#biological foundations for sexism

[mtr-amg]

So I love that the uterine replicator is foundational to the Vorkosigan series and to her conception of the Vorkosiverse. Elizabeth Everett  58:40 And that she introduces it into that culture. Because it can finally give parity. I mean, the whole point of it is parity between females and males. People who get pregnant, they’re seen as less than. They have to be protected because they’re carrying children. Once you take pregnancy out of the equation, then what are you going to hang your misogyny on? What are you going to hang your sexism on? What are you going to hang your discrimination on? Alexandra Vasti  59:48 Absolutely. And separating out the sense of gender from the sense of biology. I think that is so powerful–to have the separation between this highly gendered view of women and then the biological aspect of gender. That is very satisfying to me, to see that separated out.

Transcript | My Word As Vorkosigan: Shards of Honor – Plot Trysts

[miniar]

For much of recent history there's been a search for the simple, easy, clean division between men and women.

From the earliest development of biology as a scientific field of study, the study of human biology has sought this simple and clean dividing line, because culturally, everyone knows men and women are distinct and different, it's the foundational justification for treating the two as different.

It's not inequality, it's just basic biology.

But the more that human biology is studied, the blurrier the line gets.

The biological differences between male and female in human beings do somewhat exist, there's a bimodal distribution of traits that does to some extent correspond to sex, but these traits are never truly distinct.

Every trait that is more common among men than women is still found among women and there is not trait that is universally found among men.

There are always people in between.

Nothing about us is truly distinct.

Not even in the appearance and structure of our genitals.

We can not be easily categorized and separated into two neat categories. There is no clean and simple dividing line.

The concept of clean, simple, and immutable division exists as a cultural myth. It's only purpose is to justify inequality.

Because if it's true, it's not inequality, it's not sexism, it's not misogyny, it's just basic biology.

[boreal-sea]

@vriskarights

Reply to this post:

https://www.tumblr.com/vriskarights/706085331968065536/why-do-tras-call-lesbians-who-dont-like-dick

For whatever reason, Tumblr isn't letting me reblog to add my answer to your questions. Before we get to the questions though:

"by definition, no lesbian likes dick."

First, we're going to immediately denounce your transphobia right from the get-go.

Lesbians can like dick. Dicks are not gendered. Dicks can be attached to women. Trans women with dicks exist. Cis women lesbians can like trans women lesbians with dicks.

Lesbianism is not about "not liking dicks" and that's a super weird way to define your sexuality.

Now, if you personally don't like dicks, even when they are attached to women, that's fine. You're allowed to have a no-dick preference. Just don't sit there and act like you get to define lesbianism for the rest of the planet, because you don't.

Moving on.

"Do you have any sources of radfems partnering with and benefitting fascist organizations?"

Yes, I do. It's not hard to find these sources. Radfems saying things like "At least ISIS knows what a woman is" are literally everywhere.

Here's a news article for you from The Washington Post, "Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) has become very friendly with conservatives of various kinds in recent years. They've been featured on Tucker Carlson's show and have presented at the Heritage Foundation, which is an organization that promotes conservative values. WoLF received money from another conservative Christian organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, to help promote an anti-transgender bill during the Obama administration.

That's a lot of damning evidence from just one source. Believe me, there are more. Bottom line: transphobic radfems eagerly align themselves with conservatives when it suits their needs.

"How is recognizing the relevance of biological sex to sexism and homophobia fascist? And how are we bioessentialist--what innate qualities do we assign to males and females?"

Recognizing that humans generally come in two sexes is not fascism. It becomes bigotry when you decide - against the evidence of science - that sex is binary and immutable. It's bigotry to say either sex has any inherent qualities. It's bigotry when you decide gender and sex are inherently linked and that trans people do not exist. Bigotry becomes fascism when you try to pass oppressive laws to enforce your bigoted beliefs, like anti trans laws.

Many radfems do assign inherent qualities to the sexes. Not all of them do it outright - it's much more of an unconscious bias. But almost all radfems are disgusted by males, masculinity, and manhood. Many radfems believe whether consciously or unconsciously that males are, at their core, bad.

Testosterone is usually listed as the thing that causes this badness. We'll get into how this affects their opinions on cis men and trans women, but I first want to prove this is bioessentialism by using trans men as an example. The radfem's fear, hatred and revulsion of trans men, and the way they talk about trans men, is all rooted in bioessentialism and associating maleness with disgust.

"Trans men who go in T become ugly, they're balding, greasy, covered in acne, fat, smell bad, and they're hairy" - all of those are innate qualities they associate with maleness and disgust. To radfems, body hair on a trans man isn't just hair, it's gross, even though they're feminists and they're supposed to support natural body hair.

The intense body shaming radfems express towards trans men betrays not only their own hypocrisy with regards to body positivity, but their bioessentialism as well. They would not be revolted by these traits if they did not associate them with maleness, and maleness with being bad and negative.

Almost all radfems I've seen have said something along the lines of "all men are bad". They don't ascribe this badness to socialization and often rarely even mention "male socialization" - no, they directly associate maleness with badness, as noted above.

Radfems are often not just afraid of males, they are disgusted by maleness, masculinity, and manhood. That's assigning a quality to the sexes: male = disgusting, female = good. That's bioessentialism.

Other innate qualities I have seen radfems assign to the sexes: males are always bigger and stronger than females, and females can never (or very rarely ever) overpower males. Therefore males are a risk to females, but females cannot be threatening or dangerous towards males. This is why radfems feel females need safe spaces but males do not. This is also why radfems rarely ever believe male rape victims of female rapists, and in some cases, do not believe males can be raped by a female at all.

That's all bioessentialism. And maybe you don't believe any of those things, but a lot of radfems do, and it informs their rhetoric. This is why radfems treat trans women like predators: not because of "male socialization", but because trans women were assigned male at birth, and that makes them tainted from the womb.

Cis men are completely capable of controlling themselves; they are not biologically predisposed towards cheating or rape or violence. That's all socialization's fault. But you'd never think that, listening to radfems.

Testosterone in someone's system does not make them good or bad, ugly or pretty. It does not make someone predisposed towards violence. It's just a hormone. If anything, listening to trans men describe their experiences and how T makes them feel proves that cis men who are actually awful cannot blame their behavior on their biology, as they desperately want to do.

Next!

"Believing that man is the word word adult human males and that woman is the word for adult human females (as the dictionary states) isn't bioessentialist as it ascribes no innate qualities (i.e. tough, nurturing, sporty, motherly) to the sexes."

The problem with the claim that male = man and female = woman is that it only works if language is immutable and never changes, and if trans people don't exist. I've already explained how radfems very much do assign qualities to the sexes. The belief that male = man and female = woman is bioessentialist because it erases the existence of binary trans people and nonbinary trans people, plain and simple. If you argue the only way to be a man is to be male, you are assigning a quality to both of those things.

"Recognizing trends brought on by socialization and observable in statistics != assigning innate qualities to males and females (i.e. acknowledging that the majority of violent crime is committed by men is not bioessentialist because it is a fact)."

It wouldn't be bioessentialist if radfems didn't follow it by saying that these statistics mean "ALL men are untrustworthy". The instant you say every man should be treated as potentially violent, it's bioessentialism, because you are now applying violence to maleness as an inherent quality.

"I have been called a fascist and a nazi for not liking dick,"

No you haven't.

"and for acknowledging that my female homosexuality (exclusive same sex attraction) is what makes me a lesbian."

This is why you have been called a fascist and a nazi, for reasons explained above. Not liking dick is perfectly fine; redefining lesbianism around your hatred of dicks is weird and also transphobic.

"As have many lesbians (hence why we’ve grown to be critical of the trans movement--it is homophobic and to our detriment, and why should we sacrifice ourselves when we’re already an oppression minority?)."

Cis lesbians as a whole have not become critical of the trans community. Transphobes like you are, thank the gods, a tiny minority. Most cis lesbians love their trans siblings, both trans women and trans men.

You are tiny, loud, annoying parasites leeching off feminists and lesbians. Like mosquitos.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

Royalism is one of the very few beliefs that I don’t understand at all. I can understand the thinking behind a lot of beliefs, even ones I disagree with, even ones I find reprehensible. Anti-abortion? They truly believe that clump of cells is alive and killing it is murder. Islamophobic? They believe Muslims are violent and/or misogynist and people need to be protected from that. Anti-immigration? They believe there are too few resources in the country, and the people who live there will have less if they have to share. Sexism? They believe the biological and/or social differences between men and women determine what kind of people they are, some of the things they determine are better than others, and people deserve to be treated accordingly. Homophobic? They really do believe that gay relationships are harmful to society. Religious? They’re looking for a way to understand and find comfort in the existential void that plagues us all, who can begrudge them that? People who believe there should be no taxes truly believe that this would incentivize people to work harder and create more jobs and then society would prosper. People who want to get rid of regulations in various industries believe that the money saved from not having health and safety standards would translate to more jobs, better pay, and a better life for employees. I think those people are wrong, and I think people who believe many other things are wrong, but if I try, I can see why someone would think that way.

I don’t get being a royalist, though. There’s no way of looking at the monarchy where it makes sense to believe people are better off on a practical level because they exist. So veneration of the monarchy is about something intangible, like a religion. At least believing in an actual religion means putting faith into something unseen, that could be special and supernatural and unfathomable. But I don’t get walking around in 2023 and putting that kind of religious-type faith into people who are demonstrably just humans.

Obviously the foundational beliefs underpinning royalism are similar to the ones underpinning religious devotion; the whole monarchy is based on the divine right of kings. Most royalists in 2023 would not use the phrase “divine right of kings” to explain their beliefs, but that’s still what it is, it has to be. If you believe the royal family has any right to rule, you have to believe their right comes from that particular bloodline having some natural superiority over everyone else’s. Which is, you know, horrifying for a large number or reasons and the foundational belief that’s caused some of the worst things in history. But if you don’t believe in that bloodline’s inherent superiority, you can’t believe that anyone should get special privileges just for being born into it.

And I know some people do genuinely and unapologetically believe that some bloodlines are inherently superior to others. In 2023, you will find some people who openly declare themselves in favour of the concept of the divine right of kings. You can find some people who will believe in any ideology, no matter how obscure or archaic. Some people in 2023 still worship Odin.

