@fiore @cmdr_nova @winter @Willow @cyb3rm0shp1t @nyx The big issue I have with this whole analysis is that it hinges on identity, identification, being, status, naming. It relies on the state of someone, a label. Approaching the question in terms of can someone "be" something, "is" someone a name is a surefire way to overlook the properties that a categorizing title seeks to name, and deal only in rules of the shorthand. We're skipping over the substance here and going right into identifying. That's further complicated by the fact that TERF is a name that isn't typically uses for self-description. It's discretely a name given by radical feminists to other (ostensibly) radical feminists whose analysis of gender excludes or distorts the experiences of trans women, and has grown in scope to describe an approach fascists have explicitly, intentionally appropriated (like much else) for the purpose of demonizing trans women.
Given the abundance of self-despising trans women alive today, the mere existence of the whole femboy porn category, and the possibility that someone might narrativize herself as exceptional - 'a real woman or even a real trans woman', while other trans women are [insert one of the sixty million /tttt/ slurs or the whole agp/hsts bullshit here], I can't conceive of this impossibility of intersection. The fact that I, myself, personally at one point fell into this exact intersection really seals the deal for me.
None of this supports or defends the phenomena that's been consistently described of our enemies calling us terfs based on vibes. The reason that phenomena is bullshit isn't that 'trans women categorically can't be terfs,' that's too weak a defense/response! - it's that the things often being pointed out as evidence (often nothing) are categorically not attributes of terf ideology.