Finn Enke’s article asserts the importance of engaging with the past in order to understand and progress in the present, and in the future. When discussing the exclusionary nature of “1970s Feminism”, and the ways in which beliefs of this time are connected to present-day acts of hate, Enke notes that, “… if we write off “1970s feminism,” we lose feminism’s deeply questioning, queer, coalitional and anti-imperialist past; we miss some relevant grappling of that era, and the way that the grappling itself offers useful lessons”. This statement by Enke highlights the importance of acknowledging the past and applying the lessons learned to present conflicts and disputes. In addition to this, it is emphasized that refusing to acknowledge and question the past is counter intuitive to feminism itself.
Connecting this to transfeminist history, Enke mentions the harmful effects of using a framework of “binary opposition and categorization”. This is to say that the denial of the mixing of transfeminism – “the separation of trans from feminism – crafts a history that establishes feminism as always being separate and distinct from transness. One part of the article that I thought was interesting was Enke’s mention of Beth Elliot and her experience with transitioning, medical industry, and having to conceal her being a lesbian in order to fit into a more “ideal”/socially normative version of womanhood. When Enke references Elliot’s experience at the LA Gay Women’s Conference, a conversation between members of whether or not to include all women or only lesbians in an upcoming art exhibit concludes in joking about the prospect of making women prove that they are lesbians. However, as Enke notes, this was an actual debate happening in regards to other conferences and spaces which were attempting to establish strict and separate definitions of “lesbian” and “feminist”, and those who were trans, like Elliot, were essentially considered threats to this goal of enforcing rigid binaries.