What I don’t understand are all the basically “regular” people, who would not say they’re in favour of fringe belief systems, who still think the royal family are pretty cool. So maybe I do understand royalism as a concept, I just don’t understand how it can be mainstream. How people who would not claim to subscribe to the concept of certain bloodlines being superior, who do not hold devoutly religious beliefs that could justify the ideology, are still fine with putting one family in charge just because they’re related to some people who committed atrocities in the distant and relatively recent past. I don’t understand otherwise rational people who still held unironic coronation parties this weekend (I would argue that even sort of vaguely ironic coronation parties are not great, because seeing the monarchy as an amusing curiosity misses the Disney villain-style horror of basically worshipping eugenics and wealth disparity, but people can do what they like). There’s so much cognitive dissonance going on, like that one belief can be disconnected from the rest of someone’s belief system.

I can understand wanting to keep the monarchy for pragmatic reasons. Every once in a while, the debate comes back up in CBC news about how Canada is still in the Commonwealth, and the Queen of England – now King of England, I guess – is still officially our Head of State. Sometimes something will happen in our federal politics that, due to a weird technicality, requires the queen (now king) to be informed, and that’s just vaguely embarrassing. This is always followed by discussions in the news about how that might be fucking stupid and maybe we should change it.

They’re always polling the public to see if they believe Canada should still be nominally ruled by the British monarchy, to which my personal answer is that I don’t even think Britain should be ruled by the British monarchy, so Canada definitely shouldn’t. However, the monarchy’s role in Canadian politics is almost entirely theoretical and ceremonial, and getting rid of it would require fundamental changes to our constitution, which would be a lengthy and expensive process. It would cost a lot of taxpayer money for relatively little practical impact, and I understand the view that it’s not worth doing that when our government’s resources and efforts are better concentrated elsewhere.

There are so many logistical issues with getting the monarchy out of Canada, and of course it would be much, much more difficult and complicated to scrap it in Britain (though that would solve our problem, because if Britain did the work of abolishing the monarchy altogether, then Canada wouldn’t be stuck with it anymore either). I understand people who don’t think it’s worth going through that process, so we may as well keep it.

But I don’t understand people who actively think the monarchy is a good thing, who have a positive emotional attachment to it. People who see it half as a religion and half as a soap opera. If you want that so much, you can just go watch an actual soap opera, that doesn’t drain taxpayer resources or suspend any protesters’ right to free speech. Or for that matter, be honest about the magical thinking involved in this and join an actual religion.

I feel like belief in the monarchy should be a weird fringe thing, like every once in a while you’d come across someone with this archaic view and say “Wow, it takes all sorts.” It just doesn’t seem ideal for believing in one bloodline’s inherent superiority to be an acceptable mainstream view, to the point where we need a special term like “republican” to describe people who disagree.

Anyway, I have to admit I did make a rare-ish visit to Twitter today, to see entertaining people talk shit about the soap opera/religion, so here, have some Bugle Tweets from this weekend:

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Monica Harris

Published: May 21, 2023

Recently, I was reminded of just how easy it is to be silenced in America now.

Two few weeks ago I published an article on Medium (linked here on my blog) about the impact of transgender inclusion on the rights of women and lesbians. I felt it was a timely and topical subject, and as a gay woman of color I obviously have a vested interest in this issue.

So, you can imagine my shock when, less than 24 hours after the article appeared, Medium’s Trust & Safety team removed it for violating community rules. I was further warned that repeated violations would lead to possible suspension of my account. My crime? Posting “hateful content.” (before continuing, I would encourage you to read the article yourself).

For perspective, I have more than 1,000 followers on Medium and have published nearly 70 articles on this platform. I’m a Harvard educated lawyer and am on the Board of Advisors of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. I’m also a published author and a TEDx speaker. In fact, much of my writing focuses on bringing people together around our shared values and interests. In my entire career, I’ve never been accused of using hate speech or advocating hateful positions. Yet now I was being silenced for expressing my legitimate concerns about an issue that affects me and others in my community.

This incident is laced with many ironies, not the least of which is that I’ve spent much of my life feeling invisible and not having a voice. Growing up black and gay in the 70s and 80s was an alienating and often heartbreaking experience. Thankfully, as America has been forced to reckon with its insidious legacy of racism, sexism, and homophobia, the landscape has changed. Barriers have crumbled and hearts and minds have opened. I now enjoy a thriving legal career in the entertainment industry. I have a white partner and a biracial son. We happily live our alternative lifestyle in a red state that is overwhelmingly white and Christian. The past two decades have empowered me and helped me find my voice.

But now I fear that I’m in danger of losing my voice again. I worry that I and millions of other women are becoming invisible — not at the hands of right-wing extremists, but by people who promote tolerance, inclusion, and equity.

Medium’s content curators purportedly removed my article because it “disempower[ed]” and excluded others based on “protected characteristics,” i.e. biological men who identify as women. Yet they had no qualms about disempowering and excluding me — a member of not one, but three “protected” groups — from their online community.

Further, I was silenced for expressing my belief that inclusion of biological men in women’s sports and prisons, and other historically protected spaces potentially undermines the rights and safety of biological women and lesbians. Yet the act of deplatforming my article was, itself, proof of the marginalization I lamented in my article.

When I shared the incident with a left-leaning friend, she cautioned that conservatives, Nazis and right-wing extremists have created a dangerous environment for transgender Americans. While this is undoubtedly true of some fringe elements on the Right, I’m neither a Nazi nor an extremist. Why should my legitimate concerns be conflated with fringe elements with whom I have nothing in common? If an article that raises thoughtful questions and concerns on behalf of other protected groups can be characterized as “hateful content,” then what is the threshold for hate?

You don’t have to be gay, female, or a person of color to appreciate the danger this poses to all Americans. If the boundaries of prohibited speech keep growing, then we can effectively be silenced by anyone who disagrees with us or is offended by our opinions. All they have to do is call us “hateful.” But if we live in constant fear of offending others, then how long will it be before we’re too afraid to say anything?

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. While designed to protect us from censorship by our government, it’s indelibly woven into the fabric of American society. The free and open marketplace of ideas is what makes our country unique. It’s enabled groundbreaking innovation and thought and empowered historically disenfranchised groups.

Given my unique background and experience, freedom of speech holds a special place in my heart. After all, where would I be today if voices that made others uncomfortable had been muffled? Moreover, what will the future hold for all Americans if we continue on this path? Without unfettered freedom of speech, attempts to foster inclusion become illusory and performative.

Protecting this sacred right is neither easy nor painless; it demands our constant effort, vigilance, and above all, our selflessness. What we safeguard for ourselves we must also be willing to safeguard for others, even those with whom we vehemently disagree.

Unfortunately, Medium and a growing number of platforms and legacy media outlets aren’t willing to do the hard work. They’ve decided that freedom of speech should be sacrificed if it makes others uncomfortable — even if the people expressing themselves have lived in discomfort most of their lives, and in many cases still do. They’ve elected to trade one of our most fundamental rights for tolerance that’s often selective.

These well-intentioned guardians of “safety” fail to see that true tolerance must be expressed not just by our words, but also by our deeds. The noble goals of inclusion and equity become meaningless if we arbitrarily sacrifice these principles when it suits us or those with preferred agendas. Selective tolerance isn’t progressive; it’s regressive.

True tolerance also requires that we be on the same page about the rules of free speech. We’re entering an era of increasing social conflict, but we can’t navigate this challenging landscape and resolve our differences if the boundaries of free speech keep shifting, often without warning.

For now, I write with a giant question mark over my head. Will I be branded a TERF on Medium if I continue to advocate for the rights of women and lesbians? Will I unwittingly offend others with the subject matter of my next article? Will it be “the one” that terminates my account?

The only thing I know for certain is that this is no way for anyone to live in a free society. If we can spend billions of dollars to fight for the freedom of people in a country 5,000 miles away, surely we can find the courage to defend this precious right at home. Let’s spend less time talking about inclusion and more time practicing it.

==

No one is immune to the ministrations of the puritans.

[rollercoasterwords]

hi rae!!

i just wanted to say that i fully agree with you about the whole divine feminine, female gaze etc. gender thing! but i'm also a little bit confused about the female rage specifically so i was just wondering if you could elaborate on that?

bc i've always thought that female rage had nothing to do with something biological or your gender or whatever but rather that people who are viewed as women/socialised as women and are treated as such by society will have the shared experience of being vicims of sexism/marginalised bc they're being seen as women and that female rage was when they reach a point where they just snap and try to fight back/get revenge on society and/or men for the things they've been put through?

but maybe i'm wrong so i just thought i'd ask your opinion/how you view it bc maybe i've just been looking at it the wrong way this whole time!

yeah i'm happy 2 elaborate! (this got incredibly long lol but bear with me)

i think this perception ur describing of "female rage" as like. a pushback against misogyny is something that a lot of people seem to have, although of course there's not a set definition and the term is more a set of loose affective + aesthetic associations--meaning that even amongst people using the term, there's variation in how they would actually define it if prompted to do so. but generally speaking nobody is actually being prompted to sit down and define the term, so it remains rooted only in that loose web of associations, and because of that i find that it functions less as a genuinely helpful like...theoretical or descriptive tool and more as a means by which "female" becomes mysticized as a nebulous, prediscursive essence which fundamentally alters the nature of "rage" to make it #feminist.

and like. once you do sit down and start trying to define the term, you begin running into issues pretty quickly. like--not trying to call u, specifically, out or anything, but i'm gonna run through your definition + break it down + put pressure on it to try and illustrate why i think this term is at best unhelpful and at worst harmful in its reification of gender essentialism

so like. right off the bat, you say "people who are viewed as women/socialised as women," and not only are those two different categories, but each of them are so broad that even alone they would require more refining if we're trying to reach a point where "female rage" is at all grounded in some material experience. "people who are viewed as women" could include people of any gender identity, including those who aren't women. if the shared experience there is "viewed as a woman," why is "female" the category under which we're placing that experience? additionally--when we say "viewed as women," what exactly are we talking about? viewed as women by who? in what context? for how long?

