#And sex isn't binary

[calmlycawingcrow]

No but like advanced biology is literally so cool and also so complicated and absolutely shatters all previous ideas of gender and sex. While rare, it is entirely possible to have XY chromosomes but have feminine primary and secondary sex characteristics as well as having XX chromosomes with masculine primary and secondary sex characteristics. And that's before you get into being intersex and having mismatched primary and secondary sex characteristics or having an extra sex chromosome and stuff like that. It's absolutely fascinating and I love sharing research articles about it with transphobic people in my life because they can get as frustrated as they want but they can't say anything against it because the articles are usually about people who align with their agab so clearly your chromosomes *don't* determine your gender and you can't actually just sort everything into neat little boxes <3

"there are only two sexes, it's literally third grade biology!" and pronouns are taught in kindergarten and you dont seem to understand those either

[trixxedheart]

It is amazing how the "people that love and uplift transwomen" website will instantly fucking maul a transwoman if she even remotely insinuate that using radfem rhetoric harms trans people

[retributory]

on another note though i really. gotta get off my ass and write about xie lian and his gender expression because TO ME. that is an extremely important part of how i interpret his character and i always see people express confusion or distaste at the idea that he could be viewed as genderqueer when TO ME. it is very clear

[bitsofsciencelife]

As usual, my mind has been blown after watching a video essay from Alexander Avila about how "conservatives" invented gender, my world has shifted. I've come to the conclusion that this modern dividing sex and gender as completely separate and exclusive terms is bad actually and has damaged our ability to accept fully the lgbtq+ diversity, especially in the gender spectrum. Gender theory actually has transphobic, misogynistic, gender-essentialists origins.

Because if we understood from the get-go that biological sex is actually so much more diverse, we would find ALL gender identities a natural consequence of this diversity and not as a human construct only. For example, if we saw the way non-hetero sexuality could be evolutionary advantageous in human communities (maybe with the care of the young like it happens with other species) or simply a random natural variation; or how not rare being intersex actually is, how a lot of people don't even know they're intersex and they might live their lives without knowing it, how in trans people certain parts of the brain show very small gender differences that match their gender identity more than their sex assigned at birth (we don't know the cause tho, more research is needed and this might also be related to sexual attraction); how the ammount of queer people has stayed basically consistent throughout human history, etc. And that's just humans. The diversity in nature is insane. (Humans are part of nature, btw. It could also help us fight this idea that we're entirely separate to other animals when we're also animals. That superiority is not doing anybody good.)

If we knew how much nature and biology don't care about our gender norms and ideas, I think it would be easier for young queers and conservatives to see how this "gender thing" is not just "woke identity politics" or a new human social invention. When we understand that this wonderful diversity has always been part of nature and humans, it becomes easier for the general public to accept queer people.

Imho, sex education when it comes to gender should start by stating the fact that queerness is inherent to both nature and humans. This is not to say we shouldn't discuss gender discrimination, gender expression, or acknowledge that gender is a social construct as well, distict to each human society, but separating gender and sex into neat, barely related categories is not what will liberate us and it's not a good strategy to teach about queerness. It hadn't really helped us that much so far, tbh.

Speaking from experience, it was that fundamental understanding of how much sex in humans isn't binary or divorced from gender, that made me finally become an ally to trans people (and eventually accept myself as nonbinary too), when before I had been raised conservative and I had very bad takes on the subject, I can tell you that.

I'm not saying this will solve all out discriminatory problems, obviously not, but it might help a little, especially in sexed. Biology does NOT support binary gender essentialism, never has, never did. And conservatives have been mad about it for decades.

[kjzx]

Binary stealth trans people wanting to be gendered correctly with the help of cultural gender role shortcuts 🤝 NB people wishing people would ask about their identities instead of assuming 🤝 GNC cis people wanting to be gendered correctly in spite of their gender non-conformity

Despite the opposite desires sharing the life of getting by in a hostile world not built for them

Listen, the life experiences are not the same but I think there is or should be a way for these groups to coexist even if you're actively opposed to the idea of being treated the same way another person would dream of being treated

[gender-euphowrya]

we really need to stop acting like Any flavor of trans person has privilege over other trans people like. transmascs saying transfems have privilege due to having been AMAB. transfems saying transmascs have privilege due to being/passing as men. what are any of y'all doing

[chaotic-history]

"Deo erexit Sade"

[doomdoomofdoom]

It's honestly baffling to me that this isn't common knowledge.

