#how did they know which people to oppress if they didn't know what biological sex was?

[sapphsorrows]

regarding the tags on my last post: if you say something dumb like "oh you clearly don't know about indigenous 'genders'"

1. I do, nearly all of them refer to homosexuals

and 2. I don't know how to tell you this, but european colonialism did not invent biological sex. Literally every ethnic group has oppressed women in some way, even before colonization.

I know y'all have this idea that before the evil europeans arrived, every other culture was holding hands and singing kumbaya and everyone lived in peace and equality, but no. you're wrong. take a history class. read a book.

[spiderfreedom]

stop being obtuse about female people in technology

While trying to find one of my own posts (tumblr search is dire), I stumbled upon a critique of the American Anthropological Association and Canadian Anthropology Society session that was meant to discuss the importance of biological sex in anthropology. The critique asserted that the conference was anti-trans hate. But this segment caught my attention:

Why is this poster so convinced that the number of trans women in IT is not 'statistically significant'? As far as I know, there are no academic studies on this. Kathleen Richardson's session didn't go through so we don't know if she had data on trans women in IT that OP does not!

I looked up this quote to see if there was any more information about this canceled panel, and found this hacker news thread with both an appalling lack of understanding of what biological sex (hint: it is not your phenotype) is and this argument for why trans women should count as women in IT:

Let’s suppose the motive of wanting more women in tech is to rally against historic prejudices and institutional biases, in order to assist an otherwise marginalised group towards a more equal footing with the traditional power brokers, men. If you can’t see how this extends to trans women, a group that is almost inarguably as oppressed as cis women, regardless of whether you view them as ‘true’ women, then I can only assume bad faith.

Looks like we have to explain why you cannot treat trans women and cis women interchangeably, and why doing so is harmful.

The stereotype of the "trans girl programmer" exists for a reason. If you find someone in ROM hacking or Linux development identifying as a woman, there is a very high chance that this person will be a trans woman. There is also a very high chance that this person presented as a man most of their life and transitioned late. In other words, they gained their experience in tech while other people (correctly) assumed they were biologically male, and treated them as men.

Undoubtedly their situation changes once they come out as trans. They may not be as respected anymore by predominantly male community members. And if they pass as women, then they likely do experience misogyny. If they transition early, like pediatric transitioner Kim Petras, then they will also face very different struggles from late transitioners. Do you think that a pediatric transitioner entering the IT field as someone who's been socialized as female since 16 and a late transitioner who entered the field as a man and transitioned at 40 will have had the same experience in tech?

Understanding this is key to understanding why "including trans women as women in IT" with no distinction by demographic may not actually be helping. Treating 'trans women' as a monolith is not helpful to anyone - not to cis women, not to female people, and certainly not to trans women.

Let's use an example: Lynn Conway. Lynn Conway is a famous trans woman in computer science. Lynn transitioned in 1968, at age 33, and then went 'stealth' for the rest of her career, only coming out in 1999 at age 61. Being that there are no reports of Conway being 'outed', I can believe that from 33 to 61, Conway's coworkers simply believed that she was a cis woman, and assumed that she was female, and so she would have been subject to misogynistic assumptions about female people's capabilities in technology. I can imagine that Conway may have been harassed or sexualized or belittled because other people viewed her as a female, with no knowledge of her male past.

However, it is worth pointing out that for 33 years of her life, Lynn Conway lived as a man. Because Lynn Conway is male, she would have been socialized and raised as a boy.

Because Lynn Conway did not make an effort to appear as a female person for 33 years of her life (with the exception of one year 1957-58 with a 'failed medical transition', which is left unclear), this means that when Lynn Conway went to MIT, when Lynn Conway worked as an electronics technician, when Lynn Conway studied engineering at Columbia university, and when Lynn Conway was hired at IBM, Lynn Conway was presenting as a man, was viewed as a male person by the people hiring and educating her, and therefore socially benefitted from not being of the female sex.

Lynn Conway would not have been told for those 33 years of her life that technology was "for boys" and therefore she should not engage in it. Lynn Conway would not have been told that being at a computer would "make her ugly and undesirable to men." Lynn Conway would not have had to worry about being sexually harassed by boys, or even being raped and impregnated. Lynn Conway had two children, who she did not have to carry to term, because she had no eggs or uterus but a penis and sperm. As the impregnating partner, Lynn Conway's career did not suffer from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Conway did not have to deal with pregnancy and the trauma of birth and recovery in a society that heavily coerced mothers into giving up their careers once they had children.

