Response to this. Specifically this comment:
I have read what radical feminists have to say, and they almost never address the phenomenology of gender and gender identity. I don’t know why you linked to those two pages, given that neither of them is about the phenomenology of gender identity.
“Additionally, it is not just the job of radical feminists to address these issues.”
It does not matter if it is ‘just’ the job of radical feminists or not. The important thing is that it is the job of radical feminists as well, if they’re talking about transgenderism. How is ‘other feminists don’t do it either’ a defense? And why should I be more concerned with what those other feminists do? I mentioned radical feminism because it is mainly radical feminists who oppose transgender activism and take a trans-critical position, and because Sheila Jeffreys — a radical feminist — was interviewed in this podcast.
Addressing transgender activism or transgenderism without addressing the issue of gender identity (the phenomenology of it, that is) makes as much sense as addressing the phenomenology of gender without acknowledging its material and structural origin (i.e. without talking about patriarchy… this is what many pomos and queer theorists do).
I have in fact found many failures in radical feminist writing, some of which is quite poor (the anonymous internet blogging, for example). The biggest failing so far in addressing the issue of transgenderism is precisely what I mentioned above: radical feminism’s refusal to address the phenomenology of gender identity. And of course, there is much to be desired in the way in which many radfems who use pseudonyms talk to other people, especially those who disagree with them. Your patronizing and rude comment just now being a case in point.