#Genderism

[reyneofswords]

males with disorders of sex development whose condition does not give them a significant male sporting advantage shouldn't compete against women either btw. the category is women, not other.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Editor’s Note:

At Reality’s Last Stand, we are deeply committed to fostering free speech, scientific discourse, and intellectual courage—values that are increasingly under siege in today’s polarized climate. It is in this spirit that we are republishing Jerry Coyne’s essay, “Biology is Not Bigotry,” which was originally published on the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) website before being abruptly unpublished.

Coyne, an emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, critically responded to an article by an FFRF intern that argued, “A woman is whoever she says she is.” Despite receiving approval for publication, Coyne’s scientifically grounded critique was unpublished after the FFRF deemed it inconsistent with their values and worried it may cause readers “distress.” Following this decision, both Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins also resigned from the FFRF’s Honorary Board in protest.

By republishing this essay (with the author’s permission), Reality’s Last Stand reaffirms our commitment to upholding rigorous science, free inquiry, and respectful dialogue. Coyne’s essay stands as a critical defense of biology against pseudoscience and as a reminder of the dangers posed by ideological gatekeeping in science and public discourse.

Colin Wright CEO and Editor-in-Chief, Reality’s Last Stand

--

From the Atheists for Liberty Editorial Board:

The following article by Jerry A. Coyne was originally published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Freethought Today. It has since been removed because “it does not reflect our values or principles.” Clearly FFRF’s idea of “Freethought” only includes thoughts aligned with their new Social Justice values. These new values are completely contrary to those which once made it a respectable, nonpartisan organization championing the strict separation of church and state.

After Jerry Coyne’s resignation from FFRF’s Honorary Board, he has kindly authorized us to republish his article in its original uncensored form. His resignation has since been followed by the resignations of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, men responsible for making atheist organizations like FFRF thrive in the early decades of the 21st century.

As you read Coyne’s words, we at Atheists for Liberty hope you consider what the FFRF found so disagreeable they had to censor this article by a respected professor. Contrary to their stated reasons, FFRF’s actions prove, not that they abide by values and principles, but that they may have never had any in the first place.

--

By: Jerry Coyne

Published: Dec 31, 2024

In the Freethought Now article “What is a woman?” author Kat Grant struggles at length to define the word, rejecting one definition after another as flawed or incomplete. Grant finally settles on a definition based on self-identity: “A woman is whoever she says she is.” This of course is a tautology, and still leaves open the question of what a woman really is. And the remarkable redefinition of a term with a long biological history can be seen only as an attempt to force ideology onto nature. Because some nonbinary people—or men who identify as women (“transwomen”)—feel that their identity is not adequately recognized by biology, they choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of “woman.”

Further, there are plenty of problems with the claim that self-identification maps directly onto empirical reality. You are not always fat if you feel fat (the problem with anorexia), not a horse if you feel you’re a horse (a class of people called “therians” psychologically identify as animals), and do not become Asian simply become you feel Asian (the issue of “transracialism”). But sex, Grant tells us, is different: It is the one biological feature of humans that can be changed solely by psychology.

But why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality. Instead, in biology “sex” is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells (“gametes”). Males have small, mobile gametes (sperm in animals and pollen in plants); females have large, immobile gametes (ova in plants and eggs in animals). In all animals and vascular plants there are exactly two sexes and no more. Though a fair number of plants and a few species of animals combine both functions in a single individual (“hermaphrodites”), these are not a third sex because they produce the typical two gametes.

It’s important to recognize that, although this gametic idea is called a “definition” of sex, it is really a generalization—and thus a concept—based on a vast number of observations of diverse organisms. We know that, except for a few algae and fungi, all multicellular organisms and vertebrates, including us, adhere to this generalization. It is, then, nearly universal.

Besides its universality, the gametic concept has utility, for it is the distinction between gamete types that explains evolutionary phenomena like sexual selection. Differential investment in reproduction accounts for the many differences, both physical and behavioral, between males and females. No other concept of sex has such universality and utility. Attempts to define sex by combining various traits associated with gamete type, like chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, body hair and so on, lead to messy and confusing multivariate models that lack both the universality and explanatory power of the gametic concept.