In fact, being male allowed Lynn Conway to study at Columbia university, because Columbia university did not accept female students until 1983.

Lynn Conway began her career as a 33-year old "woman in tech" with advantages that no other 33-year old female person at the time could have had. Not being sexualized, not being told that females are stupider than males, being allowed to enroll normally at Columbia University. While her accomplishments as a stealth, cis-presenting trans woman in technology should actually inspire women, in so far as they show that it is possible for someone presenting as female to succeed in technology, it would be irresponsible to ignore that Lynn Conway had multiple advantages on account of being male.

This is not to say that Lynn Conway or other late-transitioners do not suffer. Lynn Conway appeared to have suffered from depression due to dysphoria. I have no doubt that Conway's mental health suffered for those 33 years because of dysphoria. After transitioning, she was not allowed to see her kids anymore on the basis that it would have been a 'bad influence' to have a 'transsexual' near them. After going stealth, she was basically unable to talk about her past at all, which is isolating and scary.

But we must recognize that lack of privilege in one area (being trans) does not mean that one does not experience privilege in another (being a male person). Whether the ledger of benefits versus penalties adds up to a positive or negative sum does not change that the benefits of being male happened.

So here's a question - if we know that female people face special challenges compared to male people in general, that female people are sexualized by male people, that female people are presumed incompetent and unintelligent by male people on account of their female biology and 'female brains', and that trans women are only oppressed on the basis of misogyny when other people mistake them as females...

How will it help female people overcome socialization and societal barriers by showing them male people who had most of their education and experience in technology as males, and only transitioned once their careers were more secure? The answer is it doesn't. Frankly it doesn't even help trans women who transition early!

Once again, this does not mean that trans women don't face problems, barriers, and even misogyny. Even late-transitioning trans women in tech face barriers to their career once they come out. Tech bros are hardly the most welcoming people to gender non-conforming people.

But it means our problems are very different. When someone says that we should not hire women because they get pregnant and leave, a trans woman can always say that she is incapable of becoming pregnant because she has no uterus or eggs, and is thus a more desirable worker. When someone says that female brains are inferior to male brains, less prone to genius, and less interested in technical development, how does that apply to trans women, especially ones who transitioned late in their lives and therefore weren't even on HRT for most of their critical development?

there are literally already jokes online about trans women being better at technology, math, and science than cis women (female people).

So frankly, Kathleen Richardson's research on this topic would have been fascinating to hear. How many trans women are there in programming? When do they transition? Did they gain their prominence in STEM before or after transitioning to feminine?

There's very little data about this. Anecdata suggest that some communities (ROM hacking and Linux kernel, as mentioned above) have very high numbers of trans women as opposed to cis women. And statistical data on Haskell programmers suggests that the ratio of trans to cis women is 1:1. In other words, 3% of Haskell programmers are women-identified, but only half of them are female. (link)

If your only concern is whether people presenting as women are succeeding in STEM, then maybe you don't really care about this! But I care about female people because I know being female comes with significant challenges, and I think having data on this matters! If there has been a huge jump in the number of women in programming, but that jump comes entirely from previously male programmers transitioning to female, then all that means is that people whose careers were secure changed their gender marker! No actual advances were made for female people!

Nothing about this topic is anti-trans. You can discuss dysphoria, transphobia, transmisogyny, the mental health impact of going stealth, the (mis)treatment of trans women in technology, the challenges of coming out as a late-career professional, the challenges of entering a career as a trans woman, perfectly well.

You can also do that while acknowledging that there is a difference between presenting/being read as female and having a female body, being raised and socialized as a female person, and dealing with the unique challenges of being a female person in technology.

In fact, we need to both if we have a commitment to social justice. If you don't care about the struggles of female people and the way data on our experiences can be obscured by collating trans women with us, then I'm not sure you have a commitment to social justice or feminism.