Also btw trump recognizing only "the two biological sexes" harms intersex people too. I am a researcher of sex and it's affects on disease, and sex is far more complicated than "two sexes" and it always will be. Sex is multifaceted and there are far more than two binary sexes. Keep that in mind too. Don't fall into bioessentialism as you fight for trans people and intersex people.

[weaselett]

I read the For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - and it's....not fun

So little me, had a brief, brief hope that the Supreme court ruling would be, to not rule/toss it out - it was always unlikely, but the end ruling, is not the 'not a win for either side' that the judges tried to frame it as.

The BIG MASSIVE issue with this is - it has infact created a giant mess, and will actively be used against people, both transgender and not.

88 page ruling in it's most basic terms - because the Equality Act 2010 only refers to women, woman, she, her, in relation to pregnancy and birth, and maternity - woman in the act means biological. So therefore man in the act also means biological. That's the ruling. So - if the act had said person instead (recognising transmen) it wouldn't mean biological sex. There is no need to define what biological man or woman means, because it's totes obvious. (aka they are not touching that, in law its binary, so there).

Honestly, reading bits of this judgement will 100% be traumatic to some trans folk, because the misgendered is WILD at times. Also they relate how the law has sucked in the past, but is totally mostly better now. Apart from....now.

This is v long, so anyone who wants to read my reactions to the judgement as I read the whole ass thing, click the read more

Also - like the judgement as a whole is......at such great pains to say that, honest, they respect trans folk and recognise them:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).

In point three they do this wonderful statement:

the EA 2010 recognises as having protected characteristics are women, whose protected characteristic is sex, and “transsexual” people, whose protected characteristic is gender reassignment

My 'favourite' bit of that is that women don't get "" just "transsexual"..... (It isn't in "" in the EA, just as a note, this is a choice they made)

For their purposes, they are defining biological sex, as 'sex at birth' - which is to say, assigned sex. Which......is an issue. (They do so, because that's how its used elsewhere - which isn't great. but generally causes much less issues than defining it that way in the equality act).

The problem is, the presumption that 'sex at birth' (assigned sex, as they don't do a full biological exam) is the correct sex. This means that non-trans individuals can still be caught out by this.

Intersex, and other genetic quirks that can mean that the 'sex at birth' is shown to have been incorrect or forced to comply with default binary gender (the old default intersex kids to being female - even if they don't have either parts).

There's a bunch of details in the document that outright states that the act treats sex as a binary - and talks about how that stance effects the way it is translated in legal use (and attempts to make that stance work in relation to transexual individuals).

As explained more fully below, a person who is aged at least 18 can apply for a GRC under the GRA 2004. Section 9(1) of that Act provides that when a full GRC is issued to a person the person’s gender becomes “for all purposes” the acquired gender so Page 10 that if the acquired gender is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman. But that provision is “subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation”: section 9(3).

That paragraph pains me. Because 'for all purposes' except. :/

Sex Matters provides this:

the Office of National Statistics estimated that there are about 48,000 trans men and 48,000 trans women in England and Wales, and Scotland’s census 2022 found that 19,990 people were trans, compared with a total of 8,464 people who have ever obtained a GRC as at June 2024

Which is honestly painful. As they argue only GRC holding folk would count as women, all other transwomen are men.

The toilet debate is going to get so much worse now.

SO MANY of the past decisions went so far to avoid allowing this to create a no man's land for at least transsexuals with GRCs. And they detailed it alllll and then went against it.

but 'it's not a win for anyone really' *head desk*

They allowed four organisations to submit arguments....and two of them are binary biological sex folk. The other two are Amnesty International and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

(Oh and this This guidance is now wrong - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/guidance-separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-equality-act-sex-and-gender-reassignment-exceptions.pdf )

YAY. I hate it. (It is technically making it three per side, but the groups in question are hardly equal)

We are grateful to the interveners for their contributions. We are particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions

No, I really really hate this. They specifically thanked the BINARY BIOLOGICAL SEX GROUP *screams*

I read their definition - I screamed so loud the pup came to make sure I'm ok - lordddd - be warned, it's literally XX and XY and preordained since time began

https://sex-matters.org/resources/sex-and-gender-faqs/#sex

Back to page 13 of 88 - The Judgement - they are going back to - The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - which wasn't pre transgender folk being recognised, honest

that discrimination is not unlawful where sex is a genuine occupational qualification - quoted from the SDA 1975.

