i-dont-identify-i-am - Tumblr blog

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

This is the look of a man in love that says "handle with care" because he would always protect her and "contents priceless" because she means the world to him, and her eyes are revealing how much she loves him too

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

having to explain why someone buying another person’s genitalia to serve as a fuckable hole or rape/sexual aggression vessel is WRONG, kills all hope I have in humanity every time.

every leftist argues that amazon and factory workers deserve better but cannot fathom that most women whose entire livelihood is perpetuated by constant sexual affliction, misuse and abuse isn’t ethical or moral. “but they’re being compensated!!!” compensation isn’t an indicator of morality…??? What happened to your anti-capitalist beliefs?

I strongly align with radical leftist views but I hate most leftists. You all talk smart but have no true morals or grasp on the world. You quote Marx to evangelize leftism and communism to others but refuse to adhere to his most basic tenets.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

It's absolutely cruel to women in general to have gender neutral bathrooms replacing women's rooms, but it's downright unfathomably evil to do this to little and teen girls, especially in schools.

Imagine being 9 and getting your first period, bleeding all over the toilet, thinking you're dying, and having your male peers in the room with you instead of just other girls who can get you cleaned up and comfort you, telling you what a period is and that you're safe.

Imagine being 12 and having endometriosis, curled up on the toilet in agony on your lunch break at school, and hearing the boys in the next stall over making sex jokes (or worse - laughing at your sobbing).

Imagine being 10 and having no way to hide the fact that you changed your pad from the boys in your grade who will then go on to tease you and say you're bitchy and hormonal if you fight back.

Imagine being 14 and trying to find a moment of reprieve from the boys sexually harassing you, only to have them follow you into the bathroom and record audio of you urinating.

Imagine being 6, just entering first grade, and having an older boy kick open the cubicle you were struggling to lock.

Imagine being 17 and having your male peers crawl under your cubicle, phone in hand, camera app on.

Imagine being 15 and having nowhere to be with just your female friends to cry about heartbreak or harassment, or even just to be with girls alone to laugh and joke in peace.

Lack of sex segregated accommodations in wartime prisons are considered a human rights violation by the Geneva conventions for a reason. This is psychological torture towards our girls. It's evil. Truly fucking evil.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

“When biologists claim that “sex is binary,” they mean something straightforward: there are only two sexes. This statement is true because an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.

It is important to note here that the binary nature of sex is compatible with sex ambiguity because ambiguity with respect to sex is not itself a third sex. However, many gender activists falsely assert that the “sex binary” must mean something like “every human who has ever existed and will ever exist can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female.” Given this, they contend that providing examples of people with ambiguous sexual anatomy (i.e., “intersex” conditions) not only disproves the sex binary but also demonstrates that biological sex is a meaningless and even oppressive categorization scheme. (We will leave aside for now the fact that many of these same activists do recognize an alternative version of “biological sex” in the form of gender-identity bio-essentialism, or the theory that a person’s subjective self-conception of male or female is rooted in the brain itself.)

The chain of reasoning goes something like this. Sex is not binary because intersex people exist. Their existence demonstrates that biological sex is a spectrum. Since sex is a spectrum, that means no line can be perfectly drawn separating males from females. If no single line can be drawn, then anywhere someone chooses to draw one is totally arbitrary and subjective. If it’s totally arbitrary and subjective, then that means the categories male and female are also arbitrary and subjective “social constructs” with no firm root in biological reality. If that’s the case, why are we categorizing people in law according to these arbitrary labels instead of letting people simply label themselves? To do otherwise is to oppress people based on a biological falsehood.

This is just how the argument is made, and it is made with stunning success. Children in K-12 are regularly taught these days that sex and gender exist on a spectrum. Parts of the scientific establishment and the medical profession have also embraced this idea.

Perhaps nobody is more well-known for relying on the existence of intersex conditions to supposedly disprove the sex binary than the historian of science Alice Dreger. In her book, Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex, Dreger refers to intersex individuals as “hermaphrodites,” and says: “Hermaphroditism causes a great deal of confusion, more than one might at first appreciate, because—as we will see again and again—the discovery of a ‘hermaphroditic’ body raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies. The questioned body forces us to ask what exactly it is—if anything—that makes the rest of us unquestionable.”