[harrypotterfuryroad]

fjakdsfjkl they're checking children's genitals in Ohio & florida and y'all radfems totally sided with them to get it done, much like your calls for censorship silenced lesbian authors in the nineties (see the feminist sex wars/porn wars and/or struggles of the little sisters canadian bookshop).

wow, amazing. you STILL, even after fucking LINKING it, very obviously failed to read the whole thing. she absolutely described radical feminist ideology. and being well-read is something you guys pride yourselves on...that's pretty sad. i'm not even saying this is a premier source against your crock of shit ideology; i frequently cite many others. yet you failed--multiple times, now--to properly read the one single tumblr post i brought to your attention.

by far the most obnoxious conversation to have with you people is the "sex is binary" conversation. it's so eerily like talking to the scientologist freaks i grew up around, it's like a deja vu nightmare. biology is complex. also, it doesn't care. not "it doesn't care and that's why women are fucked by it!" no, it just doesn't fucking care. period. it's neutral. why in hell are you treating biological sex like it's spiritual...oh, that's right, because of your incessant and childish need to feel like a victim, which matters more than other people and certainly more than the truth. intersex people exist. you guys deny it alot, but they do. they're about as common as redheads. are redheads fucking fictitious, "harrypotterfuryroad"?

i am a cis woman, and i'm annoyed with what influence (feeble though it is, it's still important because you quite literally endanger lives) you've managed to have over the very important, real conversation about systemic misogyny. the irony is that you have made it harder to talk about. you have hindered progress. by oppressing women you have *omg you'll never guess, cue drumroll* fucking oppressed women.

as that post said, you don't own the definition of womanhood. society does. and it and i (hello, a cis woman born with your same genitals and born into the same oppression you've faced, not that it matters!) don't agree with you. get the fuck over yourself and grow up.

name one radfem that supported genital checks and follow that up by explaining why men belong in women's sports in the first place

and am i supposed to be shocked that anti-porn feminists were anti-porn regardless of who was producing it? are you shocked? did you think you had some kind of gotcha by saying that anti-porn arguments were coopted by homophobes? that horse is long past dead

she described it, sure, but she didn't define it. and a lot of those descriptive statements were total asspulls anyway. like, imagine you ask me what a square is, and i give you "it isn't a circle," "sometimes they're blue," and "they're related to trapezoids" as descriptive statements. all of these can be true, but they're not useful in gauging if i actually know what makes a square a square. so yeah i'm gonna go ahead and reject a pile of descriptive and spuriously ascriptive statements as a coherent definition, thanks. throwing out things like "TERFs think they're leftists" and "TERFs are inherently fascist" doesn't give any clear picture of what (again) a radfem is, especially with the implicit split between radfems and "TERFs"

and likewise i'll breeze right past your attention-grabbing link to scientology, i posted a few weeks ago about why that isn't productive without much more detail. i'm not treating biology like it's spiritual; i'm treating sex like it's binary. you're the one taking that spiritually by acting like i'm making some kind of individual moral judgment based on it. the redhead frequency thing is fucking stupid, because just like redheads still have hair, intersex people are still male or female (and they're also not there to be used as pawns by you)

also please tell me how it's been made harder to talk about systemic misogyny with specific examples because i'm curious about that

and finally the womanhood thing was the exact line that made it clear that the writer of that post had no idea what she was talking about. the boundaries that feminists have drawn around womanhood are really lenient and really broad. nothing about behavior or dress or class or race disqualifies you from "womanhood." there's no wrong way to be a woman except by being male, and there's no point in taking that personally

[bumblee-stumblee]

1.)

You made up a whole story lmao. You don't need to offer a potential explanation, you aren't them. You don't know their motivations for saying what they did. My issue was referring to themselves as a "vagina-owner", reducing themselves to their genitals which is dehumanizing anyway you put it. Woman would have sufficed.

2.)

Intersex is a medical condition. It is not for trans people or the trans community to use intersex people to validate themselves or claim that sex or gender is a spectrum. Don't use intersex people only when you see fit to defend trans people. That's dehumanizing to intersex people.

Colonization? Do you believe that people in other countries did not understand the difference between their sexes until they were colonized? That they were too dumb to understand until the white man came?

This idea that TRAs have, that people of color recognized no differentiation between the sexes prior to colonization is racist as fuck.

3.)