Yes, there are a small number of places that is a valid thing and relevant, but in the context of this judgement...this is painful.

(The EDA 2010 specifically replaces the SDA 1975 - but they are spending a long time detailing SDA 1975)

They get one point for this:

First, there can be no doubt that Parliament intended that the words “man” and “woman” in the SDA 1975 would refer to biological sex – the trans community of course existed at the time but their recognition and protection did not

But there's wayyyy too much 'where men would have a physical advantage' bollocks. (I say that as a v wee woman, who regularly out lifted and out worked men bigger than me in v physical jobs - I hate itttttt)

And now into horrible judgements made against transgender people and their loved ones. Yay. o.o

1999 amendments of 1975 for trans folk.

Back to the GRA 2004 (without the logical, and the EA 2010 came in to replace and improve upon 1975 and 1999 *sighs* but then they seem to be doing it chronologically)

The Court concluded that the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone which is not quite one gender or the other was no longer sustainable: para 90.

Andddd your judgement....doesn't recreate that? Dumbasses

Honestly, reading this - there needs to be an update to GRA 2004. It has issuessssss (section 19 o.o)

And someone's gender pre GRC is protected characteristic.....so this is all.... *head desk*

Paragraph 81 - is so bitchy. Honestly.

In our view, this is a good illustration of why the use to which the courts should put explanatory notes is limited to the context of the legislation and the mischief to which its provisions are aimed

For a decision that wasn't taking sides.....this sure is taking sides.

(they dismissed an appeal that argued about police officers being a genuine occupational requirement - I had to find the judgement to get the context of the paragraph on it in this judgement, which is stupid given arguement being made with it - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/chief-1.htm )

89 & 90 are painful - how do you live in a gender? o.o

There is so much illustration of why so few people have GRCs.SO MUCH.

95 - more bitchy comments on scottish gov

oooo pro trans folk still have issues comment - two points

104 - we say the notes are in error in this case (DUDES WTF)

Honestly birth certificates should just have parent 1, parent 2. (FOR SO MANY REASONS)

More case law - against somewhat mashed or partial

And now, EDA 2010

I understand broadly why the EDA 2010 deals with sex as binary, but this whole case proves how that means there is a hole into which some people will sadly always fall. Which the scot gov was basically trying to at least partly counter.

Protected under gender reassignment, but not under sex is....messy. Espec as they point out, it's meant to be used with combinations of traits as well as each trait (characteristic) seperately.

Their write up throws up the fun all the pregnancy and maternity stuff says 'woman' when one of the cases listed earlier was a transman who had a baby. But they don't comment on that. Just that it clearly specifies that biological men can't have babies. So the EDA clearly doesn't allow for transmen to be anything but women for the purposes of the act. (Though, they very much do not actually say that here...which .....yeah)

Paragraph 142 - guessing that article edges into being dodgy given it had 'assumes inclusion as part of the group' in relation to sex.

Technically arguing that transfolk get the sex characterisitic via...indirect means......sometimes.....

It feels like EDA 2010 now needs an added gender identity characteristic to....plug the hole.....a bit. *sighs*

This is so messy.

Oooooo percieved charactistics.

Even messier.

I can see why they threw the 'this isn't a win really in' now. They have left loads of comments that people could use to argue against the For Women Scotland folk, BUT, you would have to do it in court because of this ruling. Which sucks balls folks.

Paragraph 157 is a wild ride folks. End with, if this is the case, scot gov is right.

EDA 2010 not saying biological doesn't mean it doesn't mean biological. Thanks folks., I hate it. This is page 48. o,o

We can't assume with EDA parliament meant to change the SDA from biological sex *sighs* round we go again (bonus, no one highlighted anything from the written debates pre EDA on this)

"even if we are wrong about that" LMAO

Anything pre EDA 2010 that it overwrote is no longer relevant. Even though we just spent...a while on that.