"socialised as women" is an equally nebulous category that, again, is not going to overlap exactly with "female." additionally, things like "female socialization" or "being socialized as a women" are not monolithic experiences. factors like race, class, nationality, etc are all going to change the ways in which women are socialised. so--socialised by who? in what context? in what ways?

just from asking a few questions, it becomes pretty clear that trying to define who is or isn't included in the category of "female" in this context is virtually impossible without retreating into essentializing assumptions that there is some specific quality/essence that an entire group of people share simply by virtue of being "female." and the category of "female" in and of itself is rooted in biological essentialism, which raises red flags for me when it's used as a foundation for thinking about gender because it tends to obscure the fact that the "biological" categories of male and female are their own social constructions tied explicitly to the construction of gender.

so what we end up with is a poorly defined, nebulous category to begin with--essentially various definitions and ideas of what constitutes "female," connected only by its dependence on an appeal to some mythical, prediscursive "female" essence.

from there, we expect that this category of people who posses the mythical essence of "female" will all have "the shared experience of being vicims of sexism/marginalised bc they're being seen as women." notice, again, your defintional slippage here--"being seen as women" is not necessarily the same thing as being "socialized" as a woman, which you included as part of your definition earlier--so are they victims of sexism because they're seen as women? or because they're socialized as women? or some other reason? or a combination of reasons? how are they victimized? by whom? in what contexts? and, of course, we return to our earlier questions: seen as women by who? in what contexts? to what end? keep in mind that thus far, none of these categories have been limited strictly to people who u might call "women."

aside from that, the idea that all people who possess the mythical essence of "female" share the same experiences of marginalization is...again, incredibly broad. while it's not necessarily untrue to say "all women experience misogyny," it's in no way a comprehensive or particularly salient starting ground from which to build a critique. because the category of women is so broad, so fluid, and so contextually specific, women are all going to have vastly different experiences with misogyny + how it manifests in their lives. when we assume that there is a single shared experience that can be encapsulated under the nexus of "being victims of sexism," what usually ends up happening is not some grand accounting for the variation in all these experiences, but rather a privileging of certain types of experiences over others--an assumption of some "standard" experience of misogyny. unsurprisingly, that assumed standard tends to be white.

and this privileging of white women in "female rage" narratives is pretty obvious; basically every like...video i've seen with examples of "female rage" is just pretty white women screaming. and it really begs the question of what, exactly, we're supposed to be celebrating when we celebrate "female rage." whose rage gets to be romanticized as not just anger or aggression or "karenism," but "female rage"? what qualities must a woman possess for her rage to take on this romanticized quality--furthermore, for her rage not to be assumed as simply a personal expression of anger, but a stand-in for the rage of all women, an outcry against misogynistic oppression, even? and again, what makes this rage specifically female? why is it not just rage? against whom must the rage be directed, and in what ways must the rage be directed, for it to be afforded this mysticized feminine quality? do we even agree on the parameters here, with no concrete category from which to build?

so, at the end of the day, for all that it's praised as an expression of like...feminist consciousness or whatever, what i actually see "female rage" doing, in practice, is twofold:

1. mysticizing "female" as a prediscursive essence in ways that reinforce bioessentialism + gender essentialism

2. elevating a certain type of affective expression amongst a somewhat small, privileged category of people + claiming that it represents a fundamental experience shared by all women

and that's why i find it so frustrating to see it praised as feminist!

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Kimberelé Crenshaw literally disagrees with you.

“Intersectionality is an analytic sensibility, a way of thinking about identity and its relationship to power. Originally articulated on behalf of black women, the term brought to light the invisibility of many constituents within groups that claim them as members, but often fail to represent them.  Intersectional erasures are not exclusive to black women. People of color within LGBTQ movements; girls of color in the fight against the school-to-prison pipeline; women within immigration movements; trans women within feminist movements; and people with disabilities fighting police abuse — all face vulnerabilities that reflect the intersections of racism, sexism, class oppression, transphobia, able-ism and more. Intersectionality has given many advocates a way to frame their circumstances and to fight for their visibility and inclusion.” -Kimberlé Crenshaw

Transphobia 🎶 🎵

Feminism is a movement to uplift and empower and liberate women, That includes trans women. It's not a costume. They're quite literally women. They go about life being women, treated like women, experiencing the same oppressive forces of sexualization and fetishization and a lack of bodily autonomy and the demonization of femininity and womanhood and assault and harassment as most cis women. In fact, trans women are at a higher risk of violence, harassment, and assault than cis women. They understand the nuances perfectly well, you've just never spoken to a real life trans woman before. The only trans woman that exists is the caricature in your mind.

Never mind that trans women are literally out there fighting for bodily autonomy and the right to love and the dismantling patriarchy's tendency to arbitrarily gender things and assign them to a specific sex and writing about and speaking about how to empower and liberate women and championing legislation and movements for exactly this. You just refuse to listen to them because you hate that their existence makes you anxious; makes you question the foundations of your ideology and the social structure upon which you were raised.

You can say you're a communist all you want dear, the only allies you have and people who agree with you are Christo-fascists and religious fundamentalists. Those are who are championing your ideology. Those are the people Radical Feminists have gone and allied with.

You're literally already aligned with fascists.

(Also, for a supposed communist, you really do not understand the meaning of class.)

I think you like to think you're on the "left" because it allows you to feel more comfortable about your hate. Admitting that you are not working with any actual communists would means admitting you are not working on the side of history that will be remembered fondly.

It's likely a sunk-cost fallacy for you. You have gone so far down this road that you feel there is no incentive to turn back. You dedicated all this time to hate, so you feel the need to make that time worthy by convincing yourself you're fighting for women and against the patriarchy. The cost of admitting that you're surrounded on all sides by snakes in your mind is much greater than hate you can continue to spew if you continue ahead.

Meanwhile, Incels are lauding your efforts. They need you. They cannot destroy feminism without women and they have found the perfect wedge to drive you from it and inspire you to take a sledge hammer to a liberation movement. They cannot get feminism to fail without people like you.

You aren't "turn[ing] in[]to a fascist," you already are working with them, already uplifting them, already campaigning for them.

As for your insistence upon "definitions":

[M]ale dominant society has long striven to define "woman" as a discrete biological category: female, with the purpose of stripping certain people of personhood can really challenge so much of the pro-gender/sex binary bull we are all fed from childhood.

We can no longer ignore how biology, biological discourse, and the terms and words we use to refer to our material reality are structured by historic and current social and political views. A biological reality becomes cognitively significant through this discourse and these terms we use and concepts we engage with. So, defining 'women' as 'females' -- and thus emphasizing a label that is ascribed to all at birth along patriarchal standards of 'correct' genitalia and 'best' fertility -- is itself a political choice influenced by one’s socialization rather than one that can claim to neutrally reflect what the world is 'really' and 'materially' like.

The fact society already defines 'women' as ova producers and child bearers (i.e. the very definition of human female; the sex that has the ability or potential to bear offspring or produce eggs) or even as vagina havers and uterus havers (i.e. the insistence that, 'only someone with a uterus or vagina is a woman') is a result of socialization in a male dominant society that has striven to define 'woman' as a discrete biological class, female.

Even radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon (an actual radical feminist, and she supports trans women) understood that to be defined as female is to be an object. You do not get to consent to yourself; to your femaleness. It has been defined and ascribed to you and for you. Because male dominant society must see to it that female is a woman and "clearly" a woman, opposite that of "man." It must see to it that women are women and men are men and that the two ought be separate because this allows said society to prescribe certain bounds to each group.

Certain bounds of behavior. Certain bounds of public life. Certain bounds of private life. Certain bounds of presentation.

And this all helps foster the reification of gendered associations that decrease the perception of women as empowered agents and even human. These bounds of behavior assign to men the role of Aggressor and to women the role of passive Recipient, helping to reproduce sexual violence against women by decreasing their agency. These social prescriptions encourage men to act on behalf of women from making financial or relationship decisions, to deciding when and where and how a woman has sex, to the definition and social prescription of 'female,' and to the reproductive alienation of those assigned female.

Thus, 'female' is far from a neutral scientific observation and 'woman' is far from a scientific category. It was defined by the patriarchy and the white supremacist power structure and it was designed to strip certain people of their agency and humanity. It is a classification that popped up during the period of post-enlightenment rationality as the European colonial system controlled the world. Enlightenment rationality brought to Europeans a renewed fascination with analyzing and categorizing the world, most especially its people. The enlightenment fascination with categorization was the justification for the colonization of and dominance over non-white, non-European people.

But from the enlightenment also emerged the idea that a 'natural law' governed all people; that we were subject to a natural hierarchy; that there were some individuals more human than others. The modern definitions of "male" and "female" evolved alongside our creation of the definitions for "black" and "white" and alongside our definitions of and prescriptions of personhood.

'In the United States, the man known as the father of gynecology, J. Marion Sims, built the field in the antebellum South, operating on enslaved women in his backyard, often without anesthesia—or, of course, consent. As C. Riley Snorton has recently documented, the distinction between biological females and women as a social category, far from a neutral scientific observation, developed precisely in order for the captive black woman to be recognized as female—making Sims’s research applicable to his women patients in polite white society—without being granted the status of social and legal personhood. Sex was produced, in other words, precisely at the juncture where gender was denied. In this sense, a female has always been less than a person.'

The insistence upon one standard definition for the female-experience, is laughable, at best. And not just because definitions are inherently imprecise and inadequately encompass the entirety of our lived experienced and the material world. But also because the definitions of words are literally socially constructed. They were created and have since been defined and influenced by oppressive structures like the patriarchy and white supremacy and colonialism. This defining of human experiences is influenced by cissexism, intersexism, heterosexism, and sexism.

There isn't a single property that makes 'femaleness.' And that's pretty widely accepted. There's no single thing that single-handedly makes for 'womanhood' or 'female.' It's not like after a certain number or configuration of properties converging at a particular time, you get 'female.' There should never be some one standard against which all bodies are compared or measured for the correct amount of 'femaleness.'

So, when people want to create a standard measure for 'femaleness,' we need to ask WHO gets to set these standards or properties of 'femaleness' and WHY they're the authority. In any claim about which measures or properties are adequately 'female-enough' are assumptions about power and authority. Who has the power and authority in our society to decide who is 'female-enough?'" X

First, "Transgenderism" does not exist. Trans people exist. But there is no trans ideology. It's just trans people living and letting live.

Second, intersectional feminism- which you're actually critiquing as it is the one ideology or paradigm which consistently advocates for trans inclusion and liberation of *all* women- is notoriously not a white movement. It was literally coined by a black woman and seeks to decolonize sex relations.

The issue with modern feminism you have is simply it's inclusion of trans women. Because you cannot stand their existence, that much is clear. You clearly find them disgusting and reprehensible and abominations of the gender binary.

Well, that's... wildly incorrect. Although, black and brown trans people do face more violence than white trans people. Most trans people and all intersectional feminists agree with that.

And what sort of wild conspiracy are you spewing here? You know the majority of trans people work low wage jobs, right? They're not working in the Tech industry. They face staggering rates of poverty.

I do believe trans women are women. They are completely and totally women. I accept them in my feminism because I am an intersectional feminist and I understand the intersection of sex and cisgendered status and how they play off each other.