No because i understand what they mean when they say that. However sex and gender are two very different things and it's the main argument Transpeople have been going with. One you are born with, sex is observed not assigned and the other is imposed upon us. Gender is an oppressive social construct, Sex is reality. You were the one that started talking about gender when i was pointing out the twitter user reducing themselves to their genitals. Sex and gender are not interchangeable.

Women or "Cis-gendered women" as you put it, understand that not having periods is an indication of a problem. It's a pretty big indication that something is wrong. If you meant women after menopause or a hysterectomy, the absence of a period does not make them less of a biological woman. Your mother doesn't stop being female, a woman simply because she no longer experiences her menses. A pregnant woman doesn't stop being a woman because her menstrual cycle has stopped. A woman on birth control, a woman missing a period due to stress or medication doesn't stop being a woman simply because she didn't experience her menses a couple of times.

Maybe not all have cysts or particularly painful cramps but it is experienced by women as only women can have periods. Transwomen cannot have periods or cramps or ovarian cysts because they're men.

>'not all people who do are women'

That's such a fantastic line. You should the Taliban this. Perhaps they will see your point of view and begin to let girls and women that don't identify as such back into schools and university.

Tell the government of Iran this too, perhaps you can convince them to stop killing the girls and woman that do not want to cover their hair, who do not want to wear the hijab.

Tell the girls that will go through fgm and breast ironing that they can just not identify as a woman. Presto! All fixed.

4.)

Ofc you don't believe that, you're part of the community with people that use 'it/its/itself', it would be fine if it was just y'all but the trans community has raged at plenty of people that don't use "genital-owner" when they write something in general, calling them transphobic for making general statements. Even sites and company began referring to women as vagina-owners while still referring to men as men. This is no longer people referring to themselves like this, but also outside parties.

>typo

And still you understood what I meant yes? That i do not conform to the social expectations or stereotypes that society has imposed upon me because i was born female. Did you understand that or did the typo just scramble everything for you?

5.)

How i identify?

I'm just a GNC woman. Almost all, if not all, radfems are GNC women.

I never said people shouldn't express their gender however they want. I said Transpeople reinforce the western binary ideas of gender by playing up and into stereotypes. If anyone is perpetuating binary 'gender norms' it's Transpeople.

I've literally seen MTFs say going hrt/taking estrogen has made them dumb, horny, and submissive. Sexist stereotypes that they play into because for some of these men transitioning is a fetish.

Radfems want to abolish gender. People should be able to dress and act however they want without society telling them they need to be, act or dress a certain way because of their sex. We don't care if men want to wear dresses and make up, it's only a problem when they claim that doing so makes them women. Dresses and make up and hyperfeminity doesn't make you a woman. Growing a beard, or being strong or emotionally closed off or hypermasculine doesn't make one a man.

Your thinking skills make you seem racist, a bit of an asshole for attempting to use intersex people as a shield, and petty for the typo thing lmao. Condescending as well but I'm sure you know that.

[thepiningpoet]

The Pining Poet presents a Periodical Pother:

Allow me to fulminate for a moment, please.

My thoughts on the recent J.K. Rowling hate: When a complex topic is confusing to you, it's perfectly understandable to have questions...not that trans folk are obligated to answer them. But if they do offer to answer your questions (which may be perceived as invasive by some, understandably) then pay them the courtesy of at least listening. I don't believe Rowling has done this but has insisted on keeping a belligerent stance in all regards on the issue.

When there is something beyond my understanding I've chosen just to shut the hell up. I've learned that early on. It's served me well so far. Other than that, gain more understanding through scientific findings (and I mean scientific journal articles, studies, and published statistical findings by reputable scientific associations and those who actively work in scientific fields) plus listening to the opinions of those in the trans community to gain more understanding and, yes, empathy. No one wants to feel foreign or strange in their own body, so although I may not fully grasp everything involving trans' mindsets, I do understand the idea of wanting to be seen and heard in a way that feels authentic to oneself as long as no one is using their platform to devalue others in their own fight for equality and recognition.

"When a complex topic is confusing to you, it's perfectly understandable to have questions...not that trans folk are obligated to answer them. But if they do offer to answer your questions (which may be perceived as invasive by some, understandably) then pay them the courtesy of at least listening."

