#defining women as 'females' is not the feminist take you think

[vexingwoman]

genuine question regarding the "women are female people" post. trying to understand the radfem mindset because I don't agree with y'all on most things, but I understand your need to find safety and acceptance within the patriarchy's oppression/danger. I am female but not a woman. I was never socialized as one either. I feel like biological socialization piece goes out the window in my case. Biologically yes, I am female, but socially no one, including myself, would ever view me as a woman or place me through the same social oppression that women face, nor will I experience or have experienced any of the good parts of womanhood. I feel no desire to, because despite sharing the same biology, we are not socially the same. I feel like, in this experience, theres a stark divide between the social category of "women" and biological category of "female." What is your take on this, I'm curious?

The crucial issue here is that you’re conflating women and femininity. You say there’s a difference between women and females, when you instead mean there’s a difference between feminine women and non-feminine women. You believe women are socially constructed, when you instead mean femininity is socially constructed.

The only way you could think that your non-conformance to femininity indicated that you were not a woman, is if you believed femininity was innate and inseparable from women. This is not only an unabashed display of bioessentialism, but a reinforcement of the same sex-based roles and sexist stereotypes that gender ideologues purport to be defying. 

In case you don’t know, the concepts of femininity and masculinity were created solely to enforce female subjugation and male domination (elaboration here). Therefore, nothing is more misogynistic or in direct contradiction to the radical feminist goal of gender abolition than claiming women are defined by the very social construct created to subjugate them, rather than by their biological sex.  

I’ll be honest, I feel increasingly irritated and hopeless every time I receive these messages of “I’m not a woman because I don’t conform to society’s sexist, outdated idea of what women are.” How can you not see how backwards it is to believe your conformity to a demographic’s harmful stereotypes is what determines whether you belong to that demographic? In what other circumstances is this ever the case?

This is a genuine question: why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that you’re a gender-non-conforming woman? Why must you go through all these mental cartwheels and act as though being a woman is contingent on how others view you, or how you socially conduct yourself, or what degree of oppression you face? What benefit do you see in defining women by the social construct of femininity (hierarchical, prescriptive, arbitrary) rather than defining them as female (non-hierarchical, descriptive, concrete)? 

Much of my frustration stems from the knowledge that radical feminists and gender ideologues actually hold similar views on the concepts of women and men, until they diverge at one crucial, irreconcilable point: 

Both radical feminists and gender ideologues acknowledge the existence of regressive stereotypes attributed to the sexes. But where radical feminists seek to remove the stereotypes from the sex, gender ideologues instead, quite stupidly, seek to remove the sex from the stereotypes.

In short, I still consider you a woman completely deserving of access to women’s spaces, because being a woman does not, and should not, have any other prerequisites other than being an adult, a human, and a female. There are not, and should not be, any behaviors, aesthetics, feelings, or non-biological characteristics that determine whether you’re a woman. There are no gendered brains; there are no gendered souls. Being a woman is an innate, neutral, and non-prescriptive reality, no different than having freckles or brown eyes or hooked noses.

[kkoffin]

I’m never getting over how you say “a woman is an adult human female” (or they ask you to define female) and they say “WOW SO A WOMAN IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WOMB TO YOU”

Did you miss the “human” part? Yes, female, as a term, means the sex in any species which has a large, immovable gamete. Do i think my dog is the same thing as a woman because they have the same sex? They’re both female? No. Because of the “human” part.

Both men and women are human people. the difference, the reason for this split in category, is sex. Yes, the difference between a man and a woman is reproductive organs. Not their feelings, or attachment to being feminine, or whether or not they’ve got a dress on. The reason for this particular categorical split is which reproductive organs they’ve got.

Now what would happen if we in this hypothetical, instead of splitting by sex, we split by hair colour. Now we’ve got brown hair people and black hair pe- WOAH ARE WE DEFINING THEM BY THE COLOUR OF THEIR HAIR!? THATS BIOESSENTIALISM (apparently. no it’s not, that’s not what the word means, but that’s a topic for another day.) no. we just divided them by hair colour, and now we are labelling the categories that arise. they are still humans. “adult human brunette” if you will.

The “human” part includes life, or anything typical to being human. Thoughts, feelings, interests, self expression, relationships, literally just about everything to… being a person. And here’s the fun part! That can be different for every single woman! A woman can be any human, and do anything! Only other necessary parts are being female and being adult. The “female” part will mean you are a victim of misogyny and patriarchy, and you’ll likely be raised a little differently. Radfems want women to be free from misogyny and patriarchy, so we band together, against the oppressor, men, to make change.

Being female affects women in a very impactful way. Yes, the reproductive organs. Through periods, and pregnancy, hormones and simply having a vagina. Men like having access to a vagina, and they, for a lot of history, have been provided social advantages, though having more muscle mass, not getting pregnant, not having periods. They’ve long considered women, and their vaginas, to be their property. Women, again, because of men’s social advantages, were barred from much of society. Voting, dominion, rights, ability to be employed and have financial freedom. Men like having access to a vagina so much that women were sold to a husband, and had no freedom in the matter at all.