I treat no one with misogyny. Because I have a deep understanding of the benevolent sexism they brain wash people into accepting, something which you have yet to address in yourself. Unlike you, I also do not demonize or shit on anything people associate with women. There is no such thing as "inferior" or "superior."

I also understand that the patriarchy has a stake in maintaining gender differentiation and the gender-sex binary.

A trans woman made you your coffee the other day. She handed it to you. You are none the wiser that her trans hand touched that same coup you drank out of. A trans woman packaged your latest Amazon shipment. She's not allowed to use the bathroom; has to use bottles to pee in. A trans woman answered the phone when you called customer service, and you were none the wiser. A trans woman sorted and packaged the food you eat-- from those chips you enjoy to that drink you really like to the cereal you eat, and the tea you buy.

She helped make the chips for the computer or smart phone you're using to harass me and hate her.

Me: "Many of those pussy hats and pins and t-shirts with catchy slogans you all love are made in sweatshops. The women making them make cents on the dollar and get raped by the foreman, daily. Because the patriarchy is trying to sell you your empowerment; convince you that buying from these billionaires is "liberating" because the billionaires happen to be women."

You: "This is oppression!"

Die mad about how you're supporting sweatshops in the global south every time you buy one of those shirts.

[leiajoydesign]

Thursday 29th February 2024 - Research

Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism advocates for equal rights, emphasising political equality, access to the labor market, and equal treatment in marriage, education, and work. It emerged during the French Revolution, with figures like Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft. It is a reformist movement, believing in the system's capacity to reform rather than questioning its foundations. Liberal feminism is individualistic, focusing on equal rights for men and women.

The first wave of feminism in the early 20th century, centered on suffrage, is associated with liberal feminism. The movement gained momentum in the 1960s with the second wave, addressing issues like equal pay and challenging traditional gender roles. Liberal feminists coined the term 'sexism,' attributing discrimination to societal practices and biological determinism.

While legal equality has been achieved in some Western countries, liberal feminism persists due to the gap between legal and practical equality. The movement remains relevant, advocating for true and effective gender equality in various aspects of life.

[she-is-ovarit]

I will have to try to limit each category to four points so my post will publish.

Biological Reality:

Much like how Creationists argue against the foundational concept of evolution, gender ideology and the trans activists who believe in it scientifically deny primary knowledge that has existed as groundwork research for the last 20 years pertaining to sex determinism of the SRY gene in mammals (especially humans), and not understanding how disorders of sexual development work and are actually dependent upon what sex an individual is in their development. This is not just a destruction of biological reality, but also goes hand-in-hand with the destruction of gay rights, children's rights, and women's rights.

Gender evangelists who are trans activists encourage others around them to both perceive and utilize "pronouns" and other descriptive sex-based language pertaining to a metaphysical or subjective "feeling" of a masculine or feminine essence (or, neither) in referring to themselves and others. This also creates a system of linguistic imperialism and female erasure. For the last few hundred centuries prior to modern date, pronouns have been used in language to observe or identify an individual's sex.

Gender evangelists who are trans activists deny that there are any differences between "transwomen" and women, and such as the case was with Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, attempt to "cancel" or socially, economically, and legally punish any women who claim there are these differences.

A subset of gender evangelists within trans activism who are male and identify as a woman push scientific disinformation that HRT provided to males for the intent on increasing their estrogen levels to "transition" gives them a menstrual cycle. The side-effects of HRT for trans-identifying males is not a period. Many also claim they experience PCOS or endometriosis when they are directly lacking the organs needed to have these conditions.

Trans activists place pressure on researchers to obfuscate scientific data by lumping trans-identifying people in with men and women who don't consider themselves as trans throughout different studies, in addition to attempting to lobby for things like being able to legally change sex on birth certificates or in crime statistics which makes scientific data collection and analysis inaccurate. This goes on to seriously impede women's rights and lesbian rights, too, as one of the unique hallmarks of the oppression of women is the vast majority of scientific research either focuses on men or lumps us in with them without considering sex a variable.

Women's Rights

The foundation of women's rights recognizes that males oppress female human beings on the axis of sex, creating a hierarchical system of complex social power dynamics, termed "gender oppression". This is not simply a posited idea, but a demonstrated pattern across several disciplines of research globally for several decades, including economics, psychology, sociology, biology, law, etc. Gender evangelists who are trans activists argue that instead there exists a "cist/trans" gender oppression on the axis of a subjective "gender identity". Thereby, female human beings who are "cis" are suddenly argued to be oppressors to trans-identifying males, creating a situation in which these trans-identifying male people who believe in gender ideology can suddenly cry reverse sexism. The "cis/trans" axis of "gender oppression" based on gender identity not only directly contradicts, but seeks to replace women's rights through denying the foundational understanding of sex-based oppression.

Gender evangelists who are trans activists lobby for sex-based spaces, resources, and organizations - such as sports teams, scholarships, women's orgs, dressing rooms, etc. - to "include" them as opposed to the creation of third spaces and categories. It is, at it's core, an anti-boundaries and anti women's rights movement. Women's organizations, dressing rooms, sports teams, scholarships, rape and domestic violence shelters, etc. were all things that women within the women's rights movements fought and are still fighting to establish and protect due to both sexism and sexual violence. There are so many examples of male violence and trans-identifying males going out of their way to violate sex-based organizations and spaces and committing violent crimes that it would be impossible to link them all, so you are welcome to peruse Ovarit's o/NametheProblem, o/SaveWomensSports, and o/GenderCritical circles without needing to make an account.

Gender ideologists who are trans activists and are claiming that "woman" is a social role are pushing a belief dependent upon sexist stereotypes, and not only is connected to the denial of biological reality but also further upholds patriarchy and sex-based oppression. Furthermore, a woman is not a "feeling".

Sexism and sex-based oppression even exists within the trans movement. Trans-identifying female people make headlines for being the first "men to chestfeed" while trans-identifying males make the headlines for entering in women's sports as a retirement plan and beating the shit out of female athletes. Trans-identifying males and ally activists regularly shut down trans-identifying female people for having "masc privilege". The vast majority of trans-identifying males keep their penis or don't even go on hormones, while more trans-identifying female people obtain double masectomies and are referred to gender identity clinics as minors. Mainstream trans-activism doesn't center trans-identifying female human beings just as it exiles and villainizes detrans individuals.

Women who disagree with you—JK Rowling, Chimimanda Adichi, Maya Forrester, any woman online or in person, etc.—are absolutely witch hunted and "terf-camped" while trans activists barely bat an eyelash at the men who speak out about gender ideology such as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, etc. Moreover, I'm wondering exactly how many of you can even recite the names of the men who murder the ~30 trans-identifying people a year.

Child Safety

Do you really, really believe that children can consent to permanent and risky modification and removal of their sexual body parts when they are acknowledged to not be able to consent to sex, drinking, and other medical decisions? (click that link). Children are an oppressed and vulnerable group because they are still neurologically developing. There are no longitudinal studies on the effects of puberty blockers, HrT, and SrS procedures on kids. However, there currently is becoming a huge wave of "transitioned" children detransitioning and suing all of these doctors for medical malpractice. The link I provided is just a few. r/detrans on reddit has currently 54,000 subscribers to provide you with an idea, and here are pages of other articles.

Jazz Jenning's absolutely torturous form of sexual and medical abuse in which he was forced into "transitioning" because he adored his sister and picked up the wrong toys in his mother's eyes has even been filmed and televised as entertainment. Jazz's mother described on TV that if Jazz didn't continue to dilate when he left home for college, that she would dilate him herself. He also to this day struggles with intimacy and sexuality, making comments about "how effed up my vagina is" and even described to lack any sexual functioning at all by doctors due to the effects of the abuse and medical malpractice he has endured.

Even beyond this, trans-activists who are believers in gender ideology very frequently groom kids, creating child-like comics such as "Assigned Male", the "Genderbread person", "Gender Unicorn", and so on. There are many involved in "otherkin" or furry communities drawing a crossover of child-like cartoons in pornographic formats. For such a presumably small percentage of the population, there are many trans-identifying leaders within trans activism and every day individuals who are pedophiles.

Gay Rights

Arguing that sexual orientation is based on "gender identity" and "preferred pronouns" as opposed to sex, and calling homosexual people "genital fetishists" (much like how Christians label us as sexually deviant) for refusing to date trans-identifying people, is homophobia. I'm not even sure if I need to link examples as there are reciept blogs on radblr full of examples.

Gender ideologists are vehemently engaging in historical revisionism and falsely claiming that trans-identifying males are responsible for the liberation of gay people and gay pride. Fred Sargent, one of the four original founders of gay pride and Stonewall veteran, continues to argue against this erasure of gay history today.

Modern transgender "gender affirming care" is rooted in the Nazi medical sterilization of gay people. And just FYI, the modern idea pushed by gender ideology that trans people are "born in the wrong bodies" originally was spread by early conservative doctors in the 1960s onto who were originally overwhelmingly homosexual men, as they felt this was the only way this pool of patients could "live fulfilling heterosexual lives".

Trans-identifying, gender ideology-believing activists force-team themselves to the LGB movement when our goals, rights, protections, and axis of oppression is also sex based and has nothing to do with you or gender identity. Currently in Iran and I believe very recently elsewhere (Japan? I can't recall), it's legal to "gender transition" but a crime to marry the same sex. Gay people are being pressured to transition in order to secure protections to be in same-sex relationships.

The vast majority of gender dysphoric children have been demonstrated in scientific research to grow up as perfectly healthy, gay and lesbian adults. Gender ideology believing trans activists instead put pressure on gender dysphoric homosexual people into "considering whether you're trans" and "joking" about their friends who don't align with sex-based norms and roles as being "eggs".

Some trans activists have even taken the time to become mass shooters at gay clubs (such as the club Q Colorado shooter) and have murdered a lesbian couples and their son.

Common Sense

If I identify as a chicken nugget, does that make me a chicken nugget?

What about if I were to identify as a "biotranswoman"? Would that make me a transwoman? Biological women who haven't transitioned, don't experience gender dysphoria or euphoria, have XX chromosomes, and use she/her pronouns are transwomen too, after all. We should be centered in transwomen's rights, spaces, transactivism, and organizations. Our identity is being overshadowed and oppressed by transwomen. We are a subtype of transwomen who have no representation in media, politics, or human rights.

I really can go on, but to be frank, this post has taken long enough to write. There are thousands of women on Tumblr (including myself, sort of) who have crafted entire blogs, master posts, and elaborate tagging systems to answer your question; in addition to websites (such as kindrad.org, womenarehuman.com, Ovarit, etc.), detrans leaders such as Exulansic, and gay liberation groups (LGB Alliance).