For example, many people still perceive the term "gender" and "biological sex" to be the same thing, so be wary of "gender is how you think/I wanted my body to match my brain" arguments which belittle already marginalized groups like me who proudly associate themselves with their original biological sex but often don't mentally operate in a way that society deems as "typical of a woman". Reviewing this, plus having another argument with an embarrassingly uninformed individual using the "there are only two genders argument"... it only pushes a point that's been increasingly on my mind: we should just eliminate the idea of gender. It serves no one anymore and actually...it never did. All the idea of gender has done throughout the ages is oppress, immure, limit us despite our natures and cause mental turmoil for the populous in terms of finding their own unique identity. What is it about this point that scares people really? Is it truly the fear that someone will get raped in a public restroom? If it is, they needn't look to the past to see that many countries have had mixed bathrooms before. Much of Scandinavia still does and I assure you, I've never felt safer. Is it the fear that you'll have sexual/romantic feelings with someone you didn't "intend" to?

"When there is something beyond my understanding I've chosen just to shut the hell up... It's served me well so far."

Well, here's a novel idea: Why not allow yourself to fall in love with whoever you end up falling in love with? Would that honestly be the most horrendous of crimes? And those worth knowing and loving will be honest with you about their history so that BOTH of you can plan a realistic future, whether together or apart. So, what is there to fear other than your own freedom and potential happiness? Maybe your only authentic fear is in discovering who you truly are. #foodforthought

Sincerely and most happily yours,

The Pining Poet 🥀🌹

P.S.

Psychology 101:

"Cherophobia is a phobia where a person has an irrational aversion to being happy. The term comes from the Greek word “chero,” which means “to rejoice.” When a person experiences cherophobia, they're often afraid to participate in activities that many would characterize as fun, or of being happy." - Rachel Nall

[blackwoolncrown]

This is so interesting. Much of what I know about Asexuality is from my (ex) best friend who told me that by having crushes and telling her about them, I oppressed her in a sense. At the time I didn't realize how toxic she was in my life but ultimately my knowledge about Asexuality comes from her. That she is inherently queer and has always identified w the community, stuff like that. Some things she said that kind of pierced me hurtfully was that she considered all allosexuals stupid and oppres

“and oppressive, which made me wonder why we were friends. I did understand that she felt incredibly pressured to have sex and that it was lumped into our society and thrown everywhere. I also knew she was dealing with pressures of marriage from society and she was worried about having to have sex with someone bc our society expects that in relationships. I mentioned once that after a trauma I experienced (murder of a close friend) I was ace for a while (wrong wording) bc I couldn't feel any (2)“

“(3) i couldn't experience any sexual urges anymore much less imagine that as a good thing. I was completely dead inside for a bit. She tried not to offend but she did mention that Asexuality isn't something that can come and go in phases like the effects on your libido after a trauma, that being ace is an identity defined from your being and isn't negotiable. Kind of like being gay, where it's not something that can be separated from yourself or you can change if you wanted to. I stopped saying“

“(4)stopped saying it that way. I kind of understood what she meant and honestly shouldn't have used the word ace to describe that year for myself. She was right, I knew that feeling that way wasn't normal for me and so probably couldn't use that word as a verb or adjective, it's more an identity. What do you think? That's as far as I'm familiar with the term. We're no longer friends. One thing I'll never forget is how after I came out to her @ 19, she said, Well You'll always be straight to me.“

First off, I think Ace as an identity and ‘Asexuality’ as a biological occurrence need to be understood as interlinked but still somewhat separate, because ‘Asexuality’ as a state/phenom happens for a lot of reasons, at different durations of people’s lives. And I think the most troublesome dialogue out of the Ace community recently is that ‘all forms, durations and conditions of Asexuality are ‘Ace The Identity’.

I think that Ace activism should be a thing because when someone lacks sex drive or sexual activity in their life there’s a damaging, unnecessary narrative that tells them they’re damaged, or lame, or somehow lacking, and that’s really toxic. I also think that our hypersexual and exploitative society has inundated people with itself that unless they have experience otherwise, they view ‘sex’ and sexuality through the lens that’s been shown them, and logically recoil from that-- but in some cases cannot distinguish ‘sexuality the human behavior’ from ‘sexuality as it’s depicted socially/in media’.