The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.

Thanks everyone. Sucks if you fall outside of, or bridge both. We shall choose your side.

" Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.

Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group."

Sadly, they do in fact need further explanation, but that's a whole other mess of fish, so I get why y'all refused to touch it with a barge pole. But shared biology. If only the biology was really that simple.

Paragraph 172 - is basically 'we don't understand where there is a variation between gender reassignment and sex, and that means to us having transgender people also have sex is messy' - when....allll of the characteristics have crossover. LITERALLY paragraphs have been spent on that. You can be disabled and a woman, sexuality and sex..... But not gender reassigned and the other sex as we ourselves understand it.

Gender reassignment is a specific seperate characteristic for a reason. *sighs*

"We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group"

Because the deinfition of sex you found the most useful was from the gender binary people. Just....maybe

Moreover, it makes no sense for conduct under the EA 2010 in relation to sex-based rights and protections to be regulated on a practical day-to-day basis by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a (confidential) certificate. Some of the practical consequences of a certificated sex definition are described in the case presented by Sex Matters. They state that uncertainty and ambiguity about the circumstances in which it is legitimate to treat (biological) women and girls as a distinct group whose interests need to be considered and protected, have the effect that many organisations now feel inhibited in doing so

Oh look my feeling was right. That whole argument is so stupid. It only counts if you can actually, casually, identify a person's sex correctly everytime. Which is counter to the indirect discrimination bits you mentioned.

Like....they wrote that down and didn't think, hey that's true the other way too. You can't tell a person has a GRC without knowing they have one, so how does anyone KNOW they aren't the sex they list now.

Mention without specifically saying that the pregnancy bit saying women means that it's biological sex throughout. Yay. OOO 177 they say it.

Soooo basically, if the pregnancy bits said person who gave birth rather than woman....it wouldn't mean biological sex in the whole act.

And now, paragraphs of the maternity stuff. So yeah.

Sorry transmen.

The EDA having to be worded to match civil partnership law is totes because it means biological sex at all times.

Really really sorry transmen. Lord.

They really really don't have a fully clear understanding of issues trans folk face. Or people other people assume to be trans have to face because of certain people who are celebrating this face.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS WILD - there's so much on how if it isn't biological sex, pregnant folk would have no protections. Literally, all of this just needs an amendment for it to be a pregnant person/individual

Or they need to add a specific characterisitc beyond gender resassignment or edit that to cover more - honestly I don't know, I can just see how this is going to lead to bad things.

At this point, 57 pages in, there has been absolutely no mention of intersex folk. At all.

Yay. (which fun times, if there were 'biologically male' folk (following the 'male at birth' arguments, and the binary) who can in fact get pregnant, by this long ass argument they would negate this whole thing apparently *laughs hysterically*)

191 - we are not allowing any variation in use of words in this act, so there

Oh i just remembered the experiments with uterine transplants to transwomen - they didn't go well, but that was....a long time ago and we're doing successfully for women who were born without now so.....eh not part of their consideration

There are no circumstances in which a biological male can become pregnant, and no man can therefore ever be an appropriate comparator in a pregnancy discrimination case p59

Moreover, in either case, the individual’s biological sex may continue to be readily perceivable and may form the basis of unlawful discrimination. p60

*screams*

They are being nice because this means all transfolk are equal whether they have a GRC or not. (There's weird comments that could be read as 'they all look the same anyhoo' which....not sure how to take that one)

Everyone is pressured to treat all transwomen as women, and that's apparently not ok. Because it means women and girls are being exposed to transwomen.

The toilet and changing room debates are going to be so much worse - especailly as the government in their wisdom semi banned mixed gender facilities. FAB.

I really despise sex matters at this point.

People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate. p62

Some people, dear judges, are in fact sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certifiicate.

Telling all queer folk how we perceive sexuality and what we are attracted to. Yay. Thanks guys, we haven't been arguing that it's not 100% about biology for years or anything.

This is exactly why GENDER tends to be used in terms of sexuality rather than sex.