Yes, there is a tiny fraction of exceptions, including intersex individuals, who defy classification (estimates range between 1/5,600 and 1/20,000). These exceptions to the gametic view are surely interesting, but do not undermine the generality of the sex binary. Nowhere else in biology would deviations this rare undermine a fundamental concept. To illustrate, as many as 1 in 300 people are born with some form of polydactyly—without the normal number of ten fingers. Nevertheless, nobody talks about a “spectrum of digit number.” (It’s important to recognize that only a very few nonbinary and transgender people are “intersex,” for nearly all are biologically male or female.)

In biology, then, a woman can be simply defined in four words: “An adult human female.”

Dismissal of trait-based concepts of sex leads to serious errors and misconceptions. I mention only a few. The biological concept of a woman does not, as Grant argues, depend on whether she can actually produce eggs. Nobody is claiming that postmenopausal females, or those who are sterile or had hysterectomies, are not “women,” for they were born with the reproductive apparatus that evolved to produce eggs. As for chromosomes, having two X chromosomes gives you a very high probability of being a woman, but a rearrangement of genetic information can decouple chromosome constitution from the gametic apparatus.

But the biggest error Grant makes is the repeated conflation of sex, a biological feature, with gender, the sex role one assumes in society. To all intents and purposes, sex is binary, but gender is more spectrum-like, though it still has two camel’s-hump modes around “male” and “female.” While most people enact gender roles associated with their biological sex (those camel humps), an appreciable number of people mix both roles or even reject male and female roles altogether. Grant says that “I play with gender expression” in “ways that vary throughout the day.” Fine, but this does not mean that Grant changes sex from hour to hour.

Under the biological concept of sex, then, it is impossible for humans to change sex—to be truly “transsexual”—for mammals cannot change their means of producing gametes. A more appropriate term is “transgender,” or, for transwomen, “men who identify as women.”

But even here Grant misleads the reader. They argue, for example, that “Transgender people are no more likely to be sexual predators than other individuals.” Yet the facts support the opposite of this claim, at least for transgender women. A cross-comparison of statistics from the U.K. Ministry of Justice and the U.K. Census shows that while almost 20 percent of male prisoners and a maximum of 3 percent of female prisoners have committed sex offenses, at least 41 percent of trans-identifying prisoners were convicted of these crimes. Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men. There are suggestions of similar trends in Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia.

Biological sex affects who and what we are. Let’s look at the contentious area of sports participation. Here’s a summary of the current regulatory situation (from a link that Grant gives):

For the Paris 2024 Olympics, the new guidelines require transgender women to have completed their transition before the age of 12 to be eligible to compete in the women’s category. This rule is intended to prevent any perceived unfair advantages that might arise from undergoing male puberty.

In addition, at least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of transgender athletes. These include sports like athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby, rowing, and boxing.

Completing transition before 12 is virtually unknown (26 American states ban childhood transition), and the International Olympic Committee has now asked each sport to devise its own rules. Further, the presence of “regulation” does not make the problem go away, for many regulations are insufficient to protect female athletes from male athletic advantage. According to a United Nations report on violence against women, “By 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals [to transgender women] in 29 different sports.”

I close with two points. The first is to insist that it is not “transphobic” to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights. Transgender people should surely enjoy all the moral and legal rights of everyone else. But moral and legal rights do not extend to areas in which the “indelible stamp” of sex results in compromising the legal and moral rights of others. Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.

Finally, speaking as a member of the FFRF’s honorary board, I worry that the organization’s incursion into gender activism takes it far outside its historically twofold mission: educating the public about nontheism and keeping religion out of government and social policies. Tendentious arguments about the definition of sex are not part of either mission. Although some aspects of gender activism have assumed the worst aspects of religion (dogma, heresy, excommunication, etc.), sex and gender have little to do with theism or the First Amendment. I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!