Today, women have been given many rights, but men still really like having access to a vagina, so they rape and sexually assault women (also misogyny is still deep in our society; in our media, our subconscious, etc). This is a Bad Thing, so women want to be free from it. Thus, we want spaces where we are vulnerable to be just for women. Not men that are feminine, or men that feel they are women, but women as in the sex-based group that’s been the victim to fgm and pregnancy and majority of rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault and harassment, etc this whole time.

Now! I can hear you! “but men get raped too!” You are so right! They are also 99% of offenders of rape. So sorry, but yes, the feminists, the women protecting women, striving for women’s liberation from patriarchy, still don’t want men in these spaces. Also being raped doesn’t make them a woman. Nothing makes a man a woman. (and before you bring up intersex people, I want you to know A) all intersex people are either male or female, a developmental disorder doesn’t take that anyway; B) every intersex person I’ve ever met fucking hates being used as an example to imply there are some people that are “less woman” or “less man”. )

Women were never and have never been oppressed because of their feelings or because they wear a dress - wearing the dress was a part of the oppression in fact. Women have always been in their disadvantaged group because of our sex. Because men like having access to a vagina, and we’ve been deemed weaker and inferior by men because of our organs.

There’s a reason why many women are offended if you call them “females” alone (see: alpha male podcasts) - it’s because it’s missing the “human” part, and it can feel degrading. It does include animals. “Female” either includes all females of all species and forms of life, or it’s an adjective. Woman are adult human females. Human.

@smokeweedeattherich

Anyways yeah, it’s rly not the terf-destroyed slay moment you think it is; it’s just you being kinda illiterate.

[teaboot]

Well you see the interesting thing about social etiquette is that calling anyone at all any kind of epithet is generally regarded as crude and ill-bred behaviour, but seeing as you're specifying "women" as a homogeneous, monolithic group in this context, I'd bet that you're less concerned about my manner and composure than you are with making a statement about the patriarchy at large- which normally I'd applaud you for, even agree with you- however the inane way in which you present this piping hot take to my door makes me feel like you're not actually a good-faith progressive feminist doling out the most basic-ass, grade-one, first day of preschool-ass, bland-ass, seen-it-before takes I've ever seen like a scientologist dishing out scripture to college students, but more likely just a Radfem or Terf seeking out a blog big enough to grandstand their own rote, tried-and-true "sounds reasonable" stepping stone to pave the pipeline for other well-intentioned young feminists to slide down into the swamp of looney-tunes-ass gender-conformists wearing sexism under a different hat that you yourself have bought into, so no, I think I'll just keep being a rude bitch, with my bitches, cause I'm a bad bitch, and I bitch with who I wanna bitch with at bitches I wanna bitch at, regardless of gender, cause female identity and expression is not a sickly twin forever at the mercy of being defined by that which opposes it or stands beside it, and I do what I want

Bitch

[velvetvexations]

@trans-androgyne made this lovely post that spurred me to have thoughts about how their second point also applied to transfems but I didn't wanna derail theirs so I decided to make my own post.

Transitioning being a pro-feminist move applies to trans women as well. Gender abolitionists want to get rid of gender but in practice mostly seem to want to just go back to not considering it separate from sex and otherwise keeping such clear lines between one or the other* that gender would be the only possible result. Like, the feminist future is one where anyone can undress in front of anyone, not where we recognize that women are weak prey animals that need to be kept separate from their natural predators.

So like, it's said that trans women further the patriarchy because they associate things like the color pink with womanhood. This is an understandable perspective that appears logical on the face of it, but dig deeper. When you say pink is a woman's color, and liking the color pink - to vastly simplify the many things that goes into recognizing a desire to transition - means you must be a girl, the implication is that there is an inherent link between womanhood and the color pink. But you're missing the forest for the trees, because the actual idea at play here is that whether or not you're associated with the color pink is no longer decided for you at birth!

Naturally the counterargument is that plenty of women throughout the world and history is that plenty of women have gotten by without liking the color pink, yet not categorizing themselves as a man. GNC cis women have a long, storied history, and in this modern age are especially prominent. They are not men, or non-binary, simply because they dislike pink.

However, cis women that are gender conforming exist literally everywhere you look. Performing femininity is not at all a trans thing, and radical feminism has had a ton of conflict with cis women who shave their legs, enjoy makeup, and things like that.

But cis women, you might say, have expectations of femininity thrust upon them. Isn't it uniquely bad of trans women to choose to define their womanhood that way?

That might be the case except that a lot of trans women are also GNC as well. Literally if you saw me you'd be like "that's a gender conforming man."** It's not only about separating gender from sex, but rendering it a totally meaningless form of personal expression. That doesn't mean erasing, trivializing, or appropriating anything about cis women, but I think it feels that way to many because they have a hard time getting away from terms like "woman" meaning what it traditionally has in the past. TIRFs*** take a stab at the linguistic evolution, at least, but otherwise still see everything the same way, and will often use words like "male" and "female" to directly refer to sex specifically despite the synonymous associations they have that make trans people still reject that kinna labeling**** even before you get into the actual ideological stuff that most trans people of either assigned sex reject.

But I think you need to have both. I think a gender conforming woman who has a penis goes to show that that gender role is not defined by having a vagina, nor is having a vagina defined by that gender role. Then, on top of that, you have GNC trans and cis women alike doing whatever the fuck, breaking down the idea that a woman is one thing in particular not only regarding sex but also in how they exist in society.