ONLY lesbians are under threat. Sorry boys, you don't get threatened.

I must have missed this epidemic of transwomen in lesbian spaces.....(where they clearly weren't welcome....but stayed after the lesbians all left?!?)

And more assumptions - seeing 'must' a lot

or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence

Because men shouldn't also have a seperate space for that (it' s a noticable lack of comment when the rest of the paragraph provides for both)

There's lots of potential for taking them to be assuming you can distinctiguish between transfolk and non transfolk. Its awkward. Everytime they are like 'you can't visually tell who has a certificate and who doesn't you know' .

Also, how many transwomen with GRC's...present as biological men? (213 specifically makes a point of saying they do....)

Single sex schools - urgghhhhhh I hate this

So much of the comments are like 'you can totally still tell their biological sex' *screams*

And sports.

These idiots really stood up and said this ISN'T A WIN FOR EITHER SIDE

paragraph 235 - really going for the not fully proven bollocks about why some sports just have to be seperate, even if they weren't in the past

Semi arguing there should be a quote for transfolk as well as women and men.

I really hope that a second side of the EHRC comments is - we need to have extra stuff to protect and recognise transfolk so their gender identity is respected...because these eight points as given are again, wild.

Lots of perceived anomolies that I feel like transfolk would have v different feelings about than the judges (spend years fighting to be recognised as the gender, then for a job asking for the gender you don't identify as.....)

What we actually need is a third category.

p80 and finally 'why this won't negatively affect transfolk, honest'

Messyyy

I also think it's hilarious that, for the purposes of the EA 2010 now, any laws/guidelines for sex representation on boards etc, could choose to fill female seats with transmen. Because, sex at birth and biol;ogical sex, they be female. It's unlikely, but, given that was the whole dang point of this, ironic.

You can find the full judgement here - https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042#judgment-details

[sophiamcdougall]

At the lesbian meetup, met a kind of transphobic woman. Started gearing up to get fighty and then realised... she wasn't an actual terf. She was just older, genuinely didn't know stuff, had heard some terf talking points in passing and had been made kind of anxious by them, but hadn't made it her entire personality. She was open to learning that trans women weren't actually roaming around coercing unwilling cis lesbians into sex, thanked me earnestly for giving her a basic explanation of what "non-binary" meant and truly seemed to be relaxing bit by bit the more she heard. Obviously I'm aware that I can't be sure I've given her a sufficient dose of anti-transphobe vaccine to immunise her permanently against the shit that's out there, but overall it made me hopeful. Most people just aren't dyed-in-the-wool bigots. People can be curious and relieved to hear the fearmongering they've been exposed to is untrue. Telling people this stuff isn't a lost cause.

[staticespace]

[ID: Twitter post by Zeru @/DoubleStraps Every single scientist I know: sex can't be called a binary because we know it exists on a broad spectrum controlled by gene expression. Transphobes: excuse me, but when I was 8 someone told me about X and Y chromosomes. End ID]

[catboybiologist]

half baked morning rant

I do want to make it clear that the reason I talk about HRT and its biological effects so much is not because HRT or medicalization defines your gender.

Its because, for me personally, the interface of my biology education and my transition was mostly centered around figuring out what sex hormones do. I learned about basic biology principles like DNA organization, gene regulation, cell biology, and physiology in high school and undergrad. Taking that understanding and extending it to the mechanisms that hormones use to change gene regulation, and by extension, the rest of your body broadly, was something I did as my understanding became more complete in later undergrad and grad school. It was the key to me starting my own transition.

Why?

Because it was the first time I realized that the "basic biology" arguments of transphobes were complete and utter bullshit. From that point, it was a cascade. As in, wait, if dynamic changes in gene expression aren't considered "biological" to them, then why am I believing anything they say about anything else? When they talk about gametes, and try to include infertile cis people in their definitions of biological sex by talking about what gamete you're "intended" to make, what do they even mean? Why does my current gene expression not define that "intent"? And wait, back up, why is the brain suddenly not considered part of our biology? Why are neurological differences suddenly not "biological"? Why can we say someone's thinking patterns aren't "biological"?

Backing up even further, why does any of this matter more than psychological gender, or sociological gender? If the way we navigate society is gendered, that affects a lot of our lives, and we're just throwing that away?

