#The ideology of white feminism =/= white feminist people

[vanilla-voyeur]

White feminism exists to retool progressive language in service of white supremacy

[vampirebeverage]

Jewish People: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, her work is anti-Semitic.

BIPOC: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, she’s really racist.

Trans People: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, she’s transphobic and uses her platform in ways that directly harm trans people.

TERFS: Oh I Absolutely Must Buy This Racist, Anti-Semitic Video Game! Take That, Transes!

[lastoneout]

I'm mostly going to be focusing on staying spiteful and hopeful today but since I've already seen a handful of posts that are like this I do wanna remind everyone that we are dealing with a major surge in radical feminist ideology in queer and progressive spaces, and while I won't fault anyone for venting, now more than ever it is important to familiarize yourself with what radical feminisim is(it is not just hating trans people or trans women it is SO much more and anyone who pretends otherwise is misinformed or intentionally lying) and why it's so dangerous and figure out how to talk about the way the alt-right is targeting young (mostly)white men without getting radfem-y about it.

Don't call them "males" don't act like men are born with misogyny built into their DNA do NOT fucking act like trans men are the enemy and don't spread hopeless bullshit about how men can never improve or will always hate women and thus are a lost cause and the only people we'll ever be safe around are women and queer men who abandon masculinity completely. In the coming years queer, intersex, marginalized, and even some cishet white men will be your allies, they are not a lost cause, they can be swayed to our side, and acting like it's impossible for men to change UPHOLDS the very system that is indoctrinating them right now, it does NOTHING to fight it.

Fr check this at the door now. Radical feminism is inherently racist, sexist, transphobic, intersexist, classist, monosexist, and white supremacist and it will NOT save us. I don't care if the person selling you on it is trans or queer or a person of color, radical feminisim is never truly inclusive and WILL NOT SAVE US. Gender and bio essentialism are the tools of the enemy, we do not need them. Abandon them now and purge them from your theory, community, and self.

Solidarity will save us. Radical feminism will only divide and destroy.

[womendeservehumanity]

There has been so much push, especially in supposed leftist spaces, to liken radical feminism/feminists to incels/inceldom. And it actually makes me want to bash my head into a wall. I don’t know if you guys are aware but there was a mass shooting at a high school yesterday. And the perpetrator was a girl. And conservatives were instantly trying to leech onto her being apart of whatever group. Trans, lesbian, communist etc. she is a biological heterosexual female. A biological heterosexual female that was entrenched in alt right fascism who formed an entire identity around it. And her digital footprint shows that. Yet there’s “leftists” that are parading around a fake excerpt from her manifesto (shared by an anti feminist incel mind you) claiming she was a radfem man hater who wanted to exterminate men and have women rule the world. And also wanted to exterminate women who worshipped men. Meanwhile this is her

Because nothing says man hating radfem like reposting memes about an incel who targeted women in a mass shooting. And stanning male mass shooters. Everything about this girl indicates the real life consequences of these alt right cesspools that are being formed all across the internet infecting children with these ideologies. She literally posted a picture of herself holding a white power symbol in the bathroom right before committing the shooting. There’s so much conversation to be had about white supremacy and fascism. And how it’s dominating online spaces and indoctrinating young people who are living their lives in these echo chambers and becoming violent, apathetic individuals. But do leftists wanna talk about this?? Noooo they’d rather disparage radical feminism and grasp at straws to make this some male equivalent to incel related shootings.

I’m linking a report that was done on incel forums to really show you how ridiculous it is when these people try so desperately to associate radical feminism with inceldom. Or try to claim that redfems are “femcels” because what’s anti feminist rhetoric if not insinuating feminists are so angry at men because they need some dick 🤩

This was a very informative look into the incel community and their activities online. The things they say, promote, and enable. And yet so many people have the gall to in any way shape or form liken radfems or women who hate men to them. It actually makes me want to pull my hair out

Like you really think this, and the community that it’s amassed, is in any way comparable to women hating men as a response to men hating and oppressing women including from these very same men… That actually it’s because these women are ugly and can’t get a men and now they’re vindictive toward men (anti feminism rhetoric as old as time). Or even that it’s not really that they’re not like incels in the sense that they can’t get relationships/sex, but exhibit behavior anywhere near this depravity. Very unserious.