*ignoring for now that even sex isn't a binary; I would love if an intersex person could please add on addressing that if they felt they had anything to add

**until I get my breasts, anyway, after which I'll look like an otherwise gender conforming man with breasts

***distinct from TRFs, TIRFs are the ones who reskin TERF frameworks with trans validating language

****I consider myself male and specifically because of my body, but this is personal to me because my identity is based heavily in a lot of archetypical stuff that doesn't play a factor in the identity of others; one way to view it is that I like to use a certain shade of purple because it was used in a lot of paintings that inspired me, but other people use other shades of purple because they were inspired by different things that come at their self-portrait from a different angle

[nimwallace]

I think some people might mistake A Scandal in Bohemia as being sexist in overall theme when really, it’s quite the opposite.

Sure, there’s a bit of period appropriate sexism there, nothing too bad, but let’s talk about the feminist elements of the story.

Holmes sees Irene Adler as “The Woman.” The most common (and boring) take is that this is because she is the only female Holmes has ever felt affection/attraction towards.

In reality, Watson makes it very clear why Holmes is so taken with Adler, why they remain friends and why she is the woman to Holmes. It’s because she represents femininity to him, and that femininity is defined by her cleverness, her quiet cunning, her intelligence. Holmes nerds over this woman because he sees her as an equal intellectually—which is not something you could say of most of the men he interacts with. To Holmes, that’s what womanhood should be, what it is at it’s pinnacle. I believe he even makes a comment somewhere in either The Dancing Men or The Five Orange Pips (if anyone remembers this or if I’m misremembering please let me know) about women generally being smarter, especially for knowing when to be quiet and observe. And it isn’t really in a “women should shut up way”. Holmes knows how valuable silence is in the gathering of information, how much of a virtue it can be, how smart it actually is. Remember, this is a man who spends hours upon hours completely still and silent himself.

I just think this dynamic with Holmes and his perception of women and femininity and what it means is so interesting. When Irene Adler becomes the woman, it doesn’t mean she’s the only woman Holmes has ever liked, it means she is the embodiment of a woman. And their subsequent friendship shows a clear mutual respect.

[anetherealpoetess]

i am a proud feminist, i love haladriel, and i double majored in english literature and communications, so let me just use those credentials to elaborate on the following. choice feminism underscores the idea that empowerment lies in an individual woman's decisions, advocating for the idea that any choice made by a woman is inherently feminist.

however, this individualistic approach, which emphasises personal empowerment over collective empowerment, has created interesting ramifications in how romantic stories are perceived within a feminist framework. namely, choice feminism has intersected with longstanding patriarchal ideas that romance is somehow regressive.

below, i unpack how focusing on galadriel's romantic connections resists both patriarchal and choice feminist ideals that push for an isolated, individualist version of womanhood, which is a lesser version of womanhood, honestly.

both the patriarchy and choice feminism are anti-romance because romantic narratives place the most importance on connection, which contradicts the individualistic ideal of a self-reliant, self-defining woman. but women are not self-reliant, and we are not self-defining. we exist within a larger feminist framework, and men for bi and straight women are often a part of that framework, and this is no different for the female characters we love. to take a female character out of her romantic context is reductive. it reinforces patriarchal ideals that devalue connectedness.

(and why does the patriarchy dislike connectedness? in short, one woman is easy to stop, but a community is a lot harder to control. this is why choice feminism has been allowed to thrive under the patriarchy, because it focuses on the individual, and, as we have established, the individual is no threat.)

you might be thinking: what has this got to do with haladriel or any other ship?

well, this trend of viewing romance as an inherently regressive force aligns with patriarchal attitudes that have long devalued women’s community-oriented narratives as irrational or anti-progressive. and, make no mistake, romance is a community-orientated narrative. romance places a character within a larger context--and by that, i do mean a community--which pushes against the patriarchal and choice feminism ideal of the self-defining woman.

enjoying galadriel primarily through her relationship with sauron does not undermine her character, nor is it anti-feminist to consider how romantic connections might influence or define aspects of her story. in fact, positioning galadriel as self-defining, without acknowledging her relationships, aligns closely with the ideals of both patriarchal individualism and choice feminism, which encourages women to prioritise self-sufficiency at the expense of connection and community.

shipping any female character resists the confines of patriarchal individualism, which isolates women under the guise of independence, as well as the limitations of choice feminism, which prioritises the self over community.

so please do not listen to what anybody says: female characters are not diminished by their romantic connections. the same way we, real life women, are not diminished by our romantic connections. we are enhanced by them, and galadriel is no different when it comes to sauron--or whoever you ship her with, to be fair. you do you, just promise me you'll keep having fun, and promise me you will ignore those who accidentally uphold patriarchal ideals by wanting you to divorce galadriel from her romantic context.

[animentality]

"periods are a universal woman experience that trans women could never relate to-"

Except not all women have periods frequently or at all, due to a cavalcade of medical issues or simply age. Are women in menopause just not women anymore?

"having a uterus is what makes a woman a woman-"

except women get hysterectomies. For a million medical reasons. Are they not women if they develop ovarian cancer?

"being pregnant/giving birth makes a person female-"

A lot of women don't do this or want to do this. Some women get c sections and some have natural births. Some miscarry, some get abortions. You don't get to decide what they call themselves, based on how you define your own female experience.