Issues of sex and gender cannot and should not be forced into that Procrustean bed. Mission creep has begun to erode other once-respected organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, and I would be distressed if this happened to the FFRF.

--

For reference, here's a link to an archive of the FFRF posting of this article.

==

It's sad that FFRF have turned into an anti-science faith-based cult.

[medusa-fem]

Today in gender ideology! Normal therapists aren't allowed to do their job and help their clients, apparently it's transphobic?? Bonus points for OP poorly censoring the words "election outcome" and treating a distressing situation like full blown actual trauma. OP is a LCSW and I can only imagine how poorly their clients are doing/how little they are actually pushed to heal. This is insanity.

[she-is-ovarit]

Listen to sex workers, except for the ones who criticize prostitution and the sex trade and openly describe the trauma caused by their exploitation - they just weren't a right fit for the job.

Listen to the biologists, psychologists, and neurologists, except for the ones who publish credible studies against the idea of brain sex and remark that, actually, a person cannot change their sex - there still exists alternative facts.

Listen to gay and lesbian people, except for the ones who refuse to have sex with trans people, dislike being amorphously referred to as "queer" or find it retraumatizing, and argue that sexual orientation pertains to sex and not gender identity - they're just genital fetishists and sexual predators.

Listen to trans people and gender dysphoric people, except for the ones who don't believe that identifying as something really makes someone something, that sex can't be changed, and that pronoun use determines identity - they have internalized transphobia.

Listen to women, except for the ones who don't believe that "woman" is just a social category and that oppression and discrimination on the axis of biological sex exists - they're just terfs and similar to Nazis.

Listen to intersex people, except for the ones who prefer the term "person with a disorder of sex development", are bothered by dyadic trans people co-opting terminology such as AFAB/AMAB, and speak out against trans surgeries and HRT being done to kids - they're just extremists.

Listen to gender nonconforming people, except for the ones who maintain that their style, nonconforming mannerisms, and/or same-sex attraction does not mean they're not their sex. They're just eggs, they'll turn into trans people soon.

Listen to Latino people, except for the ones who speak out against "Latinx" being coined as a term and a reflection of Euro-American colonialism - they're just traditionalists.

Listen to black people, except for the ones who take issue with "blacklivesmatter" being consistently refocused to "black trans lives matter", consider the argument that female sex-segregated spaces are akin to Jim Crow Laws as racist, and point out that trans murder rates - in which most of these murdered people are people of color - are being used by mostly white trans-identifying male people in arguments for self-serving intentions. They're just transphobic.

Listen to Native people, except for the ones who indicate that "two spirit" doesn't mean what white trans people think it means and worry about Euro-American colonialism further appropriating their culture and language - they're just a minority and are behind the times.

Listen to Jewish people, except the ones who continuously stress that comparing the disagreement with gender ideology to Naziism and genocide is deeply disrespectful, often anti-semitic, and minimizes the experiences of victims of genocide and their families. They're probably not even Jewish.

Listen to Marxists and feminists, except for the ones who point out that female people are treated as a reproductive and sexual resource based upon sex. They're transphobic.

Listen to intersectional feminists, except for the ones who point out that intersectionality that isn't female-focused isn't feminism. They're just terfs.

Don't listen to desisters/detransitioners, except for the ones who maintain the narrative that receiving SRS or HRT did no harm to them or that they're desisting due to 'gender affirming care' working for them. The rest were just cis people in denial of their own gender identity.

[radmalenia]

If anyone on radblr has interacted with this "taythewhom" account, I would advise just try not to engage with them; because it likely won't be possible to have a productive conversation and will just piss you off.

Caution: this post is a lengthy breakdown/rant about the horrible reading abilities and the critical thought-killing mentalities of so many "TRA's", and the dangerous and tragic ramifications of being taught next to no reading and thinking skills.

TLDR: this person is a prime example of it. And the problem they have is a disturbing sign of how the education system is fundamentally failing to teach youth to read, to critically think, to stay out of echo chambers, and to know enough to articulate their stances - this is also why so many fall for trans ideology, too; and why they are more easily manipulated away from genuine feminism.

