not assign cultural worth or evaluate the communities, arguments, or people discussed.

54distinct source records documented

48distinct referring domains

0best available scholarly cited-by count

0books or volumes documented

54references retained by the source publication

2013–2017observed years in dated evidence

Evidence by channel

Independent counts; bars are not additive

Source-held references54

Coverage of the evidence search

Shows what has actually been checked

Publisher-held referencesChecked · August 31, 2026

Scholarly indexesChecked · August 31, 2026

Book and volume searchNotchecked

Public-web searchNotconfigured

Collective corpus linksIndexed · August 31, 2026

Review scholarly results Review book results Review public-web results

Documented references over time

Dated source evidence currently stored by the Collective

4 2013

18 2014

19 2015

9 2016

4 2017