"How exactly are we destroying these things?" Let us count the ways.

[environmentalethics4409]

Animals Rights and Factory Farming 

Humans consume tons of animal products daily, with Americans alone having access to 224 pounds per capita (USDA 2022). With such high consumption, it becomes clear that many people are fine with consuming animal products. However, do people not have a problem with consuming animal products, or do they avoid thinking about the problems, such as the harmful effects of high consumption levels of animal products on the environment, or even arguably more problematic and discomforting, the discussion of animal treatment and animal rights? Although much can be said about the impact of high consumption on the environment, this week's readings by David Foster Wallace and Peter Singer focus on animal treatment, animal rights, and the equality between humans and animals. By the end of the discussion of the readings, I hope to show how these readings may be helpful to those wanting to further animal rights and eliminate the effects of industrial farms. 

Undeniably, animals have minimal rights, and are not seen as important as humans by many. In the article "Consider the Lobster," David Foster Wallace acknowledges that he subscribes to the belief that animals are less morally important than humans but realizes he does not have a good reason to do so. In addition, Wallace confronts the uncomfortable questions that are raised when one considers the process of cooking lobsters: is it all right to boil a creature for our pleasure? Wallace begins to answer this question by first investigating what the organizers of the lobster festival believe and arriving at the metric that is used to determine whether the action is considered right: pain. According to the organizers, lobsters do not have a cerebral cortex, which in humans is part of the brain, allowing pain to be felt, which is not entirely true. Wallace then notes how ethicists use pain to determine whether animals require their interests to be considered, with the ability to feel pain being tied to two criteria: neurological hardware and behavior. Aside from lobsters showing uncomfortable behaviors after being placed in boiling water-the, the lobster will claw at the pot-lobsters cannot make or absorb natural opioids that are used to handle intense pain. Thus, lobsters may feel pain based on their physiology and behavior. However, Wallace realizes he cannot confirm since he can only understand pain from his own experience. Wallace concludes the article by acknowledging that he enjoys eating meat and wants to continue doing so and that he is unable to defend his position without selfish reasoning. Aside from acknowledging his selfishness, Wallace realizes that even if lobsters may feel a form of rudimentary pain, why shouldn't they still be considered? Wallace's acknowledgments and questions lay the foundation for a more philosophically focused essay on equality and animal rights by Peter Singer. 

In his work, Peter Singer notes various liberation movements and proposes that humans rethink their relationship with nonhuman species to allow the success of a new movement: the animal liberation movement. To allow the movement's success, humans must extend the principle of equal consideration to animals, as not doing so is pure speciesism. Singer explains the principle of equal consideration as the basic principle used to grant equality to different groups. Singer points out that although men and women share the same rights due to shared abilities (reasoning), men and women are still different. The biological differences between men and women give each different rights, for example, women's right to an abortion. Therefore, equality does not mean that all groups should be granted the same rights, as certain groups cannot exercise certain rights. Singer further supports his argument by explaining that the principle of equal consideration should always be considered when arguing against certain forms of oppression (racism and sexism). He does so by explaining that there are arguments that justify an inegalitarian society if one chooses to avoid the principle of equal consideration and instead base equality on certain traits and abilities. Singer's ultimate goal is to show that when adopting the principle of equal consideration, there is no good reason to exclude a group's interests (human or nonhuman). In the second half of his essay, Singer states that not adopting this principle is speciesism. 

According to Singer, human abuse of animals- through eating and experimenting- is not reasonable; Singer sees it as contradictory. This is what Singer calls speciesism, a preference for one own species. Singer later expands on this point by referencing previous philosophers and their philosophies used to justify the treatment of animals, namely that a minority of the population that fails to meet the human "norm" (babies and limited-function humans) still deserve to have their interests considered. Since animals have their own standards and cannot fit into the class of humans, they won't be granted the rights that humans have. Singer finds this absurd and arbitrary, claiming there is not a good reason not to consider a disabled human being and a dog the same; one is granted special privileges because they were lucky enough to have been born to one species despite failing short of meeting the norm of that species. Singer wants to depart from traditional thinking to new thinking to ensure that all species are considered and that there cannot be any contradictions when arguing against certain forms of oppression. 

I believe both readings offer interesting arguments, especially after considering the Singer reading. I myself eat meat and admit that I rarely think about animals or animal rights whenever I consume it. When I do think about animals or animal rights, I attempt to rationalize eating meat by thinking of the nutrients that meat offers (Ex. lack of B12 in vegan diets), appealing to nature (fallacy), or falling to the speciesism that Singer talks about. My reasons are not strong, especially after considering the thought experiments of Singer. In addition, as someone against oppression, I do not see a good reason for not extending my consideration to nonhuman animals as it also offers the opportunity to evaluate the strength and basis of my support against other forms of oppression (although suffering is a major reason). While I found the Singer piece convincing, I am curious how far Singer’s argument extends. For example, if nonhuman animals deserve consideration, should not the environment deserve consideration, seeing how nonhuman animals depend on the environment itself? Where does the environment lie in the conversation?

While there is still a long way to go from people eliminating meat from their diets, as Peter Singer would hope, not all hope should be lost. Studies reveal that people are, in fact, concerned about the current state of the animal industry when presented with enough information; thus, for someone like Peter Singer, animal rights should be viewed as a work in progress. A survey conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health, which included Americans from different political parties, gender, race, and age, showed that a majority supported greater oversight over animal farms (Survey: Majority of Voters Surveyed Support Greater Oversight of Industrial Animal Farms, 2019). In addition, the survey revealed that Americans are concerned about the effects of industrial animal farms, particularly regarding air pollution, water pollution, worker safety, and other problems. Although these surveys are mainly centered around human welfare, animal welfare, and the effects of the industry on the environment, rarely touching upon animal rights or the ethics of eating meat, the concerned responses of industrial farming should be a positive sign that the public may be open to reducing their meat consumption and possibly hearing more about animal rights in the future.

[frogeyedape]

I'm so tired of people who don't realize how sexist they're being when they attribute differences between men and women purely to biological differences. Feminists, too.

Like, people say the reason women are physically weaker than men is just genetic. Heads up. Muscular and skeletal strength is as much an acquired trait as a genetic one, affected by diet, exercise, and injury. Take a woman who grew up doing heavy physical labor and set her next to a man who did the same labor, and I bet you they'll both be physically strong.

Furthermore, the male/female differences so often touted are AVERAGE differences. Like, the size of the hippocampus, an area of the brain related to memory and spatial awareness, is larger in men than in women--on AVERAGE. Meaning if you take over 5000 men and women, as one brain study did, you can find average differences between men and women as groups, but looking at a brain scan (or measure of height!) alone cannot conclusively tell you if the subject is male or female.

(The study is reviewed here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women and says this:

"Despite the study’s consistent sex-linked patterns, the researchers also found considerable overlap between men and women in brain volume and cortical thickness, just as you might find in height. In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman. That suggests both sexes’ brains are far more similar than they are different.")

There's an area in the hypothalamus that's consistently been found to be 2x bigger in men than in women--but the size difference doesn't show up until *after birth*, perhaps as late as 4 years of age, indicating that the difference mag be caused by *differences in the way boys and girls are treated*.

Guys. People. Differences between the sexes are NOT 100% biological, and even genetic differences can be lessened or affected by non-genetic factors--like having a twin share your placental sac (female twins sharing a placenta with male twins are exposed to the same testosterone bath in pregnancy as the male infant, so their brains can be affected), or being exposed to sexist cultures that say boys are strong and girls are weak (thereby discouraging girls from practicing strength and discouraging boys from practicing vulnerability).

Sex. Differences. Are. Largely. Bogus.

Do NOT blame society's view of me being inadequate on my biology. Do NOT tell me I am intrinsically weak, helpless, vulnerable, nurturing, or empathetic to ANY greater extent than a man.

And men? Don't tell them they're intrinsically stronger, smarter, tougher, more commanding, better suited to leadership than women. It's bullshit, it's demeaning to our common humanity.

Men and women are more alike than we are different.

(And every other sex and gender, too! Sorry, I'm still stuck in the gender/sex binary.)

[metalheadsforblacklivesmatter]

Okay @mogai-sunflowers. Here's a list. (My memory is shotty so please forgive me if I suggest anyone you've already talked about).

(I do not take credit for the list. For more information please view this list on BlackPast. I simply summarized most of the people on their list so that they could be organized and grouped together based on related themes for the MOGAI BHM posts.)

Stonewall Riots was started by queer POC. Particularly Marsha P Johnson and Storme Delarverieare are two Black queer icons in that movement.

Gladys Bentley was one of the most famous blues singers during the Harlem Renaissance.

Bayard Rustin was arrested for having sex with men and was a civil rights leader that worked closely with Martin Luther King.

Audre Lord is a Black Lesbian Feminist known for her works on queer theory, feminist theory, critical race studies.

Lucy Hicks is a prominent Trans woman in the 1920s (though the word trans didn't exist). She just started living as a woman one day, and when it got out she was biologically male the govt was not happy!

Paris KC Barclay. First out gay male and first Black person to hold the title President if Directors Guild of America in 2013.

Ashley A Boone Jr gay man whom has had major success in the world of movie promotion. Was director of foreign advertising and publicity. Had hand in the promotion of classics like Westside Story, Alien, Starwars, Young Frankenstein, and many more. Also in 1979 he was the highest ranking African American in Hollywood.

Isaiah Crawford. The 14th and current residing president of University of Pudget Sound. Also the first Black LGBT+ president of ANY prestigious university in the United States.

Petrisse Cullors, the founder of the modern Black Lives Matter Movement.

Alicia Garza another founder of the modern Black Lives Matter Movement.

Lee Louis Daniels first Black man to solely produce an Academy Award nominated film.

Angela Davis. I can't even begin on how amazing she was. She was awesome. An Icon in the Civil Rights Movement. Part of the Black Panther Party. Communist. Worked at UCLA as a professor in philosophy.

Trish Millines Dziko has my heart as a "woman in STEM" (TM). Co-founder and Executive Director of Technology Access Foundation.

Sherry D Harris. First candidate endorsed by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.

Barbara Jordan. I can't even BEGIN to get into the major political stuff she's helped pass.

Ray Douglas McDonald one of the first gay athletes in the NFL.

Danny Lyon Scarborough the first will known African American to go public about having aids.

John Eric Teamer co-founder of the National Association of Black and White Men Together a national organization that advocated against racism, sexism, homophobia, and HIV/AIDA discrimination. As such was a big part of the HIV/AIDs movement.