~ This is not a usual type of post for me but it brought up a couple of key things I think people need to be discussing more overall; so here goes.

So this "taythewhom" clown has bought the bullshit about radical feminists not being feminists and also about them being transphobic, and (surprise surprise) are apparently not willing to read more than one sentence at once that has been spoken by someone whom they've been told is "the enemy".

No better way to keep someone in an echo chamber, to make sure they never question or analyze their beliefs or those of anyone else; than convincing them not to read anything that a person outside of their own ideology says! Convincing them that "well this person is wrong no matter what, so you shouldn't even care to read their words"! What an unbelievably thought-killing and sheep-creating form of manipulation. Very cultish, too.

Anyway, this person suddenly DM'd me. I've seen them before in comment sections; contributing nothing and generally being shockingly dumb. I was a bit harsher overall than I maybe could have been, but it deeply frustrates me to encounter someone who has so thoroughly bought these types of thought-stopping cliches.

In this instance, they were on a "this person's apparently transphobic so don't listen to a thing they say...but yet engage with them anyway to tell them off ." (??) As it continued I got more confused by that; by why they were even in my dms at all while not willing to have an actual conversation... And wondering what do they think they get out of it. What do they think they're doing?? (I wish I'd manged to ask that!!) But the gist is that they kept insisting they didn't care to read what I was saying...yet they still kept messaging. At least for a few minutes.

And then a block? Too cowardly and/or egotistical to consider they could be wrong. To even discuss it. Notice of course how they never explained anything about what they're claiming. Never said why they say I'm transphobic. Never said why they claim radical feminism isn't feminism. NO THOUGHTS - NO CONTENT - ONLY BUZZWORDS.

They also seem to be so horrendous at reading that they saw me mention male supremacy, I presume in my bio; and somehow concluded I support it?! And that it means I want the sexes segregated?!?! How??? How are these people so quick and willing to proclaim a strong opinion on something they're literally so ignorant (and usually always wrong) on?

Even female separatism, which I fully support (but do not mention in my bio) is not a total separation of the sexes (except in an ideal and unrealistic utopia;) and even that would not be actual "segregation".

And if this person can't understand that the sentence about male supremacy in my bio is calling it the status quo that needs to be overturned by genuine feminism; then ...wow. I just don't know what's going on in schools this past decade. Why are so many of these kids unable to properly read?? 🤦‍♀️ Why are so many unable and/or unwilling to analyze something complex, or even simple - unwilling to critically think and see what conclusions they draw, to challenge their own views by analyzing a disagreeing view; to even learn enough about their own stance to articulate it beyond a basic slogan or buzzword?? Do they even know how they choose a stance? Not specifically with taythewhom but I've seen instances of other people like them admitting when questioned that they don't know why they have the stance they do, they just felt "it's what everyone else is doing" or something like that.

Like, I...cannot even imagine basing my opinions off popularity alone like that.

And honestly I do consider a large part of this person's state to be this failing of the modern public education system. For someone to call a moderate paragraph a "novel" is fucking mind-blowing. Whether you disagree with the subject or not, even if you find it totally boring; you can't call a mild size paragraph a "novel" unless something pretty bad is up with you.

No wonder these Tumblr TRA's are so often woefully uneducated about issues women face, and so woefully incapable of learning or understanding new concepts and things that they're presented with. So uneducated about how to analyze things and use critical thought. Even so uneducated about trans issues (with them often having no idea the meanings, ramifications, and realities of the trans stuff they talk about); so uneducated about gender roles and how they've been used on people, so uneducated about history (and so willing to rewrite it to fit their narrative but that's a whole different post...), so uneducated about actual feminism; about misogyny, patriarchy; about homosexuality and the gay community. So uneducated about how many of these things relate to each other, and how stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum and therefore stuff like so-called "choice feminism" doesn't work.