Those without a firm background in biological science may read such passages and feel something akin to having an epiphany, but Dreger is peddling pseudoscience. This desire to extrapolate a small blur at a boundary to the entire picture is rooted in the postmodern impulse to “queer,” and thereby eliminate, natural categories. In the queer-theory worldview, categories are themselves oppressive, and human liberation requires the “troubling” of categories (to borrow Judith Butler’s term), including those of sex. Yet Dreger’s account does not accurately describe biological reality. The existence of “questionable” cases with respect to sex classification does not automatically cast a degree of doubt onto everyone’s sex. For most people, their sex is obvious.

Besides, our society is not currently experiencing a sudden dramatic surge in people stricken with ambiguous genitalia; we are experiencing a surge in people who are unambiguously one sex claiming to “identify” as the opposite sex, or neither sex.

Another false depiction of the sex binary is that it refers to sex chromosomes, with males always being XY and females always XX. Activists purport to debunk this misrepresentation of the sex binary by pointing to sex-chromosome aneuploidies—instances where an individual may have missing or extra X or Y chromosomes, such as in those with Klinefelter (XXY) and Turner (X0) syndrome, among others. How could sex be binary and based on sex chromosomes, they argue, if there are more combinations beyond XX and XY? They may also highlight examples of XX males and females with Y chromosomes as proof that chromosomes do not determine an individual’s sex.

There are several major issues with this line of reasoning. The first is that the vast majority of people with sex-chromosome aneuploidies are not intersex; their primary sex organs and anatomy are unquestionably either male or female. Other compositions than the typical XX and XY arrangement do not represent additional sexes beyond male and female, but instead represent chromosomal variation within each of the two sexes. A person with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), for example, isn’t a new sex in the same way that a person with Down syndrome (who has three instead of two copies of chromosome 21) isn’t a new species.

Second, the notion that XX males and females with a Y chromosome debunk the claim that sex is determined by chromosomes erroneously conflates how sex is determined with how sex is defined for an individual. “Sex determination” is a technical term in developmental biology referring to the process by which certain genes trigger and regulate sex development. Mammals, which include humans, have evolved what’s called “chromosomal sex determination,” meaning that certain genes residing on chromosomes guide the development of males and females in utero. The Y chromosome is considered “sex determining” because it usually harbors a gene called SRY that triggers male development, and in its absence a female typically develops. But in very rare instances an SRY gene can find its way onto an X chromosome, resulting in a male with XX chromosomes.

This process stands in contrast to sex-determining mechanisms in other organisms that do not rely on chromosomes, such as “temperature-dependent sex determination” that occurs in many reptiles, where the temperature at which an egg is incubated triggers male and female development. In the alligator A. mississippiensis, for instance, higher incubation temperatures (>34°C) produce males, while lower temperatures (<30°C) produce females.

In both chromosomal and temperature-dependent sex determination systems, though an individual’s sex is mechanistically determined in different ways, it is always defined the same way—by the type of gamete his or her primary reproductive organs is organized around producing. This should be obvious, as it would have been impossible ever to have discovered these different sex-determining mechanisms without first knowing what males and females are apart from sex chromosomes and incubation temperatures.

These efforts by activists serve a single purpose—to portray sex as so incomprehensibly complex and multivariable that our traditional practice of classifying people as simply either male or female is grossly outdated and should be completely abandoned in favor of “gender identity.” This entails that males would not be barred from female sports, prisons, or any other space previously segregated according to our supposedly antiquated notions of “biological sex,” so long as they “identify” as female, whatever that means.

But while sex development is a complex process, it does not follow that the outcomes are equally complex. Dreger’s claim that the existence of edge cases “raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies” is not true. A person’s sex is almost always completely unambiguous and recorded correctly at birth.

While it may be necessary to outline reasonable policies and laws for hard cases, we need not pretend we’re all hard cases. Failing to reject Dreger’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand prevents us from calling a spade a spade.”

Article published on August 4th, 2024. Emphasis is my own.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

by the way, in case anyone wants a good source in regards to trans women in prisons, have a parliament committee evidence report submitted by kathleen stock and co. when the self id for prisons thing was being debated in the uk. got the swedish study and showed that there’s no debunk of it. criminality sex offense rates, the lack of data kept, the risk to women, etc. it’s basically a collation of all the evidence we have that trans women should NOT be in women’s prisons.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

It amazes me that every group/sport/space that is dedicated to women has men banging at the doors/flying drones ahead/lurking at the edges trying to peer in. Any female only space has become a target for men, a space for them to dominate. These small spaces we’ve carved out for ourselves are at threat by men who can fathom the idea there’s spaces not for men. Regardless of the fact women couldn’t go to court, vote, work, be in gentlemen’s clubs, go to school, etc. for centuries. And these spaces aren’t political action committees or lobbiests or any groups vying for power, just spaces where women can retreat/compete fairly/be housed safely without men.