"a woman is someone who grew up with misogyny and the male gaze. a trans person could never understand-"

You don't understand because you're an idiot.

Different women experience different forms of misogyny. Black women experience harsher forms of misogyny based on their gender and their race. White women don't know the lived experiences of latinas and their relationship to womanhood. Chinese women live different versions of womanhood from Korean women or Cambodian women.

Some women experience blatant misogyny such as being outright forbidden from leaving the home or the country without male guardians.

Others experience more subtle misogyny, being discouraged from sports, expected to take on the role of mother even if they're working full time and their husbands just expect them to still be a housewife.

Womanhood has never been universal.

You are not born a woman. No one is.

You become a woman.

Just as you become whatever society teaches you to be.

A student, a laborer, a wife, a mother.

None of these things are biological facts. They are cultural.

They are the things we taught one another. But they are not immutable law, and your world is frightening and strange and nothing is as controlled as you'd like to think.

So choose now to stop being a fucking moron and think.

These people claim to be feminists but then turn around and insist they can label and brand real women and not women.

That is because these people are not progressives, but fascists who want to limit personal expression and civil freedoms.

You tell me that you don't think trans people should be able to choose what they do with their own bodies and then turn around and insist you're prochoice and pro women's rights and pro bodily autonomy?

You raging buffoon. you absolute joke.

The path you've chosen trails downward.

You have no other recourse, you're just too dumb to see which way you're going.

[hadesoftheladies]

answering TRA, MRA, and feminist's arguments against separatism speedrun:

-"it's sex segregation"

segregation is organized by the oppressor, separatism is organized by the oppressed. hope this helps.

-"separatism is disconnected from reality"

bad faith take of the propositions of separatism. serious separatism is mainly focused on not participating in the delusion or perpetuation of patriarchy (that is male power and dominance) by divesting from relations that empower it (e.g. relationships with men, marriage, etc) since sex-based oppression is primarily relational. in the sense that it is men who benefit from relationships (sexual or emotional) with women, and women who are disadvantaged in relationships (sexually, emotionally and financially) with men. an ideal form of separatism is escaping to womyn's land, but it is not the only (or most popular) form of separatism. furthermore, patriarchy is not inevitable reality, it is made up bs imposed on us. it is a culture, a way of relating, that can and must be resisted.

think of it as drawing a boundary that excludes people who are prejudiced against you and take more than they are willing to give :)

-"separatism is for lesbians"

. . . the male­-defined concept of woman is one who is sexually for a man, one who is to be fucked by a man. This concept denies women an independent existence. Indeed, 'for a woman to be independent means she can’t be a woman – she must be a dyke'. . . Women cannot overcome their oppression if they cannot imagine surviving it, which is to say, if they cannot imagine themselves as other than men have defined them. -Kate M. Phalen

-"separatism is not intersectional"

you know what isn't intersectional? misogyny. do black women share racial oppression with black men? yeah. black men also share male privilege with white men which is why it hasn't stopped them from betraying black women in support of white male misogyny. same for every other demographic of men.

furthermore, there is little evidence that being with men benefits poor women. if anything, they live in more abuse, are more likely to face domestic violence and sexual assault, and are more likely to be femicide victims. the problem (men) cannot be the solution, regardless. (which is why the lucky ones are rescued by outsiders and taken to shelters, also usually women's only spaces). if women cannot do basic separatism, then they likely can't do any feminist activism (boycotting, petitioning, etc) for the same reasons, which means they are the kind that need rescuing by feminist activists in the first place. (and most of them go to rape or dv shelters, so separatism is still a solution).

also, you can be a separatist and still engage with men on a professional basis, that is, in the corporate sphere and in activism. you can still do other activism with men. you can march with them in the streets. the main concern is not to invest in male hegemony and to focus your energy on female community. (you can still do this if you have sons or are married to a man, even though the most effective mode of separatism is still not marrying or dating men.)

-"separatism is bad/individualist activism and bad for activism"

it would be bad activism for something like "men's rights" but it is absolutely integral to feminist activism. one, because it promotes consciousness-raising, a prerequisite to feminist thinking. most women only see their suffering as deliberate exploitation in women-only spaces. furthermore, most only ever feel free to talk about how this affects/bothers them in separatist circles.

two, because it energizes the community and genuinely empowers them to fight back. not only do women-only spaces inform women, they revitalize and radicalize women, mobilizing them to demand better. there is never going to be female liberation without the de-centering of men. so long as women regard men as default, inevitable, authoritative, they will default to them, their wishes and feelings. which is exactly what patriarchy says women are for. separatism is not only necessary to feminist activism, it empowers all other forms of activism.

-"separatism is a cult/encourages groupthink"

patriarchy is groupthink, lol. male supremacy is an ideology based on nothing but male pee-pee. secondly, separatism has no leaders. that's like saying marching is groupthink. it's group action. furthermore, it is community building. women need women's spaces to create female culture. female culture is needed to fight (mentally and physically) patriarchy. women's spaces are the only places where authentic female culture can develop. and no liberation movement has succeeded without a defined culture.

one of the most morally and intellectually courageous things a human can do is oppose male supremacy in every way they can.

feminism is radically anti status quo and exists in a world that is ideologically postured against it. we are born hearing the "other side." we grow up reading and breathing men's perspectives. if anyone is to more afflicted by bias, it has to be misogynists/anti-feminists.