No wonder their reading comprehension is fucking abysmal (where does my blog say anything about sex segregation????) They either CAN'T or DON'T read...so they don't even understand the issues and stances that they're trying to support - much less the ones they've been told they're in opposition to!!

This is why we see so many of them being trans ideologists. Gender ideology necessities people who do not think, question, or read. Because as soon as one does that, it begins to fall apart.

Also - because genuine feminism ideally requires educating onself on feminist philosophy, and going on a journey through the study of feminist texts to arrive at the conclusions all of us radical feminists do, to be able to articulate these facts to others and to raise female class consciousness and have impactful discussions - it is a lot less appealing to kids who don't want to read, who don't want to think or put in effort. Who would rather be told that they can think and behave exactly how they already do, but just call it "their choice" and therefore "feminist", and be done with it. No class analysis, no understanding of the way males oppress them specifically because of their sex and have done so for hundreds even thousands of years; no - that requires long paragraphs, and very heavy subject matter.

To be clear I do truly empathize with young women feeling turned away by how heavy it is emotionally to face and accept the actual realities of their oppression...the realities of who does it, how severe and all encompassing it is; the reality of what it is based upon. It is a horrible thing to face; and once you've seen it you can never stop seeing it. It permeates everything around us in our entire culture, it overshadows and undertones everything and every situation and etc etc etc. But - to use the overdone matrix analogy - would you rather take the blue pill to make you forget that you ever peaked behind the curtain, or would you rather take the red pill that shows you the grim truth in full - and live the rest of your life in proud resistance against the oppressive force? That red pill is what radical feminists all choose...and it is certainly worth it emotionally.

(NOT to be confused with the fucking "red pill" that far-right males sometimes refer to!! They have entirely different views from radfems, this cannot be overstated - and their "red pill" views of hateful misogynistic nonsense; and often of other hateful and stupid views like antisemitism or homophobia; are entirely incorrect. The ONLY similarity is the matrix pill analogy itself.)

Anyway... going back to the younger people who won't read. They don't read and they don't think. And it considerably contributes to keeping them inside an echo chamber as well, as I'm sure one can understand - if they read nothing from the outside, they've obviously been successfully placed in an echo chamber where they just keep supporting and agreeing with their own stances...which again are often so shallow because they don't even flesh out what they're supposed to believe in themselves.

This is also so concerning for so many reasons; I've already glossed over some and am sure I don't need to list them all... Essentially - being able to read, to effectively properly read and do the thinking that comes with it; is SO DAMNED IMPORTANT. Being able to read multiple paragraphs is VITAL. Books are vital, for a start. If you want to have a stance about a serious and complex issue, for example feminism; you need to be able to read books, studies, articles, news reports, and complex discussion threads. Otherwise you have your stance in name only, with no substance behind your label; and so it would be more beneficial if you don't say a word in these discussions and debates and instead let the people who can actually read and learn and think and speak do the reading, learning, thinking, and speaking...otherwise you'd just be derailing the conversation and adding pointless or even detrimental words.

Like taythewhom does in the notes on multiple feminist posts I've seen 🙃 and they don't mean well at all, certainly not when it comes to women's rights. It's people like this who turn the word "transphobia" meaningless - and into a joke or even into a compliment, depending on context.

Anyway, to wrap this up; while this is a post about the importance of being able to read well (and that's still undeniably true), I admit this also has a level of irony because it is somewhat longer than it needs to be. However there are multiple places where I could have brought up other topics and tangents that were relevant, though - so is it really longer than necessary?? To me that's an incredibly cool thing about writing; no matter what you're discussing there are so many ways you could expand upon what you're saying if you were so inclined to. And how abundantly rich the world is with subject matter is something everyone deserves to be able to access and experience; and the way the school system is degrading the literary level of children is just so tragic and disgusting for so many reasons.

Well - if you made it this far through my 4am adderall comedown vent; congratulations, I think - and thank you! ADHD, which I have, is often awful to live with - but sometimes it can be very handy; although not always in the most productive manner.