They’re not threatened by our perceived or realized power; they’re drawn to deliberately crossing women’s boundaries. They want to lure into spaces we hold to be private.

And as a result, many women have become offput by these spaces as they’ve become targets. Just like in right wing women where women chose one man in over to avoid all men, women chose to be housed with/near men to avoid the peering of many men. As men will grant each other privacy and respect each other’s boundaries and perceived territories.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

I just had this conversation with my friend and I thought I'd share it here : believing that feminism has to educate men in order to destroy the patriarchy because we cannot do it without them (this is what she believes) is believing that men oppress us because they are ignorant. It is saying that they oppress us because they don't know what they're doing and don't realize they are doing something wrong, and that somehow this ignorance has been going on for centuries. It is being overly naive. Men aren't babies. Men aren't innocent little beings who would never hurt us if they knew their actions were hurtful. They have been oppressing us for thousands of years, we have been figthing against it for thousands of years ; how could it be possible for them not to understand what they do ? How could they possibly take away our rights without understanding what they do ? How could they hit us, rape us, traffick us without understanding what they do ? And it's not like feminism is new. We have been fighting for centuries and they have been fighting back for centuries to prevent us to free ourselves. They don't read feminist books, they don't take listen to our sperches, they ignore us when we talk about our rights, they mock us, they don't take us seriously. And listen to them speaking. Listen to them giving each other relationship advices, teaching each other to manipulate us. Listen to them talking about us. Read their comments on the internet. Read their damn books and essays about feminism and women's rights. They know what they're doing. They don't care about us. They hate us, they don't see us as humans.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

I wonder how common “gender dysphoria” is in countries where women are truly systematically oppressed, have their genitals mutilated, are forced to wear the burqa or niqaab, are regularly raped in public, murdered for being promiscuous or have acid thrown on their face.

I truly wonder how many men still want to be women in places where that is what it means to be a woman, and not over performance of hyperfemininity, “teenage girl perky” titties and slaying in high heels.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

people have called me sex negative for being against prostitution. full offence but i think considering sex a service, a labor to be done, is sex negative. i think considering sex as an intimate and vulnerable act between two consenting people based on mutual desire is sex positive. telling women that our comfort, boundaries and desires matter is sex positive. prostitution is the opposite!

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

„banning porn from the internet is censorship“ okay and? censorship is bad when there is one group just deciding what is good and what is not based on an ideology - but there is ample evidence - that anyone really can confirm themselves just by a look at the landing page of a major porn site - about the harm of porn, about the amount of teens and children who access porn, often before their first sexual interaction, how porn is used for grooming, how the porn industry fosters and relies on grooming, manipulation, abuse, lies, drugs, exploitation, trafficking, violence, racism, homophobia, misogyny, pedophilia, degradation and humiliation, how being in porn or addicted to it ruins lives, sexuality, relationships and health, how violent and otherwise harmful material is produced for the sole purpose of sexual arousal (hello?), the whole issue of consent to the upload and what happens when consent is withdrawn, how porn very much affects real life people and expectations and pressure, how it desensitises its consumers to abusive acts and boundaries, etc etc there are many reasons to ban porn from the internet. porn is not a human right and does not need to be accessible everywhere from every device. they should at best be available in dedicated and regulated shops.

ban porn now

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

art by Jenna Gribbon

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

I love it when people are like "this identity has existed since the 1970's" Okay? They were wrong back then, too.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

It's absolutely sickening that every time prostitution is under threat organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Righs Watch show up to try and stop it. Feminists and survivors literally have to fight those so called "human rights" entities in court, in parliament, in the medias etc. They show up every single time to make sure the rape industry remains untouchable.

[i-dont-identify-i-am]

sex work is not work bc sex isnt work. If you dont want to have sex, thats rape. If you want to have sex, in no way shape or form is it considered Work. I love sex and i love free love let the world engage in one big orgy if thats what everyone wants.

and misogynistic men have done themselves the biggest favor by making the conversation about “sex workers”

how about- Why do you want to pay someone that does not want to have sex with you. To dissociate and tolerate your bodily fluids for a few dollars. Why is it not important to you that the person youre having sex with wants to have sex with you.