lottarottah

[lottarottah]

Sexualization is therefore an aggravating factor, which confirms what I've already said.

Why is *unpaid* care work seen as a problem, while *unpaid* sex is seen as the ideal? Why is there no equivalent "end demand" approach to care work, even though it lies at the heart of women's subordination and objectification?

[lottarottah]

I don't subscribe to the belief that something having a sexualized aspect makes the thing in question inherently worse, so my sense of priorities is different. Also, nobody has denied that all paid tasks are financially coerced tasks; not sure why you even mention it

Why is *unpaid* care work seen as a problem, while *unpaid* sex is seen as the ideal? Why is there no equivalent "end demand" approach to care work, even though it lies at the heart of women's subordination and objectification?

[lottarottah]

• yes but like all labor under capitalism, paid care work is forced work and forced work is a form of abuse.

Right, but it's not a sufficient reason to criminalize it. Work in sport, dance etc industries isn't necessary either.

Paid care work is also a male-dominated industry (not in terms of care workforce but in employers/buisness owners) that creates the situation where an employer has financial power over its female employees and can abuse them through that situation. It's also one of the main labor sectors affected by human trafficking & sexual violence is prevalent. There are various other ''unecessary'' male-dominated marketplaces where women are dependent and abused, yet i don't see this same focus and call to criminalization

Why is *unpaid* care work seen as a problem, while *unpaid* sex is seen as the ideal? Why is there no equivalent "end demand" approach to care work, even though it lies at the heart of women's subordination and objectification?

[lottarottah]

Why is *unpaid* care work seen as a problem, while *unpaid* sex is seen as the ideal? Why is there no equivalent "end demand" approach to care work, even though it lies at the heart of women's subordination and objectification?

[lottarottah]

You are utterely confused and making assumptions about my beliefs out of nowhere. I am a terf, and my question was directed at TIRFs who believe that transwomen are women because they are perceived as such. You radically missed the point, spitting out an irrelevant, usless tome. Congratulations on having wasted your time so stupidly, purely out of misundersting stemming from your mental chaos.

I have a question for TIRFs. If you believe that transwomen are women because they are perceived as such in their everyday lives, why don't you consider transwomen who consistently pass as "cis" women as....cis women? It's inconsistent

[lottarottah]

alt right infiltration of radfem spaces is a genuine problem and it's getting worse over time.

In discussion about male supremacy, If you see a radfem account trying to divert attention from men to nonwhite men - implying that the latter group is the main threat to women - when in fact white men are the socially dominant group in the west and the west (white men) is the main global power - it's either an useful idiot or an alt righter in disguise.

[lottarottah]

I have a question for TIRFs. If you believe that transwomen are women because they are perceived as such in their everyday lives, why don't you consider transwomen who consistently pass as "cis" women as....cis women? It's inconsistent

[lottarottah]

Of course not, because it doesn't have the same implications depending on one's sex at birth. It would also facilitate cis men and amabs who are functionally cis men as a whole to penetrate and take over lesbian spaces, because we wouldn't even be able to determine whether a cis man had in fact never been a transfem at any given time and was merely exploiting these new, very permissive social norms concerning entry in lesbian circles. Asking lesbians to adopt such a lax attitude towards amab presence in these contexts is basically asking them to accept the probable destruction of these spaces in the long term, and tolerating the social enabling of cis guys to sexually harass them even there.

You're just creating more opportunities for men to abuse lesbians and destroy the spaces they have made for themselves but you couldn't care less because you're a selfish person who's primary focused on advancing your specific interests, even if they are dangerous.

This is another example of how transfem demands are nefarious for women and have the effect of benefiting and empowering cis men as a group (even in contexts where they are not supposed to). They just reinforce male class power.

For a group who is supposed to reject your maleness, you're personal and polical behavior are insanely colored by it. I really wonder why. Hm maybe, just maybe it has to do with being in a social context where being born male has huge socio-political implications, where even transness doesn't erase that male positionality.

i think it’s quite interesting when people say “well lesbian spaces should sometimes have trans guys in because they were already part of that community and it would be wrong to turn them away” — would you treat a detransitioning trans lesbian the same way? would you make space for that straight man who used to think he was a lesbian, as you would for trans men? or are you perhaps relying on a little bit of bioessentialist slight of hand here

[lottarottah]

TRAs don't even use it that way lol. In practice, "transmisogyny" means hostility towards male gender non-conformity or more narrowly, towards males who don't identify as men. This is why many of them consider femboys to be "transmisogyny affected" and believe that "fagg0t" is a "transmisogynistic'' slur. Ive even seen some of them saying that ''boy'' is a transfeminine gender under patriarchy.

I'm curious about your thoughts on tme as a coherent category in real life.

For example I'm afab however since going on T I am not infrequently read and treated as a Trans woman.

Other than in online spaces, I face many of the same material risks Trans woman do. People can and do meet me with transmisogynistic violence. It affects my ability to go in certain spaces safely, it affects employment opportunities, all of that. I can't really change how people choose to interpret me, other than to change my appearance and behavior entirely (which imo seems wrong to ask anyone to do, same way telling a trans woman that she could avoid violence if she just hid who she is)

So what I was curious about is how that fits into the concept of being exempt from transmisogyny?

i feel like im going to become the joker from the movie joker. if you are being mistaken for a different type of person and experiencing violence because of that, do you think that perhaps, it stands to reason, that this violence is in fact aimed at that type of person?