I also think that the experience you had is an interesting example. Because there are two facets of the working definition (in general) of Ace that are there as the discourse evolved (both manipulatively and honestly) to move away from MOGAI spaces which have been criticized for, among other things, convincing people that ‘Ace The Identity’ included things like trauma, paranoia, depression etc - again IT IS HARMFUL TO IDENTIFY *AS* ONE’S TRAUMA OR MENTAL ILLNESS. Anyway those points are now:

1. All durations (lifetime, changing, fluctuating) of Asexual behavior qualify one as Ace The Identity 

and to make that ‘real’,

2. All persons exhibiting Asexual behavior are Ace The Identity, even in cases where they know the reason has to do with illness or trauma.

and conflictingly,

3. Aceness **does not mean sex repulsion**

This raises multiple questions. How often an interval are we measuring against to determine someone’s aceness as real? At that point, what is the assumed interval/amount of sexual desire assumed of an ‘allo’ (this is not a real thing, literally everyone has different amounts of sex and varying levels of sexual desire, also at different times in life)? You see, when they started to say you could be Ace but still experience attraction ~under certain conditions~ (aka many extended MOGAI identities) that means that both ‘no sexual attraction’ and ‘some sexual attraction’ qualify as Ace. That...kind of makes everyone ace. If Asexuality is a spectrum, then there has to be a bar somewhere where it ticks over to ‘Not Asexual’. Kind of how sexuality is a spectrum, but Cis and Het is where it ticks back over to ‘not LGBT’. So where is that point?

Back to the example though, what I want to point out is that your friend basically suggested that just hearing about sex was oppressive--why would that be, unless she’s not sex repulsed? Being sex repulsed is a symptom of trauma, so by my personal opinion she has PTSD- she’s not Ace The Identity. However, again now the definition has expanded to include Mental Illnesses which is laughable because at that point that’s a Neurodivergence issue, which is a different community (yep, they overlap bc we’re human but again not all marginalized communities is the same!!). All that aside, that would make her argument that you’re not Ace oppressive. 

Before any of the recent discourse back when I was more involved in the community it was stated and agreed on that actually, yes, Aceness can fluctuate like any other identity can fluctuate. So here we are again. It’s Ace if you’r always Ace or if you’re only Ace sometimes and Ace if it’s ‘completely no to sex’ or ‘sometimes if you really like someone’ or even if ‘you’re romantically attracted to the same sex but still have internalized homophobia’.This is just messy and way too broad. I think social justice clout and the goodheartedness of people just trying to be inclusive have muddied what is a co-opting of LGBT dialogue that covers up a total lack of intersectional understanding, a history of general messiness and a LOT of unresolved trauma being covered up as an ID as a coping mechanism, which is very understandable but honestly kind of a huge issue. It truly tricked a lot of people out of exploring their inner issues or past or just figuring themselves out, and continues to do so. I absolutely believe there are people who are just Ace, but I also believe there are a lot of children (teens) and juvenile, not-fully-developed (!! BRAIN DEVELOPMENT DOESN’T EVEN END UNTIL YOU’RE ABOUT 22-25 PEOPLE !!) adults who think that if they don’t feel attraction constantly-like-on-tv and or at all at their age that they’re Asexual which just...no.

[radlymona]

Most of this is word salad that ignores material reality, but let's try break it down.

a) "If the sex binary is just biology pure and simple then how, prey tell, do intersex people fit into the equation?"

Sex is still binary because there are only two gametes, the ova and the sperm regardless of whether individuals with DSDs have exterior phenotypes that don't match their biological sex.

Whether or not Intersex people constitute as a "grey area", they have nothing to do with biological males identifying as women and being in women's spaces. A biological male without a DSD is different from a biological male with a female phenotype who has been raised as a woman. This whole conversation doesn't really matter, because at the end of day, vulnerable women have a right to decide who they get to be around. You can write all the drivel you want, and it won't matter to female rape victims who don't want to be around biological males. Because their concerns are tangible, not pseudo-philosophical.

b) "Sex is actually just a social relation subject to development in the same way as every other social relationship. And that is precisely what sex is. It did not appear at the dawn of time as some sort of all encompassing law in the same sense class or morality did not appear at the creation of the universe, these things were developed under subject to material forces."