[radfemsiren]

🤍A basic rundown of my beliefs as a radical feminist 🤍

(I don’t represent every radical feminist, but these are usually the standard opinions you’ll find of many radfems. Hate or disagree with them, that’s fine! But know the truth of who I am and what I stand for beforehand)

- there are 2 sexes, the male sex is oppressing the female sex

- femicide, rape, child sex abuse, hijab laws, female genital mutilation, domestic labor, trafficking, war crimes, revenge porn, prostitution… women and girls around the world are being exploited, tortured, and killed because of this oppression, and it must end.

- female oppression is sex based oppression, meaning a woman can’t just identify out of her oppression (for example hijab laws)

- sex is biological and an immutable truth, gender is a social construct

- gender should be done away with because gender roles are male supremacist and result in women and girls being stereotyped, dehumanized, barred from education, safety, bodily autonomy, etc.

- defining women with anything other than biology is misogynistic and relies on stereotypes

- the biological differences between men and women must be acknowledged in order to effectively end patriarchal oppression

- radical feminism is getting to the root of female oppression (radical -> root)

- misandry is not real and is just an extension of misogyny (for example, “men are told not to cry!” Yes because women are seen as inferior and any trait associated with us is seen as degrading/emasculating for men. This is why there is no female equivalent to emasculation.)

- all current religions are patriarchal and made by men to exploit and control women

- access to abortion is a human right and should never be threatened, women are the creators of life and deserve to gatekeep it, as well as exercise full autonomy over our own bodies

- Using sexist gender roles to define yourself is giving these misogynistic stereotypes power (wearing makeup or dresses doesn’t make anyone less or more of a woman, this is misogyny)

- the beauty industry is patriarchal and exploits women, our bodies and our money

- sex work is not work, it’s always exploitation (consent can not be bought)

- the porn industry is patriarchal and relies on trafficking, coercion, and rape to function. It also conditions its watchers to be aroused by violence against women, and results in more real life consequences for women and girls

- women’s spaces and institutions must be protected. Women’s safety is more important than catering to male feelings

- marriage is a patriarchal institution made to exploit the domestic labor of women for her entire life

- BDSM/kink are patriarchal and only center the pleasure and well being of men.

- hookup culture is patriarchal and the risk to reward is not worth it for women to engage in it

- gender ideology is patriarchal and is a direct hindrance to female liberation (we can’t define ourselves or our oppressors, we can’t create spaces away from our oppressors, we can’t create laws and policy based on these definitions, people who are gender non conforming are pressured to alter their bodies to conform to a rigid standard and become lifelong medical patients, etc)

- choice feminism and liberal feminism caters to conforming to patriarchal standards and institutions, and refuses to examine why women make choices under patriarchy

- women of color face oppression on the axis of our sex and race, men of color only face oppression on the axis of their race

- non white patriarchal institutions must be criticized: a mullah is just as dangerous to the liberation of women as a pastor is

- women should decenter the men in their lives just as men have done with women. That means prioritizing us! Engaging in women’s media, art, stories, fostering female communities and support networks, uplifting and empowering their sisters around the world

- being a radical feminist means consistently taking radical action, big or small, we all can do it! Go support a female artist, go donate menstrual products to a shelter, go tell off a man when you see him making a woman uncomfortable. We all can make a difference!