Basically, being educated about how deep the biological changes of HRT really go was the first domino to fall when I worked through my internalized transphobia.

This is one of many reasons why I hate, hate HATE the concession that uninformed allies and even many trans people themselves give: "well NO ONE is saying that you can change your biological sex, sex and gender are completely unrelated, sex is binary and gender isn't!!!!!"

Well. I am saying that you can change your "biological" sex, I am saying that biological sex isn't binary, and I am saying that misunderstanding of those points has set back transgender advocacy. It makes medical decisions surrounding us less informed, it poisons conversations about how we interact with society, and it makes trans people feel like their gender and sex are less "real" than cis people's.

Not to mention the horrific way it discards intersex people from the conversation entirely.

Recently, I've seen this point enter the mainstream a little, by using intersex people and variation of sex in other species as a "counterargument" to "binary biological sex" thinking. It still doesn't sit right with me. One, because it uses intersex people as a prop for trans advocacy while not actually addressing the needs of either group. And two, because it completely disregards that your current biology and physiology is not 100% predestined from birth, and using people who were "born this way" as a prop does absolutely nothing to increase people's acceptance of trans people who change their biology later in life.

Ugh. This got away from me but yeah. That's my sipping coffee ramble for this morning. If anyone wants to add comment or correct me on discourse here, please do. Especially if you're intersex- this is all the observations of a perisex trans woman.

[cinnayanny]

Here's why women should be allowed to have woman-only spa-

DELETE YOUR REBLOG

Do you see how easy it is to fall for radical feminism?

Because it is WAY easier than anyone wants to admit.

Radical feminism isn't bad because it's transphobic, or the radfem treats trans women as men. It's bad because they treat men as an inherent evil that cannot be fixed outside eradication.

Early feminism was about how women should have the right to exist in the same spaces as men without risk, why do you want there to suddenly be segregation again?

It's all gender essentialism and an inability to actually fix the core problem. We can demand that society does better in getting rid of abusers but we cannot say that "abuser = man".

Radfems think that transandrophobia isn't real and use mocking terms for it.

Radfems think that a woman is uniquely incapable of being an abuser.

Radfems will doubt a man's ability to control his sexual urges.

Radfems will state that a man's romantic attraction are different from a woman's.

Radfems try to act like sex is a binary and intersex people should just "pick a sex".

Radfems think that the mutilation of intersex people at birth should happen under some circumstance.

Radfems say "cis people can get hormone blockers" as a way to erase intersex people.

Radfems don't believe in nonbinary people if they're AFAB, and if a nonbinary person dare present masc then clearly they're a man.

Radfems believe AFAB nonbinary people are just playing a funny pronoun game

Radfems will ignore WOC

Radfems will see a WOC not fitting the White Woman Beauty Standard, and then treat her as subhuman and evil

Radfems will see a MOC and start throwing slurs such as the n-word because the target is a man

And if you agree with any of those, even performativity, I will call you a radfem. I don't care if you don't think of yourself as one, you are.

[justasaiyangirl]

i know we hear this a lot with gender, "don't date someone who doesn't accept your gender", but this goes for you too intersex people.

don't date someone who isn't okay with your body.

• if you have atypical genitalia and they don't like it/wanna push you to get surgery/you can't have non painful sex and they push anyways/etc, dump them. you don't deserve that

• if you have hormonal intersex traits and they want you to go onto hormones because it'd "be better for you" or "make you look more normal", dump them. that's your decision not theirs.

• if they're pushy about how you label yourself/your experiences, dump them.

etc etc etc

you don't deserve to be in a relationship where someone wants to forcibly push you into a sex binary or erase your intersexuality. i promise you there are better people out there. you aren't lucky they are dating you 'in spite of' your intersex traits, there are people out there who will love you FOR your intersex traits. FOR your identity, FOR WHO YOU ARE. Don't accept mediocrity because you are just trying to make the relationship last or just want to be loved or whatever it is. you are intersex, and if they cannot accept that, are disgusted by that, want to hide that, etc, leave them. you will only harm yourself by being with someone who doesn't care about your best intersests.

