Collective article record

“Being Feminist” and Their Transphobia Problem

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-0270-C519 Permanent resolver

Source Summary

*Disclaimer* This post is on a site exposing TERFs but we are not insinuating that Being Feminists are part of that group. UPDATE: LA has apologized for and removed the inflammatory post on Being Feminist’s Facebook page! Thank you so much! Dear members, I am the admin ~LA, and I’m writing to say sorry to all the people on the page who were hurt and marginalised either directly or indirectly as a result of my post from yesterday. The post has been deleted. I am sorry that my post made some trans*people feel unsafe here. That was the opposite of my intent. I truly believe in the equality of everyone in the feminist movement, and in the rights of everyone to assert their identity. I believe that everyone has a place in the feminist movement, so long as we all believe in the equality of all PEOPLE, no matter what

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

““Being Feminist” and Their Transphobia Problem” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to feminism and gender politics, while also engaging community and organizing. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

The article may have historical value because it explicitly interprets or preserves material concerning feminism and gender politics. Published in 2013 by The TERFs, it can be read both for the history it describes and as evidence of how community and organizing was framed at that moment.

Policy significance

The article’s strongest policy connection is civil rights and anti-discrimination and public accommodations and facilities. It links that institutional frame to feminism and gender politics and community and organizing, 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
Community and organizingTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
56%
3
Violence, safety, and dehumanizationTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
54%
4
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
48%
5
Race and intersectionalityTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
39%
6
Law and civil rightsTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
23%

Academic framing

1
Clinical and medical analysis
100%
2
Interpretive analysis
83%
3
Critical theory
67%
4
Historical analysis
50%

Policy framing

1
Civil rights and anti-discrimination
100%
2
Public accommodations and facilities
50%

Editorial function

Source topics

Relationship key

Separate but related themes
Overlapping themes
Related theme in the same family

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

No broad reception evidence has been documented yet; this may reflect unconfigured or incomplete indexes rather than an absence of circulation. These observations describe circulation and reuse; they do not assign cultural worth or evaluate the communities, arguments, or people discussed.

0distinct source records documented

0distinct referring domains

0best available scholarly cited-by count

0books or volumes documented

0references retained by the source publication

—observed years in dated evidence

Evidence by channel

Independent counts; bars are not additive

No channel totals are available yet.

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

No individual references have been stored yet. This can mean that source-held pingbacks have not been imported, provider access is not configured, or available indexes do not expose this work in a machine-readable form.

Counts describe documented circulation and reception in the sources currently available to the Collective. They are not a score of quality, merit, popularity, or social value, and provider totals can overlap.

Article authors

Author profiles and related researchers

Admin

98 publications · 0 inbound sources/citations