Willie Mae “Big Mama” Thornton huge blues singer/songwriter who wrote iconic songs like " Hound Dog" and "Ball n Chain".

Wallace Thurman one of the leading poets, artists, critics, and playwrights during the Harlem Renaissance.

Alvin Ailey established the company Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater whose art celebrated black music and traditions while highlighting the struggle for equality and justice.

James Baldwin. Major Advocate during the Civil Rights Movement also worked with Martin Luther King Jr.

Deborah Batts first openly lesbian black female American Federal Judge.

Charles Blow youngest department head in New York Times' history.

Keith Boykin accepted into Harvard Law in 1989 which is one year after Pres. Obama and one year after Michelle Obama graduated. Part of the Bill Clinton Presidential campaign. Credited for first meeting between Clinton and LGBTQ+ leaders in 1993. Executive Director of National Black Lesbian and Gay Forum. Founder of National Black Justice Coalition.

George Washington Carver's sexuality has been in a long heated debate, but it's concluded he was likely bisexual. (His contributions to American History is already well known).

Jason Paul Collins one of the first class of inductees into the National Gay and Lesbian Sports Hall of Fame. Blackballed by the NBA after coming out as gay.

Beauford Delaney works renown painter and make contributor to the Harlem Renaissance.

Stormé DeLarverie possibly the woman that threw the first punch during the Stonewall Riots.

Augustus Granville Dill is a colleague of WEB DuBois and did a lot of activism with him.

Alice Ruth Moore Dunbar-Nelson wrote the first Newspaper written by and for Black women. Supported the NAACP and served with the Women’s Commission on the Council of National Defense and the Circle of Negro War Relief during World War I.

Darrin Phillip Gayles has a long impressive history that I can't even begin to summarize.

Angelina Weld Grimke second Black graduate of Harvard Law. Vice president of the NAACP. Abolitionist and advocate for women's rights. Not a poet in the Harlem Renaissance but an inspiration for other poets during that time.

Lorraine Hansberry one of the most influential playwrights of the 20th century.

Norris Bumstead Herndon founder of the Niagara Movement (precursor to the NAACP)

Alberta Hunter a key link between country- based and melodic female blue

Zora Neale Hurston a skilled writer during the Harlem Renaissance known for her sharp wit.

G. Winston James amazing gay activist. Wrote many pros and essays on being Black and gay.

Karine Jean-Pierre first Black immigrant woman to hold the position as Whitehouse secretary.

Lulu Merle Johnson first African American woman to hold a PhD in Iowa. Granddaughter of freed slaves. Her thesis was on slavery.

Bill T. Jones, Artistic Director/Co-Founder/Dancer/Choreographer of Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company. His works were commentary on racism, sexism, gender roles, aids, and interracial relationships.

Mondaire Jones congressman of New York. Active in his local chapter of the NAACP. Worked in the US Department of Justice under Pres. Obama.

June Meyer Jordan Civil Rights Activist, one of the ones that demanded the Supreme Court enforce desegregation. Also a writer that authored 28 books. Founded the Poetry for the People Program at University of California at Berkley.

Nella Larsen important literary figure during the Harlem Renaissance.

Queen Latifah. I know it's "modern history" but she's paved the way for women in a male dominated field that's largely misogynistic.

Don Carlton Lemon again "modern history" but he's the most prominent male journalist to announce his sexual orientation and a role model for gay men of color.

Alain Leroy Locke important supporter of the Harlem Renaissance and first Black person to win the Rhodes Scholarship. Often called the originator of the New Negro Movement and the Harlem Renaissance.

Audre Lorde a major poet talking about her experiences as a Black Lesbian woman.

Jackie “Moms” Mabley internationally known standup comedian who was internationally known for 5 decades.

DeRay Mckesson again "modern history" but still a leader in the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Marco McMillian founder of MWM & Associates, a nonprofit consulting firm that according to its homepage is “dedicated to meeting the challenges of change.”

Pauli Murray was denied getting her advanced law degree at University of North Carolina Law School for her gender. Has an impressive education including becoming the first African American awarded a J.S.D. (a law doctorate) from Yale University in New Haven. Coined the term "Jane Crow and Jim Crow" to highlight the impact of dual discrimination.

Alexis Nikole Nelson. Again it's "modern history" but her work on Tiktok discussing how foraging is getting in touch with her Black roots is amazing.

Richard Bruce Nugent credited for "discovering Harlem" also a major player in the Harlem Renaissance.

Richard Wayne Penniman one of the most influential influencers in the early days of Rock n Roll.

Gertrude “Ma” Rainey known as the first woman to introduce Blues into her performances.

Bayard Rustin. Worked closely with W.E.B. Du Bois and James Weldon Johnson. Helped create Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) which pioneered the Civil Rights strategy of nonviolent action.

E. Denise Simmons. Again "modern history" but unfortunately a lot of "firsts" in Black history is even. She made history in 2008 by becoming the first openly lesbian African American mayor in the United States.

Barbara Smith co-founded the Combahee River Collective in Boston, Massachusetts in 1974. Which critiqued both the sexism in Black communities and racism in the feminist movement.

Billy Thomas Strayhorn was the first Black gay composer and pioneered and influenced the American Jazz movement though he was largely unknown during his time.

Andre Leon Talley. Again "modern history" but he's is editor-at-large at Vogue and the most notable African American in designer fashion.

Ritchie John Torres. Again "modern history" but sometimes we're living in history. You know?

-fae

im really struggling to come up with ideas for BHM posts. i have a lot of ideas, but they’re too in depth for me to get into in just one post and a bit too out of of the range of my knowledge still to really get into. i’d really appreciate some suggestions for what people would like to learn about, or things you haven’t seen me discuss yet!

tagging @metalheadsforblacklivesmatter for some ideas!

[cendrillonmedousa]

Incomplete Masterpost on Radical Feminist Literature

This is an incomplete list of literature associated with radical feminism. Currently, it dates back to the late 1960s and goes up to the 2010s. Since this list contains historical readings, some books discussed were written by women who have done actions that ranged from questionable to the absolute immoral. In regards to the latter, I believe it would be incredibly irresponsible to pretend that radical feminism have not allowed these women a space in a community that is supposed to condemn those behaviors and actions. If you are interested in reading the literature created by any of the authors who participated, endorsed, or did unforgivable things, I urge you to find a means of accessing those works in a way that would not result in them or their foundations receiving compensation. Also, please remember to read their works with a very critical lenses. Thank you.

SCUM Manifesto (1967)

SCUM Manifesto argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex. Author Valerie Solanoas, a lesbian, also urged women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex." It's currently debated whether SCUM Manifesto is satire or parody, due to its parallels with Freud's theory of femininity. NOTE: Author Valerie Solanoas is known for her stalking and attempted murder of Andy Warhol. The motive for the attempt on his life was decided to be due to undiagnosed mental illness that convinced her of conspiracy between Warhol and another artist to steal her works. Warhol developed PTSD after the incidents, according to his lover(s) and friends. Personally, it is up to yourself whether or not this information sways your decision to buy a copy or access it for free.

Notes From the First Year (1968)

New York Radical Women complied a group of feminist texts and speeches from their work in 1968. The compliation included texts from Shulamith Firestone, Jennifer Gardner, Kathy Amatniek, and Anne Koedt.

The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

Described as a classic of feminist thought, Jewish author Shulamith Firestone argues that the biological division of labor in reproduction in the root cause of male domination, economic exploitation, racism, imperialism, and ecological irresponsibility. She argues that goal of the feminist revolution must be not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself, so that genital differences no longer have cultural significance.

Sexual Politics (1970)

Based on her PhD dissertation, Kate Millett's book is regarded as a classic of feminism and one of radical feminism's key texts. Dr. Millett argues that sex has a frequently neglected political aspect and discusses the role that patriarchy plays in sexual relations. She argues that authors such as D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer discuss sex in a patriarchal, sexist way. Meanwhile, she endorses the more nuanced gender politics of gay writer Jean Genet. Note: Kate Millet has endorsed pedophilia, excusing her endorsement by pretending it is for the liberation of children. If you have a desire to read Sexual Politics, please find a means to access it without contributing to her. Read the book with a VERY critical lenses due to what she endorses.

Sisterhood is Powerful (1970)

An anthology of feminist writings, it was edited by Robin Morgan and is one of the first widely available anthologies of second-wave feminism. The anthology calls for consciousness-raising and a call to action. The collection addresses several major issues, including "the need for radical feminism, the discrimination women experienced from men in the political left, and the blatant sexism faced in the workplace. Also, the collection most notably included Black Women's Liberation Group.

The Myth of Vaginal Orgasm (1970)

Essayist Anne Koedt responded to the sexual revolution of the 1960s by addressing both the myth of vaginal orgasms and previous thoughts about female orgasms in general. Her article played a vital role in feminist sexual revolution and draws on research done by Alfred Kinsey about human sexuality.

The Female Eunuch (1970)

This is a key text of the 1970s feminist movement, a mixture of polemic and scholarly research. An important text in the feminist movement, Germaine Greer's thesis is that the traditional nuclear family represses women sexually. She argues that men hate women, though the latter do not realize this and are taught to hate themselves. Note: Germaine Greer created and distributed a book that she claimed was "to advance women's reclamation of their capacity for and the right to visual pleasure." The cover of the book was a shirtless picture of 15-year-old boy, who discovered the use of his photo for this photobook in his early 30s. The contents of the book have been described as pedophilic. During the height of #MeToo, Germaine Greer called for women to show solidarity when other women are sexually harassed, but then went on to say: "But if you spread your legs because he said 'be nice to me and I'll give you a job in a movie' then I'm afraid that's tantamount to consent, and it's too late now to start whingeing about that." She also said that some women's disclosure of their assaults and harassment was "dishonorable" because some of the victims had been paid to sign non-disclosure agreements and only spoke out after the statute of limitations. If you have a desire to read The Female Eunuch, please find a means to access it WITHOUT contributing to her and keep in mind these events.

Off Our Backs (1970-2008)

Off Our Backs was a collective of women who practiced consensus decision-making. Consensus decision-making are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the requirement of acceptance by all. In the first issue, the editorial statement states that Off Our Back is a paper for all women who are fighting for the liberation of their lives and we hope it will grow and expand to meet the needs of women from all backgrounds and classes. They ask readers to use this paper to relate what you are doing and what you are thinking, for we are convinced that a woman speaking from the agony of her own struggle has a voice that can touch the experience of all women.