-"separatists are hateful towards men"

men are hateful towards women by raping, beating, killing, humiliating, selling, abusing, torturing, starving and cheating women. when you walk down the street, do you fear separatists? or is our greatest sin against you simply annoying you?

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

I don't really get the discourse about radical feminism ending with separatism? Sorry I'm a lurker, but I read Female Chuavanist Pigs recently and one idea that really stuck out to me is that we should be looking at helping women have a true "sexual revolution" where they are no longer groomed by the media and men to think that their sexuality is defined by the male sexuality. Shouldn't we be trying to tackle the imbalance between men and women when it comes to sex and pleasure? I just feel like there is a difference between separatist feminism and radical feminism. I thought separatist feminism was a sub-branch of radical feminism? I don't mean to bring the discourse onto your blog I am just new to this and trying to learn and saw how well read you are. Please ignore if you don't want to get involved. Have a nice day!

Separatism technically comes from 'lesbian' feminism, a branch of feminism that split from the broader movement because they thought radical feminists weren't doing enough to combat the 'actual' source of misogyny: heterosexual relationships. In summary, though I'd always recommend people do their own research, 'lesbian' feminists claimed that heterosexual relationships reinforce misogyny, and that an actual feminist movement required women to re-route the effort they put into romantic relationships with men into 'prioritising women' (sounds like radblr, no?).

(It's technically called 'lesbian' feminism, but it doesn't use 'lesbian' in the way we'd use it today - when they used 'lesbian,' they meant 'a woman who prioritised other women,' so the 'lesbian' feminists were a collection of actual lesbians, bisexuals, and straight women.)

Radical feminism has its origins in bringing women together and the discussing the various ways that misogyny manifested, and the various options available to women to counteract that misogyny. I think the most productive direction that radical feminism could take would be to re-engage with consciousness-raising and discuss the various options available to women - the pleasure disparity (and how to advocate for their own pleasure - and I do love that you're bringing that up, it's such an important thing, because how many women would remain in their current relationships if they looked at whether their sex lives are satisfying), the housework disparity (and how to advocate for their time), separatism, healthy self-esteem, and so on. Because the moment you have to argue a group into doing something is the moment you've lost touched with the beneficiaries of that group

How did you find Female Chuavanist Pigs and would you recommend it? It's been on my reading list for a while but I've been distracted with other things.

[my-castles-crumbling]

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Hi! I'm gonna address this point-by-point. Also, TW: discussion of transphobia, genitalia, etc.

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

Yeah, to put it simply. Trans women are (usually) assigned male at birth and sometimes start out with male genitals. There are exceptions to this (intersex people). And some trans people, of course, choose to get surgery.

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

Yeah, that tends to be the usual argument. There's more to it, but yeah.

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

Both. They insist that trans women are mentally ill or perverted, and that a woman is defined by her uterus and genitalia. Which is so wrong, because not all people with XX chromosomes or assigned female at birth even have those things.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

HALLELUJAH! SAY IT FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Basically, from my limited knowledge on the subject, terfs argue that to be a woman, you have to have XX chromosomes, have a uterus, a vag*na, etc. You have to have been raised as a woman and experienced womanhood (whatever the fuck that means).

It's a lot of bullshit. I think it's based on a few things:

Fear. A lot of terfs are very uneducated and assume trans people are actually cis men trying to assault cis women or take away from cis women in some way.. Which is obviously so wrong. trans women are just women who want to live their lives.

Ignorance. Again, terfs are uneducated and don't understand what it means to be trans. They also don't understand their own arguments and the fallacies in them: not all people with XX chromosomes, for example, have uteruses.

Transphobia. A lot of people see being trans as very taboo, and don't want to be associated with it or accept it. So of course, they don't want trans women as a part of the feminist movement.

This is a stretch, but I also think it has to do with sexism. Stay with me here, but terfs see trans women as men, right? (They're not, but just stay with me). And when men do feminine things, it's always SO deeply frowned upon. Because how DARE someone AMAB act feminine. It's seen as disgusting. Men need to be men- protectors, not emotional, not weak (yes, I know being fem isn't weak, but from their POV...). SO I think it's actually deeply-ingrained sexism as well, if that makes sense.

I hope that helps a bit! It's a horrible, horrible mindset, and the fact that JKR promotes it is so upsetting, tbh.

[drbased]

On beauty and invisible male desire

male desire is so ubiquitous, so integral to culture that it's invisible. women will look at another woman's attractiveness and think 'I want what she has' and she never has to consciously want to be desireable for a man, or for men in general - she just wants it because female attractiveness is inherently desireable, universal and representative of beauty itself.

a failing of modern feminism is a misunderstandng of the hold patriarchal thinking has over culture. straight women will seek out BBLs despite not being sexually attracted to women's asses, but because big butts are inherently beautiful, and beauty is.... well, important doesn't feel like the right word to say, because that implies a conscious thought process. perhaps it's better to say that lack of beauty is unthinkable, and that it's as natural as breathing for a woman to desire to be beautiful. so women are tricked on the most deep level possible, the unthinking and instinctual, into believing that their desire for beauty is natural, and that their perception of what beauty is is baked into the fabric of reality itself.