…My feminism focuses on criticism of Islam and middle eastern patriarchy, but there are radfems with many focuses/passions… some in eco feminism, some on uplifting Romani women, black women, neurodivergent women, women with disabilities, prostituted women… some are passionate about women’s sports, women’s art, women’s writing, women’s history, lesbian and bisexual women’s stories… everyone has their passion on here, so before you come to attack, just check out my blog and click around at the different profiles on this corner of the internet…. maybe we might not be the terrible witches you thought us to be. Or maybe we are, but witches are awesome so who cares lol

[rf-times]

I remember seeing all these ex-radfems be like “getting to know men made me realise it’s not so black and white and that there’s NUANCE” and it’s like, ok it’s been a couple of years since I created this account and since then I have gotten to know and befriended a lot of men, I’ve seen a lot of complex, nuanced behaviour and beliefs from them. None of it has undermined my radical feminist ideology. Men can be kind and loving, women can be cruel and abusive, but that does not change that we live in a patriarchy created to benefit men through the exploitation of women. And when men have cruel interests, intentions and stakes, they are benefitted and encouraged in every way possible. Every institution is based on these structures, and ultimately every personal relationship is affected by these dynamics. All men have misogynistic tools at their disposal. This is real life, there are so many shades of people and behaviour, but none of this undermines radical feminism.

[iphnh]

Hello, @papirouge. I'm going to try to explain my thoughts to you in a roundabout way, but I think doing so can help prevent knee-jerk reactions. I promise what I'm saying will all connect to your concerns--just bear with me.

Idealism vs Materialism

Idealism and materialism are two ways of analyzing history.

If someone analyzes history in an "idealist" lens, that means they study ideologies--they'll ask questions like what were the cultural values, mythologies, and religions of this time period?

If someone analyzes history in a "materialist" lens, that means they study material reality--they'll ask questions like what opportunities and risks did people have for acquiring resources?

For example, if we analyze the American Revolution with an idealist lens, we would conclude that democratic ideals were the driving force behind the revolution. If we analyze the American Revolution with a materialist lens, however, we would conclude that rich landowners in the American colonies did not want to pay taxes to the king anymore and so funded a rebellion. One interpretation looked at ideology, while the other interpretation looked at material reality.

I personally use a materialist lens when I study history. While ideologies are certainly interesting and important to study, I just don't think they're usually the root cause of anything. For me, ideals are ultimately interpretations of material reality, which makes them a side effect rather than a cause of human behavior. Of course, the truth is more complicated than that, but, for the most part, I lean towards a materialist view of history.

Liberalism vs Leftism

Liberalism uses an idealist lens of history while leftism uses a materialist lens.

Liberals focus on the different values and religions people have, and points to these ideologies, as explanations for major world events. They believe that history is ultimately altered by changes in people's ideologies.

Leftists, on the other hand, focus on the different resources, risks, and opportunities that people have, and point to these realities as explanations for major world events. They believe that history is ultimately altered by changes in people's material reality.

For example, a liberal would say that Europe colonized Africa out of an hatred for Africans, and the best way to end colonialism is to end European hatred of Africans. In their worldview, Africa was ultimately colonized because of an ideology

A leftist, on the other hand, would say that Europe colonized Africa for its resources. The hatred that Europeans feel for Africans is very much real, but it came after the desire to steal resources. In their worldview, Africa was ultimately colonized because of material reality.

Liberal feminism vs Radical feminism

Liberal feminists have an idealist view of sexism. They believe that sexism is a result of men's hatred for women and the only way to end sexism is to end men's hatred for women. In their worldview, women have been systemically oppressed globally as a result of an ideology.

Leftist feminism (often called "radical" feminism) uses a materialist view. Leftist feminism believes that while men's hatred for women is very much real, it came after the desire to control women's ability to reproduce, which creates the ultimate resource: human life. In their worldview, women are ultimately oppressed because of material reality.

My issue with liberalism, especially with liberal feminism, is that it's ultimately reliant on circular logic ("men are sexist because of sexism"). What I appreciate about leftist feminism is that it finally gives an answer to why women have been oppressed globally without relying on circular logic.

How this relates to Palestine

What my original post was trying to say is that radical feminists on tumblr, who tend to have a leftist/materialist approach to politics, were choosing to adopt a liberal/idealist approach to politics when it came to Palestine. This was very bizarre and ultimately disappointing to me.

The liberal/idealist approach to Palestine, and imperialism in general, is to (1) say that the dispute is over ideology/religion and (2) say that the solution is changing ideology/religion.