Lesbian Nation (1973)

In this book, lesbian separatist Jill Johnston outlines her vision of radical lesbian feminism, writing that women should make a total break from men and male-dominated capitalist institutions. She believes that female heterosexuality was a form of collaboration with patriarchy.

Woman Hating (1974)

Women Hating delves into the topics of misogyny and sexuality. Written by Jewish writer Andrea Dworkin, she examines the place and depiction of women in both fairy tales and pornography. She then compares and contracts between Chinese foot binding and European witch burning. The final section discusses the different cultural concepts of androgyny. Note: In Women Hating, Andrea Dworkin's use of the word erotic makes her sections on bestiality and incest upsetting and potentially triggering to read. Andrea Dworkin is using her self definition of erotic. She does defines erotic as non-sexual and similar to how intimate means close social relations, which is different to how we commonly define the word.

Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1974)

Jewish author Susan Brownmiller argues that rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. She criticizes men such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels for their oversights on rape, especially challenging the Freudian concept of rape fantasies. Her book is credited with inflencing changes in law regarding rape.

Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981)

Andrea Dworkin argues that pornography dehumanizes women and that the industry itself is implicated in violence against women. She analyzes the contemporary and historical pornography industry in how it abuses women, both in production and consequences from consumption by men. This leads to humiliation and abuse of women.

Ain't I A Woman? (1981)

Titled after Sojourner Truth's speech, Black writer bell hooks examines the effects of misogynoir on Black women, the civil rights movement, and the feminist movements from suffrage to 1970s. She argues that the convergence of sexism and racism during slavery contributed to Black women having the lowest status and worst conditions of any group in American society. Furthermore, she argues that the stereotypes during slavery allowed white society to justify the devaluation of Black femininity and rape of Black women. She also argues that Black nationalism was a largely misogynist movement and the feminist movement did not articulate the needs of poor and non-white women.

Against Sadomasochism (1982)

An anthology with multiple authors, they critique sadomasochism and BDSM from a feminist perspective. Sadomasochism is described as being rooted in patriarchal sexual ideology. Three pieces cites the movement as insensitive to the experiences of black woman, citing "master/slave" relationships. Susan Leigh Star cites the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery by BDSM practitioners as inherently antisemitic. Marissa Jonel and Elizabeth Harris give personal accounts of their experiences with sadomasochism, while Paula Tiklicorect and Melissa Bay Mathis use satire in their pieces.

Sweet Freedom: The Struggle for Women's Liberation (1982)

Anna Coote, Beatrix Campbell, and Christine Roche look at the progress of women's liberation so far and examine the the reasons for its achivements and failures. As active feminists since the early days of the movement, they provide a unique historical account and strategy for the future. She critiques The Feminine Mystique (1963) as being a limited perspective on women's reality despite its usefulness about the impact of misogyny on housewives, since it did not include non-white women. She uses the term "white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" as a lens through which to both critique American culture and to offer solutions to the problems she explores. She addresses the goals of feminism, pacifism, solidarity, and the nature of revolution.

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (1984)

A feminist theory by bell hooks, bell hooks wrote the book as a response to the need for theory that took into account gender, race, and class.

Sisterhood Is Global (1984)

Edited by Robin Morgan, this anthology of feminist writings is the follow-up to Sisterhood is Powerful (1970). It was hailed as a historic publishing event and the definitive text on the international women's movement. It is typically a course text in women's studies, international affairs, global economics, and other disciplines. After its release, Sisterhood Is Forever was published in 2003.

The Spinster and Her Enemies (1985)

Lesbian author Professor Shelia Jeffreys examines feminist involves in the Social Purity movement at the turn of the century. Note: Shelia Jeffrey advocates for political lesbians, albeit her definition of a political lesbian is a "woman-identified woman who does not fuck men." Definitely not the worst of what I've written in "Note:" but I thought it should be mentioned as it is in many of her works as well as political lesbianism being lesbophobic.

Intercourse (1987)

Andrea Dworkin provides a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society. She argued that the depicitions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized penis-in-vagina intercourse as the only, most genuine form of "real sex." This kind of depiction then enforces a male-centric, coercive view of sexuality, thus making heterosexual intercourse itself become a central part of men's occupation of women. Although often read as her arguing that heterosexual sex is always rape based on the quote "violation is a synonym for intercourse", Dworkin had stated that "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That is my point."

Feminism Unmodified (1987)

Preceded by Sexual Harrassment of Working Women (1979) and followed by Pornography and Civil Rights (1989), legal scholar Catharine A. MacKinnon archives her collection of critical essays about pornography and liberal feminism. This book is one of the most widely cited books on law in the English language.

Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

Catharine A. MacKinnon argues that feminism had no account of male power as an ordered yet deranged whole. She proposes her book as an answer to this problem. She takes Marxism as the theory's point of departure. Unlike liberal theories, she states that Marxism confronts organized social dominance, analyzes it in dynamic rather than static terms,identifies social forces that systematically shape social imperatives, and seeks to explain social freedom both within and against history.

Only Words (1993)

Catharine A. MacKinnon contends that the U.S. legal system has used a First Amendment basis to protect intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination as enacted through pornography. She believes this violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her book is divided into three discussions: defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and equality and speech.

Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed (1996)

This collection reveals the global reach of radical feminism and analyze the causes and solutions to patriarchal oppression. Author Diane Bell shows how radical feminist analysis cuts across class, race, sexuality, region, and religion. She makes visible how male control is exercised in every sphere of women's lives. Contributors to this book include Robin Morgan, Catherine MacKinnon, Marcia Gillespie, and Andrea Dworkin. The editors also asserted that radical feminism should always welcome and acknowledge the diversity of women while stressing commonality. Note: There is a section on therapy and how it is believed to undermine the practice of radical feminism. Do not think this means you are a "bad activist" by going to therapy. If you are interested, there is a type of therapy known as feminist therapy.

Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation (2000)

Andrea Dworkin begins with an analysis of antisemitism and misogyny in world history, making a comparison between the persecution of Jews and the oppression of women. She discusses the sexual politics of Jewish identity and antisemitism, and called for the establishment of a women's homeland as a response to the oppression of women. Note: There is discussion of present-day Israel in this book and the book was found offensive to both Zionists and non-Zionists when it was published. Although Andrea Dworkin stated she supported the Jewish right to have their own state, she described Israel as a male-dominated, militaristic society built on a form of "near apartheid" against Palestinians and Arab Israelis. I recognized that the subtitle is controversial, so I thought fit to include this Note: here.

Sisterhood Is Forever (2003)

The final anthology to the Sisterhood Is series, it has more than 50 women contributing 60 essays. It discusses feminism's emphases and accomplishments as of 2003. Essays range in tone from scholarly to narrative and provide both conservative and liberal viewpoints. The focus is in the United States, addressing why feminism is still needed by providing alarming statistics from the United States.

Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 (2006)

Lesbian editor Barbara J. Love created a comprehensive directory to document many of the founders and leaders of second wave feminism in America. It tells the stories of more than two thousand women who made permanent changes to customs and laws. She briefly discusses women's liberation to the earlier first wave feminism and presents a brief overview of what second wave feminism means.

The Industrial Vagina (2008)

Lesbian author Professor Shelia Jeffreys writes how prostitution has become a burgeoning and immensely profitable global market sector. She describes the globalization of sex markets, saying: "the right of men to women's bodies for sexual use has not gone, but remains an assumption at the basis of heterosexual relationship." She also draws links between marriage and prostitution, such as mail-order brides. Note: Shelia Jeffreys does advocate for political lesbianism, although she defines it as a "woman-identified-woman who does not fuck men". Very very tame in comparison to about Notes: on this list, but I thought it was important to mention as political lesbianism is lesbophobic.

The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of "Gender" (2013)

Written by thirty-seven radical feminists from five countries, the publication concerns itself with the rise of "gender theory," which avoids naming men and the system of male supremacy as the beneficiaries of women's oppression. It details how organizations tied to radical feminism have been treated by certain proponents of gender theory, such as individual Deep Green Resistance members being threatened with arson, rape, and murder. It also compares the similarities of reactions to feminism by transgender male-to-female individuals and Men's Rights Activists.

[kitchenalia]

some anti-feminists say that radfems reify womens oppression by saying we're oppressed for our anatomy but isnt this just the age old thing dworkin was talking about when she said that women are accused of causing sexism / insulting women by giving it a name? and is it bio-essentialist to call men violent? is there any evidence for women being less violent biologically?

i'll answer the first bit of your question because i don't feel equipped to answer the latter two, other than to say that i firmly believe men could get their shit together and be non-violent if it benefited them and they tried. i think the root of men's violence toward women is woman-hating. if violence is somehow coded into men's biology, i think you'd better look toward intra-sex interactions. i think more research is needed, both for me personally (i.e., i haven't done enough reading!) and in the sense of research being done.

to the first question, yes, this is accusing women of creating our own oppression. it is glaringly obvious that we are oppressed for our bodies and what they represent about our roles in the world. sex stereotypes and roles may be socially constructed, but they are constructed on a material foundation: the anatomical differences that make us female in the first place, the same way other animals in nature are female. these differences are rooted in biology, and we are targeted for that biology; however, our biology did not create oppression. males created our oppression for their own collective benefit and to drive profit on our backs. in a truly egalitarian world, our sex differences would not fall away--sex stereotypes (gender) and misogyny would.

acknowledgment of material reality should be step one in all cases. if you can't get past that step, then things will inevitably go wrong.

[transmisogyny-explained]

[Image IDs: Seven screenshots of a Twitter thread by May, Eldritch Monstergirl (@maidensblade) that reads:

The thing about the transmisogynist argument that “women’s oppression is about biology” is that it does two things. One is that it prompts us to fight it by denying sexism has to do with biology at all.

The second is erasing that sexism against transfems is based on biology too

It makes transphobes look smarter and more realistic for trans people to be boxed into a corner of arguing that biology has nothing to do with sexism when that just isn’t true.

But the biological foundation of transmisogyny has had significantly less effort poured into explaining and investigating it than sexism in general.

My theory for a long time has been this:

Transmisogyny relies on two things—transfems prove fundamentally unable to be men; and transfems are categorically unable to fulfill one of the major defining features of womanhood, which is bearing a child for a man.

Cis women being valued above trans women isn’t incidental. It is very much a situation of biology, because the value assigned to women in patriarchal society is a value trans women can never provide.

If it seems grim for me to describe this in this way, that’s because patriarchy is grim.

It is the way patriarchy organizes power *by biology* that puts trans women BELOW cis women. Not above, the way transmisogynists claim.