time moves so fast that we forget that forget the fashions of the past, the instinct is so entrenched within us that women seek the new way to be seen as universally beautiful. as media has given us easy access to the fashions of yesterday it should, in theory be easier to see the absurdity of the whole exercise. so to keep the house of cards aloft, the process speeds up. no time to think about why only last week you wanted a soft coquette face, now you need buccal fat surgery. the line between body trends and fashion/make-up trends is deliberately blurred; clothes can give an impression of slimness and accentuate certain physical features, and make-up can change the percieved shape of the face.

the fact that most men aren't even particularly enamoured with any of these fashion trends, and in fact many men ruthlessly mock women for participating in them, effortlessly perpetuates the fundamental principle that women simply desire to feel beautiful - and, in fact, that is something that should be admired and celebrated in women, it is feminist to do so! of course, with the woman successfully indocrinated into desiring beauty, no matter how much she believes that it is truly universal - a feature of the universe, controlled by no-one - deep down it is impossible for her to believe that fully, and the moment a boyfriend complains her ass is too flat, even if she personally thinks skinny asses are better-looking, or if 'heroin chic' is in now, she will feel self-conscious. all it takes is one man to comment on her appearance and the whole illusion is shattered; it was never in her control, it was never about her self-empowerment, it was never her own desire at play. all of it was a constantly shifting set of goalposts, designed to keep her focussed on the goal of being attractive, whatever the hell that means. the boyfriend might not even mind if her ass is flat, but he knows he can easily make her feel self-conscious because of how she's conditioned. and we all assume that her self-consciousness is just how women are - weak and feeble-minded, easily influenced. but isn't self-consciousness proof that this belief in beauty being immaterial and self-defined is all nonsense? for if she truly believed that no single man had control over the sublime nature of beauty, that female attractiveness is as accessible to heterosexual women as to heterosexual men, then she could make an equally confident assertion that she is beauty according to her own assessment. but she doesn't, because this was never about her own assessment, and secretly, she knows it. secretly, everyone knows it.

make no mistake; the problem here is not with 'beauty standards'. women cling to this idea that the problem is that boyfriend who complains about her flat ass, and that she should get to decide for herself if flat asses are attractive or not - that there should be no 'standards' set by society. similarly, feminists will critique fashion trends for perpetuating 'unhealthy' beauty standards and practices such as heroin chic or BBLs. but therein still lies a fundamental assumption about beauty; that it is something women naturally desire for themselves. to this, I say, as a straight woman: what is it exactly about my breasts or ass am I supposed to find attractive? to me, they are neutral body parts, no more sexy than my elbow. why would I desire to look curvy, or look skinny? I don't look at myself all that often. I do have certain preferences, but I also like the way trees look in Autumn. why would I, why should I, care so much about the shape of my hips? the fact that the culturally desired shape of my hips changes year to year is immaterial; the entire premise is flawed.

of course, the absurdity of it all is very much the point - the more absurd the chase for beauty is, the more sunk-cost fallacy is in play, and the more powerful the man becomes. I read somewhere on here that true power is to be able to speak absolute nonsense and be believed. nowhere is this more true than in the case of beauty.

[lucy-and-rebecca]

Let's talk about Fairy Tail women.

A while ago I came across an ... interesting post that can be summarised as 'fanservice is bad and hence all the female characters are written badly'. I've seen a lot of takes alonge these lines.

I've said it a million times, I don't like the fanservice in fairy tail but claiming that the fanservice automatically makes the writing of the female characters bad is a very shallow way of looking at the story. The over sexualization of the female characters is only one criteria we should consider while discussing how female characters are handled in the story. Unfortunately most of the time that ends up being the only criteria. I also think a lot of the times this is used as an excuse to hate on the female characters in fairy tail.

So here are some of my reasons as to why I absolutely love the way fairy tail women are written.

Flipping the damsel in distress trope.

During the phantom lord arc Lucy is kidnapped and Natsu went out to save her. A very classic setting for the damsel in distress trope. What makes this moment different is Lucy, the princess stuck in a tower, decided to jump. That moment is so important for her character. Lucy chose to jump because the alternative was having to return home to her abusive father and she jumped because she knew Natsu would catch her. That scene both simultaneously showed the audiance how much Lucy dreaded going back to her father's house and how much faith she had in her guildmate. That scene wasn't there to show Natsu saving her, that moment was there to flesh out Lucy's character.

They Unfridged Lisanna.

Fridged girlfriend/wife is a trope where the female lover of the male protagonist is killed, sometimes even before the story begins and the sole purpose that female character serves is to be a source of angst for the male protagonist. Lisanna was almost that. But she was brought back. Even before that she wasn't just limited to being Natsu's source of angst. She was Mira and Elfman's sister. I don't particularly like Lisanna but she's alive and she's living her life with the people she loves. That will always be a positive thing.

Self sacrifice is bad actually.

A lot of times, especially for female characters self sacrifice is presented as a virtue. It's presented as a selfless noble thing. During tower of heaven arc, Erza learnt that that's wrong. she realised she's loved and wanted. She learnt that her life matters and the people who love her would be miserable without her and nothing good will come from her death. She learnt that self sacrifice will only lead to pain for everyone she loves.