The leftist/materialist approach to Palestine, and imperialism in general, is to (1) say the dispute is over resources, and (2) say the solution is to increase the risk and minimize the opportunity to commit genocide over resources.

So for leftist/radical feminists to say "oh the solution is ~sisterhood~" (an ideology) was very bizarre and disappointing. I saw only two posts that made that statement, but they both had 100-500 notes, which irritated me.

But I want to make this clear -- it irritated me precisely because it is a liberal view of the genocide. It is precisely because of how much I like a leftist/radical view that I was disappointed when I spotted liberal analyses among otherwise leftist/radical feminists.

I also want to emphasize that radical feminism is not a cult, and so debate happens frequently, and no one, even big icons like Dworkin, are spared from debate. I feel comfortable criticizing Dworkin's framework (which I think is ultimately a good framework, just not one that works for genocide) and I do not see it as a sign that I need to abandon ship altogether. I don't think any ideology or religion has a perfect teacher, and I think it's actually very dangerous to think that one does.

I am very sorry for how long this got lol, but people have so many misconceptions about radical feminism that I felt it was necessary to provide actual definitions to avoid knee-jerk responses.

I've never had a major disagreement with radical feminist positions until a few days ago. The argument that war is solely between men and women are "the ball," as Dworkin explained, is not an analysis that applies to all wars, and certainly not to wars of occupation and genocide.

I've seen several radfems use this framework to say/imply that Israeli and Palestinian women should join together in sisterhood, and that the genocide is really just between the men. This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous analysis. And what does it even mean? What would "sisterhood" here even look like?

I need to read what other radical feminists have said about war, but it's such a strange analysis for an otherwise Leftist movement. Empty calls for sisterhood are usually something I see liberals do, so why are supposed Leftists making the same argument....and about a literal genocide.

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

This might upset people, but I don’t like the terms “TERF”/“SWERF.” The reason is that there is an implication in those terms that not all radical feminists are like that, and the radical feminist ideology could in theory be trans/sex worker inclusive. Which simply isn’t true. Radical feminism is inherently sex/gender essentialist and puritanical, and always relies on the carceral state and gender policing - which are just tools of the patriarchy. Most of the entire history of the feminist movement was only for white cis wealthy women, to the detriment of everyone else. We can’t rehabilitate it with a fresh coat of paint, sorry not sorry, get over it. All of you “trans inclusive radical feminists” are lying to yourselves, you either swapped transmisogyny for transandrophobia, one type of gender essentialism for another, or you are on your way to becoming open “TERFs.” You can’t abolish the oppressive gender binary while upholding it.

[genderkoolaid]

Hello! Non binary here. I'm trying to genuinely understand how saying bi lesbians are a thing are not harmful to the trans, lesbian and bi community. I saw some of the bi lesbians history and this label seems to be something they used to say to identify that they felt mostly attraction to women but could eventually like a man / people that liked men in the past but now go as lesbians. On the first example, Isn't it just bisexuality with a preference to women? and in the second, lesbians with comphet. I understand the need to use those labels in the past, but now it seems harmful to use bi lesbian because lesbians are not attracted men and bisexuals are not lesbians. I have also seen that the use of bi lesbian was a reactionary push to the TERF movement of excluding men from queer spaces as in a way to "purify" women

While someone in either of the groups you described might identify as a bi lesbian, that is certainly not the extent of bi lesbianism.

I think the problem emerges for many people because they are viewing the definitions of queer terms as objective descriptions we discovered. From this perspective, people used to use lesbian in a more expansive sense essentially because they didn't know any better. But I dislike that; our foreparents were not identifying how they did because they didn't know better, their constructions of gender and sexuality are just as valid. And it's important to understand why those definitions formed instead of going “well it's different now so stop it.”