Biology is a big part of why cis men find us both a forbidden pleasure and disgusting. Why cis women are set up as innocent and harmless next to the villainous, violent image forced on trans women.

It is biology that is used to attribute an air of danger, power, and lack of sensitivity to trans women. It is biology that’s used to justify both cis female and cis male fear of us.

This is also why biology cannot be removed from the understanding of transmisogyny and why transmisogyny is a valuable distinction.

This is why concepts like “CAMAB,” while not time-tested well, are important and can’t simply be pushed under the rug.

It’s true that biology matters, but it doesn’t mean transmisogyny doesn’t exist—it means the opposite of that

It may feel like claiming sexism has nothing to do with the body is pushing back against TERFs, but it’s more like taking the bait.

Patriarchy essentially defines trans women as another sex altogether—Woman Type Two, which can’t even give you children! The nerve!

And since probably someone will say “but can’t trans women have children of their own?”

But not in the way that carries on the genes of a cis man

The value of reproduction for cis men is that the children get to be treated as theirs, and a reflection of them.

This is also why people with uteruses are objectified and also why not being able to bear a child for a cis man condemns trans women to being The Monster Sex

(Well, it’s one reason for these things, at least)

This means the oppression for AFAB trans people, intersex people, cis women, and AMAB trans people are all bound up together—and that transmisogyny is one of the important distinctions within that grouping

This is also why it makes no sense to say “trans women are oppressed on the basis of gender, not sex”

Even if I agreed that sex=the body and gender=presentation/inner identity, trans women would STILL be oppressed on the basis of sex and gender both.

In a sense we have imposed on a us a unique sex, a unique kind of femaleness

/end ID]

A very good thread about transmisogyny by @maidensblade on Twitter.

[sexytiime]

I was looking at books on Marxism + Feminism online and came across the book:

Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory

A woman named Susan Rosenthal wrote this 3-star review. I just skimmed it and wanted to share here to see people’s thoughts. I have not read the book myself but I am curious about this review.

“Takes us down the wrong road”

Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2014

Can marxism guide us in our struggle against women's oppression? In her preface to "Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory," Lise Vogel acknowledges the value of marxist theory:

"I remain convinced that the revival of Marxist theory, not the construction of some socialist-feminist synthesis, offers the best chance to provide theoretical guidance in the coming battles for the liberation of women". (p.ix)

At the same time, she argues,

"...that the socialist tradition is deeply flawed, that it has never adequately addressed the question of women..." (p.2)

These two statements reveal the strength and weakness of Vogel's book.

The book's strength lies in its marxist analysis of the labor necessary to reproduce the working class, the portion of that labor performed by women in the home, and the role of men in the sexual division of labor.

The book's weakness lies in its description of how capitalism organizes reproduction as a "system of male domination." With this description, Vogel retains the core of capitalist (bourgeois) feminism, that the liberation of women requires a cross-class women's movement organized separately from men.

Ferguson and McNally's 24-page Introduction supports Vogel's concept of a "male-dominant gender-order."

"It is not biology per se that dictates women's oppression; but rather, capital's dependence upon biological processes specific to women - pregnancy, childbirth, lactation - to secure the reproduction of the working class. It is this that induces capital and its state to control and regulate female reproduction and which impels them to reinforce a male-dominant gender-order. And this social fact, connected to biological difference, comprises the foundation upon which women's oppression is organized in capitalist society." (p. xxix)

Dishonest

To support her position, Vogel refers to the writings of 19th and early 20th century socialists. She quotes August Bebel, "women should expect as little help from the men as working men do from the capitalist class," and Eleanor Marx and Edward Aveling in The Woman Question,

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." (p. 108)

She concludes that "the idea that women's situation parallels that of workers suggests a strategy of parallel social struggles for freedom" (p. 108).

This entire section is dishonest. Vogel ignores Bebel's description of upper-and-middle-class women and working-class women as "enemy sisters," and his explicit recommendation against women in antagonistic classes organizing together, except for united-front actions that benefit all women.(1)

Vogel also disregards Eleanor Marx, who could not be more clear on the matter:

"For us there is no more a `women's question' from the bourgeois standpoint than there is a men's question. Where the bourgeois women demand rights that are of help to us too, we will fight together with them, just as the men of our class did not reject the right to vote because it came from the bourgeois class. We too will not reject any benefit, gained by the bourgeois women in their own interests, which they provide us willingly or unwillingly. We accept these benefits as weapons, weapons that enable us to fight better on the side of our working-class brothers. We are not women arrayed in struggle against men but workers who are in struggle against the exploiters."(2)

In other words, socialists do not counter-pose women's liberation to the needs of the revolution; we use women's liberation to achieve the revolution.

Class matters

Vogel describes, but does not seem to understand, Clara Zetkin's class-based approach to women's liberation which is that all women are oppressed, but not all women have the same interest in ending capitalism. Women in the capitalist class are denied "free and independent control over their property," a condition that can be remedied by legal equality under capitalism.

In the middle and professional classes, women strive for equal access to education and employment compared with the men of their class. They call on capitalism to fulfill its pledge to promote free competition in every arena, including between women and men. These women form what is commonly called the `bourgeois' women's movement because they limit their demands to legal reforms.

Working-class women also seek legal equality with the men of their class, but such equality would only mean the right to equal exploitation. The liberation of working-class women requires an end to labor exploitation, and that can be achieved only by uniting with working-class men.

Theoretically and practically, the question of women's liberation peaks during the Russian Revolution. Vogel describes Lenin's emphasis on the importance of freeing women from "domestic slavery" so they could participate fully in the revolutionary transformation of Russian society. Achieving this required a two-fold process: socializing domestic labor and engaging men in housework. The latter required a systematic campaign against male chauvinism. Could such a campaign succeed?

Vogel observes that the capitalist system pays men more so they can support child-bearing women in individual family units. She concludes that this creates a system of male domination, or patriarchy. She writes,

"a material basis for male supremacy is constituted within the proletarian household... [providing] a continuing foundation for male supremacy in the working-class family." (p.88)

Vogel neglects to mention that the higher male wage comes with a price. `Family obligations' tie men to jobs they might otherwise leave. Men are legally bound to support women and children, even after they have left their families and formed new ones. And "dead-beat dads" can be imprisoned for not paying child support.

The key question is whether putting men in a financially-dominant position requires them to personally dominate their homes. The one does not automatically follow from the other. A superior financial position does not create male domination in the family, it only creates the opportunity for it.

Individual men can choose what to believe and how to treat others. Some men take advantage of their financial position to dominate women and children. Others do not. Consequently, the sexual division of labor under capitalism does not qualify as a system of male domination over women that can be compared to the system of capitalist domination over workers. The antagonism between women and men can be eliminated by re-organizing society. The antagonism between capital and labor is irreconcilable. As long as capital exists, labor will be exploited.

A system of sexism

Some socialists argue that "the current use of the term patriarchy...merely describes a system of sexism."(3) We certainly do suffer a system of sexism; every woman can testify to that. However, patriarchy implies a system of domination by men, while a system of sexism implies that society is dominated by sexist ideology. The difference is important.

A system of male domination implies that all men benefit from the oppression of women, whether they choose this or not. A system of sexist ideology allows individual men (and individual women) to choose whether to adopt or reject sexist beliefs and behaviors.

The failure to distinguish between individual interests and class interests lies at the heart of the debate over whether men benefit from women's oppression and whether women should organize separately from men.

The working class can never achieve socialism unless most women fight for it. Therefore, as a class, working-class men cannot benefit from women's oppression. However, the system of sexist ideas gives individual men the opportunity to do so. Some men embrace this opportunity; other men reject it.

Capitalism pressures all workers to abandon their class interests for the promise of personal gain. White workers can take advantage of Black oppression to advance themselves, or they can choose to fight racism. Individual workers can accept management bribes to get ahead, or they can choose to join a union, and so on.

Male superiority is the booby prize that capitalism offers men to sweeten the bitter taste of class exploitation. As Vogel notes,

"The ruling class, in order to stabilize the reproduction of labor power as well as to keep the amount of necessary labor at acceptable levels, encourages male supremacy within the exploited class. "(p.153)

While capitalism "encourages male supremacy," many men reject this role because it hurts the women they love, and it blocks them from enjoying egalitarian, cooperative relationships.

The individual man has no choice about whether or not the women in his life are oppressed; capitalism ensures that they are. However, individual men can choose either to take advantage of women's oppression or to share the burdens of the home and join the fight to socialize domestic labor.

Class comes first

The socialist challenge is to convince working-class men to put their class interests first, to convince them that whatever benefits they gain from women's oppression pale in comparison with the benefits they could have by rejecting sexism and fighting alongside women to end capitalism and all of its oppressions.

In contrast, Vogel, Ferguson and McNally offer a pseudo-marxist argument for a cross-class movement of women organized separately from men. This concession to bourgeois feminism betrays the interests of working-class women.

Any mixed-class movement of women must betray its working-class members. When working-class women demand socialized childcare, their privileged sisters moan about paying higher taxes. When working-class women demand more pay, their privileged sisters oppose the rising cost of hired help. The only `feminism' that can liberate all classes of women is the `feminism' that is based on the goals of the working class.

As Lenin argued with the Jewish Bund, advocating the right of oppressed groups to organize independently is different from promoting independent organization on principle. As a tactic, independent organization can advance the struggle against oppression within the working-class. As a principle, the independent organization of women deepens antagonisms between men and women and undermines working-class unity.

If the goal of this book was "to provide theoretical guidance in the coming battles for the liberation of women," then it takes us down the wrong road. To argue that women must organize separately from men is pessimistic and self-defeating. As Vogel documents, both women's oppression and men's role in this oppression are rooted in capitalism. Therefore, only a united working-class fight can uproot it.

There is nothing flawed or lacking in the socialist tradition of women's liberation; it simply does not meet the needs of privileged women who seek to end their own oppression without destroying the class system that enslaves their working-class sisters.

The value of Vogel's book lies in her confirmation that the sexual division of labor, male-female relations, and existing family structures are not based on biology but on the particular historical form that capitalism has chosen in order to ensure the reproduction of the working class. While not original, this hopeful message is worth repeating:

No biological barriers prevent women and men from working together to reshape the world to meet their needs. Only capitalism stands in the way.

Notes

1. Cited in Draper, H. (2011). Women and Class: Towards a Socialist Feminism. Center for Socialist History, pp.234-5.

2. Cited in Draper, H. (2011). Women and Class: Towards a Socialist Feminism. Center for Socialist History, pp.287.

3. Marxism, feminism and women's liberation, Sharon Smith, Socialist Worker, January 31, 2013.