Reading and writing are a never-ending source of enrichment, intrigue, revelation and knowledge; and the last one in particular can easily be your greatest source of personal power. All of them lead to personal growth, so don't neglect them. To be a little petty - the moral of this post is, in its simplest terms...be a reader - don't be taythewhom.

[researchgate]

https://twitter.com/Ch0copancake/status/1726414383033573772

have some trans stupidity.

How do they even excuse this when it shows what we all say: they think a bad haircut and a shirt maketh a man. Like, this is ridiculous!

[intersexfairy]

your feminism is dangerously missing something if you don't acknowledge that the patriarchy gives abusive and bigoted women power to hurt other people - people of any gender. yes, men included.

the idea that women are weak leads to the belief women couldn't hurt anyone. the idea that men are powerful leads to the belief men cannot be truly hurt. bigotry can mix with genderism to turn what was once a positive stereotype into a negative one (ex: privileged men are strong vs. marginalized men are dangerous).

all these things ultimately give protection to abusive and bigoted women. it allows them to fly under the radar in plain sight. it gives them a sense of trustworthiness and justification. you need to accept that, otherwise your feminism best serves women in positions of power. at one point or another, it leaves anyone else in need of support in the dust - or worse, for dead. you need to be better.

you need to believe and protect all abuse survivors and marginalized people, period.

[lacangri21]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/29/india-rape-victim-dies-sexual-violence-proble/

OH LOOK. ONE OF THE REASONS RAPE IS SO COMMON IN INDIA IS BECAUSE OF LACK OF PUBLIC FEMALE SPACES, INCLUDING BATHROOMS. WHO KNEW?

[posting-stuffies]

Once my teacher said that in the past the side of the zipper changed according to whether the clothes were feminine or masculine (well, the source says USA, but that also impacted the industry where I live (global South).

[animalsoutloud]

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Despite promoting itself as a strictly sociopolitical philosophy asserting equality of the sexes, the ideology is actually rooted in eugenics and technocracy. We explain.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/technology/postgenderism-pathway-to-the-transhumanist-technocracy

#TheFreeThoughtProject #TFTP

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: The Heretical Liberal

Published: Jun 18, 2024

Lots of responses to this post I made the other day laying out the case for why trans activism is homophobic, most of them supportive. For the few that weren't, here's a thread where I brought the receipts. If my earlier post was opening arguments, consider this the full case: 🧵

First up, the charities, such as Stonewall and GLAAD. These are the groups that were originally set up as gay rights advocates, but were retooled around 2015 into trans rights advocates, and - since trans activism seeks to erase homosexuality - promptly began to do exactly that

With the anti-gay activists now in charge and setting the tone, media now takes the reins and begins subtly erasing the very notion of same-sex attraction, suggesting that lesbians who don't want to date ppl with penises, and gay men not interested in vaginas are hateful bigots

And more of the same nonsense:

With the activists dictating, and the media following their lead, the homophobia inevitably trickles down. This manifests in different forms, but one of them is the psychological torture of homosexuals, some of whom have come to believe their innate orientation means they're bigots

But mostly the biggest effect is in the trans community itself, who have increasingly internalized the idea that same-sex attraction doesn't exist, and thus, any ppl who claim to be exclusively same-sex attracted are actually just transphobic bigots who can be abused at will

The rest is just gonna be a firehose of hate, as I try to dispel the idea that this homophobia is "just a few bad apples" instead of the truth: it's a core component underpinning the entire ideology transgenderism, as are the violent threats that often accompany it:

I could go on and on, but I think the point here is made. Homophobia doesn't just exist in the trans community, it's RIFE in it. It's a feature, not a bug, the erasure of sex (and by extension, homosexuals) is a core goal of trans activism. Hopefully this has opened some eyes /end

--

Threadreader:

==

Firstly, if you're shocked by this, then you haven't been paying attention.

This is what it looks like when the mentally ill use academic gobbledygook to pathologize the normal and normalize the pathological.

You're not crazy: same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction are real things and completely normal. You may have either or both (bisexual). Their stupid buzzwords don't - and can't - change that. Nor turn it into a "genital preference."