I'm not sure if you are saying you've heard TERFs came up with the term bi lesbian. I wouldn't be surprised, since it's a fairly common rumor. But it's very wrong. To give a very general history, “bi lesbian” came about to describe people who identified with lesbianism– in the sense that they identified with being queer, having some personal relationship with womanhood and loved or desired women– who also were multisexual in some way. “Lesbian” emphasized your love/desire for women as an important part of your identity, and “bisexual” gave nuance to that, creating visibility for bi people within the community. The outrage against bi lesbians came from the same source as the hatred for trans lesbians (of all kinds): radical feminist beliefs in political lesbianism, the insistence that being a lesbian is a political choice to end all personal relationships with men & manhood.

The idea that “lesbians, universally, aren't attracted to men” largely comes out of this shift. You cannot separate the idea that “bi lesbians” don't/shouldn't exist and the legacy of transphobic radical feminism which encourage black-and-white thinking and hostility towards Bad Queers who dared to love or desire men, be men, dress like men, or fuck like men (anything from BDSM to using a strap-on). This divide is artificial and we do not need to just accept it. Bi lesbians are not the source of harm, the ideology that insists on their exclusion is. On top of this, in many physical queer communities bi lesbians & other people with complicated identities are very easily accepted; the idea that it's somehow impossible for these identities to be safely normalized is just queer conservatism.

There are many reasons someone might enjoy the bi lesbian label: personally, I'm multigender and using a single sexuality label doesn't accurately express my sexuality. A lot of times I see people who counter reasons for bi lesbian identity by saying “but that's just being a lesbian/bisexual!” which is another product of this black-and-white thinking. The idea that someone else with a similar experience using a different label than you– or someone with a different experience using the same label– is somehow a threat to your identity is very reminiscent of the way radical feminism relies on patriarchal ideas that everyone in a gender group must self-police that group to ensure homogeneity. Someone with a totally “normal” bisexual experience may still identify as a bi lesbian, or use both bisexual and lesbian in varying contexts, because they feel it accurately expresses their personal sexuality & relationship to queer communities.

There's famously an Alison Bechdel strip about a character being a bi lesbian, but I think my favorite piece of bi lesbian art is this poem by Dajenya. It's a very defiant and wholehearted response to anti-bi-lesbian sentiment and how it harms people within the community far more than bi lesbian identity does. this site is a collection of primary resources on bi lesbianism, including a few interviews from bi lesbians which might be helpful for you.

[xxmiryam]

(semi rant)

A radical feminist who claims to be trans inclusive told me amab lesbians are predatory to other lesbians.

Instead of checking her goddamn privilege she said she's a detransitioner who overcame dysphoria with therapy as if that doesn't make everything else she says even worse.

When will cis people learn that calling a group of us predatory is false and dangerous?

I'm so sick of radical feminists as a whole and their hopeless ideology. If you manage to be transphobic without calling yourself a terf maybe your system of thought is fucking broken. Not to mention how they are always white and they ignore the experiences of women of color. (and no this is not the first radfem i talk to)