Passing bechdel test in the most unexpected situations.

In case you don't know the criteria for passing the bechdel test are, two named female characters talking to each other about someone other than a man. This test is mainly for movies but we can apply it to tv shows, anime and manga by seeing how often it passes the bachdel test rather than if it passes it. Like how someone did for Doctor Who. (I am genuinely tempted to do this for fairy tail anime.)

Anyway getting to the point, you would think that's very easy to achieve and yet so many stories fail at it so very often. While this test is by no means a sure shot way of measuring how feminist something is, I do think a show with a lot of important female characters who have good relationship with one another will pass the bechdel test a lot more frequently compared to a show that doesn't.

Fairy tail passes the backdel test somewhat frequently, sometimes in unexpected ways.

At first we are lead to believe that Erza and Kagura are connected because of Jellal and Simon. So it's only natural that they will talk about those two men during their fight. And yet their fight during grand magic games passes the bechdel test. Because their relationship goes beyond those two men. Erza knew Kagura from their childhood and she wanted their relationship to be defined by that rather than anything else. Erza didn't tell Kagura how she should feel. She understood and respected Kagura's feeling. All she wanted was for Kagura see her as her own person. The reason why this scene managed to pass the bechdel test was because despite everything Erza and Kagura's relationship is not defined by the men in their lives.

Women with power

Time and time again fairy tail has portrayed women wielding immense power. Fairy tail has also portrayed women in position of power. Hisui didn't just remain a princess, she became a queen. Fairy tail was founded by a woman. Dragon Slayer magic was invented by a woman. Characters like Urtear and Brandish are unmatched in power. Powerful women in fairy tail feel powerful, they don't feel power for a woman or power despite being a woman, they feel powerful.

Future Lucy died in her own arms.

Future Lucy is a characters who went through unimaginable pain and suffering and ended up dying. But she died to protect her past self. She died in her own arms and made the past version of herself promise her that she will fight for their future. Even though we know that our Lucy is perfectly fine that scene hits like a truck. Natsu in that moment remembers how happy Lucy was when she got her guild mark. That's a painful memory in that moment because future Lucy has lost everything. She has lost her guild along with her guild mark. Natsu and everyone else there is sad and angry because future Lucy deserved to happy and that happiness was stolen from her. Even when it comes to showing Natsu's pain it's entirely selfless. Even after all the pain she went through in the end she was at peace and the story made sure we knew that. Future Lucy is one of the few characters who dies in fairy tail and like all the other deaths in fairy tail this too is meaningful. Fairy tail would never kill of a character, let alone a female character for shock value.

Power of friendship but like siriously.

From Erza and Mira's childhood rivery to Lucy and Brandish's current rivery, to Wendy and Chelia's relationship that's two steps away from blossoming into romance fairy tail has so many complex relationships between it's female characters. It is so hard to put into words. I absolutely adore the relationships fairy tail women have with each other. They are sweet, bitter, silly, loving and everything else that you could possibly imagine. While not all, most of their relationship are also build on their own without a male character being involved. What I mean by that very often we will see two female characters being friends because their boyfriends are friends or because they had a crush on the same guy but they put aside their differences or the girlfriend and sister of a male character becoming friends. Those examples exists in fairy tail too but they are just so rare. And because we have so many dynamics between the female characters those type of relationship don't stand out.

[anamericangirl]

On your post about the Barbie movie, you seemed to take a dim view of feminist themes. So - genuinely just asking because I'm curious about your opinion:

How do you define feminism? (I've found that most people, including many feminists, aren't clear about what it means. Many feminists are prone to the motte-and-bailey fallacy with the motte of "legalise abortion! Sex work is work! Promote strong female characters" and the bailey of "men and women are equal in value and should be equal in law and society").

With feminism defined, how much of it do you object to, how strenuously and why?

I tend to take feminism at face value and accept the definition I see them most often give which is along the lines of advocating for equality between the sexes.

And I don’t object to anything that definition puts forward because I think equality between the sexes is a good thing.

The reason I reject feminism, however, is because feminists do not abide by the definition they provide. They assume there is currently not equality between the sexes and I do not agree with that.

It’s particularly third and fourth wave feminism that are the biggest problems. Their movement does not in any way reflect the alleged definition. From what I have seen their whole goal is to have women dominate over men and I don’t vibe with that.

Furthermore:

I reject the idea that we live in a patriarchy.

Pretty much everything feminists talk about from the wage gap to rape culture is a myth.

They ignore and dismiss issues that affect men. And you can’t advocate for equality between both sexes, like they claim to do, when you only focus on one sex.

They constantly disparage men in order to promote women using made up and false terms like “toxic masculinity” “mansplain” “male tears” “manspreading” and “male gaze.”

They bash traditional femininity.

They advocate for abortion.

They promote the ideas of hiring people because of their sex or race just to get more “diversity” when practices like that are inherently discriminatory.

They promote the idea of “believe all women” over the concept of due process.

And I could go on but hopefully that gives enough a picture. They do nothing to help no one and they lie to women and degrade men. Their movement is as far away from promoting equality as it can possibly be.