If you take away nothing else, know that an accusation of being "transphobic" is a predator trying to emotionally manipulate and blackmail you into allowing access by the predator beyond your boundaries. Whether that be sexual boundaries, to simply how you address others, and anything and everything in between.

You never have to justify your boundaries. Someone who tries to make you, or who tells you that you need to "rethink" your boundaries, or particularly who acts morally superior about their purported higher evolved absence of boundaries is a full-blown predator. No, I'm not being hyperbolic. When I say "predator," I mean they're a predator. You're talking to someone who is dangerous and not to be trusted, because they see your boundaries as something to be overcome, circumvented or "fixed." They do not respect you and they feel entitled to what they want from you. They are dangerous. They are a predator. By definition.

In the very definition of an abusive relationship, these virulently anti-gay fanatics also won't let LGB operate without them. Because they'll lose their human shields and their stolen valor they've misappropriated from the gay rights movements. Which is the point in the movie where the abuser shouts, "without me, you're nothing! I won't let you leave! If I can't have you, no one will!" And then something horrible happens.

[quotesfromall]

This is the new frontier of fetishistic desire around transition — mixed up with genuine emotion, hatred of being a woman, desire to be a dominant man, sexualizing the pain, fear and confusion around a desire to stop transition. In some ways, this is the natural path of sexually confused teens and young adults growing up in a porn culture, consuming violent sexual messages since childhood. It is a queer kink subculture ripe for grooming, abuse, and sexual harm. If history is an indicator, the presence of this subculture on Tumblr is an indication of its eventual spread.

Kitty Robinson, What is Detransition Kink

[reyneofswords]

“fem gay transmasc” “butch transfem” ok so straight and gc then. cool.

[radmalenia]

if you love sucking up to a nazi so much why don't you book yourself a first class one way trip to hogwarts, i heard terfs get to ride free in the furnace because they're so full of hot air and sure love going off the rails with their trainwreck takes

Dear, you are literally delusional. You have no room to say a single word about people like me being "full of hot air". Lmao!

One, you're deluded about her being a Nazi (I'm assuming you mean JK Rowling here.) I don't know where the fuck you got this idea, but it is so bullshit you may as well also start believing the earth is flat.

Two, you're deluded that people are "sucking up to her" - when actually it's that people respect and love what she has to say and what she does, and therefore genuinely like her and support her.

Three, you're deluded about "terfs" being treated horribly in a world where Hogwarts existed.

~ "Terfs" are kind, strong, intelligent, normal women; who stand up for their rights and for all women, and who have ideological disagreements and criticisms of transgender beliefs. That's...not exactly an evil character. That's fairly neutral as far as people go; and it makes for a good character, in fact.

~ Also, Harry Potter characters are often known to have short patience for the sort of nonsensical bullshit that trans ideologists would tell them about gender identity... Judging off what we're told of them; most if not all would brush that shit off with a laugh. They'd look at you like you have two heads. And would therefore be rather sympathetic to women like us who are challenging your beliefs.

~ This would particularly be true once they learn about things like you putting males in women's prisons, bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, even lesbian dating apps...by letting them just claim to be women. The average person IRL doesn't support that shit here in the real world - why would they in this one?? Harry Potter is about humans, therefore human sexual dimorphism is also real there; and so the characters understand sex and women's needs for female only spaces - (I could even pull stuff out of the books to show that if I really wanted to spend extra time on this, but it's not needed.)

Four, you're deluded that the Hogwarts Express could ever "go off the rails" - it's a magical train and known for perfect punctuality!

Overall you desperately need to work on your insults. They're all over the place, full of holes and bullshit, show your ignorance; and basically are incredibly weak and lame.

Seriously, I could eat alphabet soup and then shit out something more coherent and more stinging than whatever the fuck that flop of an ask was. That ask was a trainwreck; my dear delusional anon. You failed miserably and made a fool of yourself, and you literally were projecting when you spoke of "trainwrecks". 😂 So, nice try. It didn't work. Try again perhaps, if you have the guts for it...