If your feminism is not centered around intersectionalism in the year of our woke 2024 you shouldn't call yourself a feminist.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Palestinian liberation is a feminist issue. While this truism should need no elaboration, it has, as with so much that relates to Palestine, necessitated discussions, clarifications, analysis and documentation, again and again. Palestine rights activists have long been familiar with the all too common phenomenon known as PEP: Progressive Except for Palestine. Less known, but no less common in feminist circles is FEP, the Feminist Except for Palestine phenomenon. Books such as Evelyn Shakir’s 1997 Bint Arab recount incidents of FEP going back to the ’60s, with many Arab feminists being shunned by their American friends over their support for Palestinian liberation. FEP had one of its early expressions on a global stage at the 1985 United Nations World Conference on Women in Nairobi, Kenya, when Betty Friedan, an icon of second‑wave western feminism, with its slogan ‘the personal is political’, tried to censor the late Egyptian feminist Nawal el‑Saadawi as she was about to walk up to the stage to deliver her address. ‘Please do not bring up Palestine in your speech,’ Friedan told el‑Saadawi. ‘This is a women’s conference, not a political conference.’ Sadly, little has changed in global north feminism’s rejection of the very humanity of the Palestinian people, as evidenced in their continued exclusion from national and global discussions of women’s issues. White feminism has continued to align itself with orientalist imperialist militarism; Ms Magazine cheered the Bush Administration’s US war on Afghanistan in 2001, calling it a ‘coalition of hope’, and suggesting that invasion and occupation could, indeed would, liberate Afghan women. The white feminists in the Feminist Majority Foundation, which bought Ms Magazine in December 2001, never consulted with Afghan feminist organisations such as the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, who denounced both religious fundamentalism and western intervention in Afghanistan, and who opposed the US attacks on their country. More recently, hegemonic feminism’s desire to exempt Israel from criticism led to the fragmentation of the Women’s March, the coalition of women’s and feminist groups that came together to denounce the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the US. The co‑chair of the 2017 Women’s March was Brooklyn‑born Palestinian American Linda Sarsour, a grassroots organiser who had long championed Palestinian rights. When journalist Emily Shire asked in the New York Times ‘Does Feminism Have Room for Zionists?’, Sarsour responded with a resounding ‘No’. Many felt threatened by her outspokenness and visibility. Another Palestinian feminist, Mariam Barghouti, also asserted in a 2017 article that ‘No, You Can’t Be a Feminist and a Zionist’, and explained that: ‘When I hear anyone championing Zionism while also identifying as a feminist, my mind turns to images of night raids, to the torture of children and to the bulldozing of homes.’ In the wake of Israel’s latest war on Gaza, white feminists are denouncing the unsubstantiated accusations of sexual violence against Israeli women, without addressing the Israeli state’s amply documented gendered violence against Palestinian women, children, and men. ‘Feminism cannot be selective. Its framework comes from true and absolute liberation not just of women, but of all peoples,’ Barghouti continues, building on bell hooks’ analysis of feminism as a complete liberatory movement. ‘A feminist who is not also anti‑colonial, anti‑racist and in opposition to the various forms of injustice is selectively and oppressively serving the interests of a single segment of the global community.’ Simply, ‘feminism’ that aligns with regimes that engage in racial and ethnic oppression is gendered supremacy; no ideology that hinges on supremacy and discrimination is reconcilable with feminism.

[triviallytrue]

I do think there were a lot of feminist corners of the internet that were hostile to exist within (and likely still are) but I think it's unfair to uniquely attribute this to feminism - I think basically any space that is unified around a specific ideology will end up slow-boiling a ton of people who exist within and around it, whether it's feminism or antifeminism or communism or rationalism or anarchism or white nationalism or technocracy or resistance liberalism or fox news conservatism or militant Islam or Zionism or

[theboyonthehighcastle]

Take your votes, bitches!

[hadesoftheladies]

there's no such thing as a feminist without female solidarity, btw. hating men is not female solidarity. hating men so much you want to "not be a man" does not equal female solidarity from transwomen. being attracted to women does not equal female solidarity. hating trans ideology or trans people is not female solidarity.

female solidarity takes deliberate effort and isn't earned just by doing the opposite: hating men. it is meaningful support, intentional pursuit of the betterment of the situation of all women (all races, all classes, all orientations), especially the women in your life.

if a transwoman is out here protesting the sex trade, i have more solidarity with that person than with a womanchild online joking about how she doesn't pay male uber drivers. if a man in my life is invested in protecting his sisters from his father's domestic abuse, i have more solidarity with him than with women trying to sell makeup to preteens. if a white conservative woman is here voting to keep males out of female spaces for the sake of young girls' safety, i have more solidarity with her than with some feminist-identified woman screaming "sex work is work."

feminism is not supporting women just because WOMEN. feminism is certainly NOT supporting only women who look and think like you. if all it takes for you to become a raging misogynist is for a woman to disagree with you, you aren't a feminist. i don't care if you're a leftist or whatever. if you put how you feel about yourself or how you appear to others over women's safety, you aren't feminist. if you exalt your personal philosophy over the real lives of women on this planet, you aren't a feminist.

by joining with these guys, i am not betraying my feminist principles, because our goal is proactively making women's lives better. by hee-heeing with women over girls who are fat, i most certainly am being anti-feminist.

some self-proclaimed feminists on here need to stop making feminist praxis a middle-schooler squabble about what looks good and start thinking about what DOES good and for WHOM.