[littlelasagne]

Just a random thought. As we can see Hange is a very confident person. Isayama portrayed her as a vocal person and not afraid of challenges. Always eager to find something new. So imo Hange wouldn't be ashamed(?) of her gender. What I mean is, if she's a girl, she would be very proud of her gender/sexuality. She would be very vocal about the need of a female, about the female body and the women's right. She wouldn't hide anything that defines her as a female. And vice versa if she's a man. I don't think she would be a person who is confused(?) about her gender/sexuality/identity. Apart from that, she also would be someone who is very vocal about females while also respecting and not hating on male. We can see some feminist movement nowadays kind of ran away from the original objectives of feminist. But I'm sure Hange is not that kind of person. To me she would be like Emma Watson irl. What do you think? It's okay if you don't answer it. Just a random thought hahah

I love Hange for being a layered multi-faceted character. Whenever I write Hange, I remember that this exuberant, passionate, Hange

exists at the same time as this conflicted, potentially insecure Hange

and that dictates a lot for me. When we think of Hange, we think of the top picture, but actually the Hange who asks 'why did you make me commander' can't be forgotten and is vital to understanding Hange's character. The public appearance versus private. Inner monologue versus spoken thoughts. So that's where I take my interpretation for Hange in my fics.

I'm not sure if your ask relates to my fanfic depictions of Hange or not, but I love trying to capture the process of Hange coming to terms with her inner self (whether that's gender identity, insecurities, appearance - whatever I decide is the focus of the story). Of Hange being exuberant in public but under turmoil on the inside... and Levi being the one who truly sees it. I love writing Hange as being confident and outgoing but under the surface, it's not that simple. All characters need some inner conflict to develop over a story, otherwise it's boring.

As for feminism waves, I definitely imagine a modern AU Hange as fourth wave - I don't think first wave or 'original' feminism would serve Hange or fit her character values! Or maybe I'm projecting, as it doesn't serve me either. Maybe someone needs to do a proper deep dive on it. 🤔

Thanks for the intriguing ask!

[buffysummers]

everyone wants to try and say that only justin is talking about the dv, when he isn't. blake HAS talked about it, and has talked about how the movie isn't even a movie/story ABOUT dv, but how it's a part of the story, and how dv isn't something that only defines you as a victim, something the author (who while i don't care for the writing of, wrote from her past/experiences with her mother/parents marriage and it feels weird to tell her she's…wrong lol?) agreed with and has said! so many people are saying what a "great feminist" justin is but when he found the story he thought it was a "sexy story" and that's why he optioned it to be made into a movie back in 2019 to begin with lol. it's very weird behavior. blake is far from perfect and anyone is free to think her (or ryan i suppose) are annoying or whatever but all this weird sudden blacklash is just so obvious, it kills me. truly none of you (not u alexandra) are immune to propaganda.

Justin hiring Johnny Depp's PR dude is all anyone needs to know. And it's working... again! Because people aren't immune to propaganda like you mentioned, but also because this is a smear campaign against a WOMAN. This only happens to women! Like even if this were happening to a female celebrity I strongly dislike, I'd at the very least do my due diligence and not believe shit blindly. I'd, at the very least, just not engage with it at all. Not add fuel to the fire. Not relish in someone getting attacked. That's what people are doing. They're giggling and kicking their feet and getting excited because they can now openly attack her! They don't give a fuck about what's going on. They don't care about what Blake did or didn't do, they just want a reason to attack her. I have literally seen people admitting this on twitter, tiktok, all over. This is not normal behavior.

The stories from decades ago coming out of the woodwork, the reporter coming out and saying she's infertile. Being served videos on tiktok in favor of Justin when I never mentioned/searched for Justin, Blake, the movie, or anyone involved. We have seen this shit happen time and time again. It just happened recently to a literal victim of DV who had to take the stand in front of the whole world and relive her trauma while people wished death on her and mocked her. When he was already convicted! She was being sued for speaking her truth!! It's nauseating. (also it's insane how people did not even know what the trial was about like they really thought it was about proving he was innocent like no actually that's not true ellen)

I'm just tired like I can't believe this happens all the time and I feel so badly like society just REALLY REALLY hates women. Women hate women, too! How neat.

[old-school-butch]

"His Y chromosome must be acting up again!" That's biological essentialism. Why are you as a feminist promoting biological essentialism?

Ah, an anon from the wilds of 'feminism is about equality' school of thought. It's not really a settled question among feminist thought, actually, whether male-female relationships are due to social or biological factors, or their interaction. I stand in the interaction camp, that males have a biological advantage in strength and limited reproductive burdens with maximal reproduction potential, and that defines the historical relationships we see. To me, it's the relative biologically-based strength and vulnerabilities that define the relationships on a social basis. For example, it's hard to imagine a species where the females are 10 times the size of male resulting in the kind of global subjugation of women we see in human societies. Similarly, if human nature doesn't differ between men and women and women are just as aggressive as men, then why haven't men been socialized out of their aggression?

How you view these questions affects what you think the possible solutions are going to be.

Someone recently had a poll where if you could test any feminist theory you wanted, which one would you test and for me that would be 'what would the world look like without men?' Because, perhaps pessimistically, I do think human nature is all the same and it wouldn't take too long for the all-female population to shift in alignments and strategy as new logical strategies opened up in the altered social landscape. However the conflict wouldn't be based on physical strength and reproductive capacity, it would be something else.