[genderqueerdykes]

if you genuinely believe that trans men and cis men are enemies and need to be pitted against each other: you drank the terf juice.

if you believe that pre transition or never transition transfems "look too threatening" or "too cishet" or "unsafe for other queers to be around": you drank the terf juice.

if you misgender butch trans women and multigender transfem lesbians and remove them from lesbian spaces: you drank the terf juice.

if you police transfems and call them "loud," "aggressive," "mean," or "rude," just because they have deep voices or high testosterone bodies: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that all men and mascs need to be barred from entry into non binary, lesbian, and other queer spaces: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe all cishet men are inherently queerphobic, evil, and dangerous to be around: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe trans and cis men are inherently violent and dangerous because they're men: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that cis-passing trans men aren't queer and/or don't belong in queer spaces because they look and sound "too cis" or 'threatening': you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that anyone who is AMAB and/or has a penis is inherently violent: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe it's okay to profile strangers to assume they're cis or het (or ANYTHING): you drank the terf juice.

literally ALL of these things are terf ideologies and actions. in order to accept ourselves and be accepted, we must accept that just like how our identities are not inherently violent- neither are cis and het folks'.

blaming cis mens' gender instead of their actions and behaviors for their dangerous and queerphobic actions removes the responsibility from the individual man. that was one man who did something wrong.

hold that individual person accountable for their actions and leave their gender and/or birth sex out of it- they're irrelevant to the situation.

making trans women, intersex trans women, transfems, nonbinary people, genderqueer people, etc. uncomfortable by policing how they look and sound is not the way to go. policing transfems and preventing them from queer spaces is not the way to go. policing trans men and mascs and preventing them from entering spaces they belong in is not the way to go.

excluding queer men and mascs from the communities they rightfully belong in isn't helping anyone. cis gay men need community. cis asexual men need community. cis aromantic men need community. cis polyamorous men need community. genderqueer, non binary, and gnc cis men need community. cis bisexual/mspec men need community. trans women who are also men need community. trans men need community. intersex men need community. the list goes on.

community means working together, not fragmenting ourselves off into the tiniest micro pockets imaginable for the sake of "Safety". running afraid from every. single. man and masc you encounter will not keep you safe- femmes and women are capable of abuse. we cannot fall into this "woman good man bad" trap. being afraid of a group of people wholesale doesn't help you heal from whatever trauma you have. it's going to keep you scared for the rest of your life. it's best to move on and stop judging strangers for features they can't help or didn't ask for.

[floral-alchemist]

In fencing there is a biological binary* that gives one group an inherent advantage over the other. At high levels the advantaged group has been shown to perform five times better compared to the disadvantaged group, as s direct result of their biology.

Specifically, left-handed fencers perform better on average than their right-handed counterparts.

This is because righties rarely have to fence lefties, while lefties are constantly fencing righties. There's a clear discrepancy of experience. And if a lefty fences a lefty, they'll both feel that they're up against an inverted opponent, so the disadvantage cancels out.

Left-handed people make up about ten percent of the population. Left-handed fencers make up about half of all high level competitors. The inequality is clear as day.

So, should fencing tournaments be divided by dominant hand? As a right-handed fencer, I say no. Sure, it bugs me that I rarely win against a left-handed opponent, but that's just how it goes. Any reasonable person does not begin an endeavor if they can't accept each outcome. And frankly, any outcome in sports should ideally be just doing your best and having fun.

Should fencing be divided by other physical and neurological traits? There are certainly others that make a difference. I've won matches thanks solely due to my height. I've lost plenty of matches due to my slow reflexes. I've lost a handful of matches due to not being very strong.

Some of the traits relevant to fencing have more of an impact than others. Some are correlated with different aspects of biological sex, though there isn't a strict causal relationship. Ultimately no physical trait is as relevant to the outcome of a match as hand dominance is, and while we can have our own opinions on the fairness of a cross-dominant matchup, the fact of the matter is it would be ridiculous to recategorize fencing by any of these traits--including sex--without first taking into consideration the discrepancy between right- and left-handed fencers.

*I call hand dominance a binary, but this is false. Just as sex and gender cannot be conceptualized realistically in binary terms, we should acknowledge that some people are ambidextrous or do not have exactly one right and one left hand.