[crimsonender]

interested in seeing you discuss how people view intersectionality/ and or just hearing you talk about intersectionality as whole! I saw your Transandrophobia reblog so i wanted to listen to your opinions. A quote i saw people reposting occasionally was about how no amount of shared marginalization between a man and a woman will make men have empathy for women. sorry if this is like too vague to go off, but i saw that same quote a few times and i agree to some extent but i feel like trans men's involvement in these discussions tend to be overlooked. should probably mention my bias but i'm an indigenous transguy but i don't want to hold resentment over online discourse and just want to hear other people's thoughts.

"no amount of shared marginalization between a man and a woman will make men have empathy for women."

This is TERF shit. And if you've seen a trans person say it, it's a trans person trying to reframe TERF shit to fit a trans person. The idea that men are biologically predisposed to dominate and oppress women is the cornerstone of radfem ideology.

Moreover it really sounds like the kind of thing that only a white person could say.

I really recommend reading The Will to Change by Bell Hooks.

Bell Hooks is really good about talking about how while men are largely responsible for their role in the patriarchy, women are complicit in it as well, and both men and women are hurt by it, even if women are moreso. She frames it in a way that doesn't feel accusatory and is very compassionate towards men, but also acknowledges that from the time they are young boys that they are trained and conditioned to be emotionless and even that to be accepted as a man that they must be violent. The titular will to change is about being willing to be cooperative with women, and for women to accept that male pain is not at its core an accusation of the failure of women as a social class. If we can all learn to accept that in our hearts then we can truly find love in our intimate and personal lives but also we can fight for a better tomorrow.

To bring it down, and make it a tad more personal to me, I was. Not a boy. I didn't really feel the onset of dysphoria until I began to fill the social role of a woman, and began puberty. My dissonance with my gender began around nine or ten and I knew in my heart I was transgender when I was fourteen. I came out at nineteen. For the first half of my life, I lived and filled the social role of a girl. I then grew up and became a man. Not all trans people like to conceptualize their transness like this, but there is no right or wrong way to be transgender. This is what feels right to me. There is a distinct who I was before and who I was after. (Though I do prefer other people to refer to my younger self as male and with my chosen name. Not the place to talk about why though.)

My biggest allies have always been women. My sister, my best friend, and my Moms have been supportive of me from day one when I came out to them, and the gratitude I feel... it cannot be put to words. Whereas I don't talk to... Any of the men in my life I knew pre-transition. Not my brother, my father, any of my male friends, my two male cousins whomst I was close with growing up, I don't see outside of very occasional family occasions where everyone is there. My family is not particularly progressive outside of my Moms being lesbians. Feminism is not exactly something any of them care about across the gender spectrum. So this doesn't really surprise me. I also do occasionally run into empathy problems with the women in my life, but all of us have that titular will to change.

Taking it back to intersectionality, in many black feminist writings such as those by Hooks as well as the coiner of the term, Kimberlé Crenshaw, it very specifically talks about how you don't really stack identities into a list. As a hypothetical example, you wouldn't say:

I'm a person of colour

I'm a woman

I'm trans

I'm working class

I'm disabled.

These identities coexist and interact with each other in ways that are unique.

"I'm a disabled working class trans woman of colour."

This lines up with Crenshaw's idea of intersectionality. There are experiences that this person will have that no one other person with part of her identity will, even if you only changed one small part of it. But it's also important to realize there are common experiences that we do have, when sharing parts of our identity. Having empathy for one another and coming to the table with kindness and understanding in our hearts first and foremost is how we coexist and find that acceptance that all of us want.

I think at the end of the day that being a human being is messy and almost always painful. But I think the pain is worth it. I think the best thing we can do is show one another compassion and grace.

[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.