These are really stupidly worded sentences. Any academic worth a cent would tell you off for writing such atrocious structured and meaningless words.

"Sex is just a social relationship subject", but it's also material reality perceived in 99% of human beings. We know that the people with penises are different from the people with vaginas. We know that the people with penises can inseminate the people with vaginas and that those people gestate children and that's how the human race continues. We know that there are further differences between the people with penises and people with vaginas, such as the former growing taller on average and the latter being able to menstruate. We know that just because not everyone ascribes to these common characteristics, that doesn't mean they aren't important identifying factors.

“Man” and “Woman” developed at the same point that the state was created and for the same reason; to protect ownership of private property.

This is patently false. Whether or not you mean this in the sense of ancient state-empries, or modern states post-treaty of westphalis, this is false. Regardless of whether their understanding of sex roles were different, our hunter-gather ancestors knew what the difference between the people with penises and people with vaginas were even if you don't know it in the year 2024. You could feasibly argue te that the institution of the patriarchy didn't exist until the development of more advanced societies (though I'd argue that as long as rape of women by men has existed, so has some form of the patriarchy) but that doesn't mean pre-state peoples didn't know the difference between the sexes. The fact that ritualised rape still occurs in tribal societies, shows that sex based oppression occurs regardless of the political-economic system in place. Because it's adult men who are doing the raping of women/girls and occassionally young boys (who often fulfill a "female role").

Okay but what measure was used to decide which category (male) could be the one to own property and oppress the other category (female). What tangible division was used when the development of male and female categories occurred. This wasn't an arbitrary decision. And if you argue that it was completely arbitrary and that the two categories didn't have hard, visible differences, it doesn't matter. Because there were tangible impacts on those identified as female. What matters is those considered female couldn't own property, were sold in marriage, faced mass sexual violence, didn't have access to education and employment opportunities, couldn't vote etc. etc. And this was decided by those considered male.

"But yes sex is biological because you have decided so. Idealism at its finest indeed."

How is this "idealism". There is nothing idealistic about a politically neutral fact. Sex is biological because we can observe differences in the people with vaginas and people with penises. It's biological becaue 99% of the population can either produce an ova or a sperm. This type of pseudo-philosphical thinking is what happens when you can only analyse oppression from a class-based angle, rather than looking at the violence women face regardless of their political-economic system they're in.

All of this to say, once again that it really doesn't matter who's right from an academic standpoint. Women don't need to be "technically correct" about biological sex, to receive the services they want. The whole point is they don't have to justify their requests. No ifs, no buts, no astericks.

One of the only things I want to push back about the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Case case, is that rape victims who request female-only workers aren't "gender critical". Women in hospitals who ask for female nurses aren't being gender critical. Elderly women who request female carers aren't being gender critical.

They're just requesting a basic, single-sex service that is apolitical and has no ideology attached to it. This used to be like an ordinary thing women and girls could ask for without question.

[i-ran-away-without-a-map]

Mda, fascinant...

Men oppress women. As the oppressed class, women cannot therefore also oppress men. It's simple math. So no, women do not enforce anything on men, that's on, surprise surprise, other men. Who do you think forces the "manly man" or any other sort of view on men? Other men. Also, that's deviating from my point. Women are not responsible for men's issues, as in we are not responsible for fixing them. We didn't create them, we didn't have the power to create them, they did so themselves, and they are welcome to fix their own shit. To expect a woman to cater to men's issues, or rights, before her own is plain misogyny.

That is not the correct definition of feminism. I suggest you read some old school feminist writers, or stuff from the first and second waves of feminism, you know, the women who actually created the movement, and it was a movement for female liberation. Feminists are not interested in equality with men, because men are not the standard, they are not the end goal. Liberation is the goal, the right of women to live free of patriarchy.

Men deserve basic human rights, as they are human. You can also affirm that they deserve basic human decency, but respect has to be earned, nobody owes anyone respect if they haven't earned it. And trans men are not men, as a man is an adult human male, which they are not. They're female. Nobody can change their biological sex.

Maybe you brush up on your ideology first, see how it is literally harmful to women and girls everywhere, and incidentally to intersex people (who are used as a strawman argument by TRAs very often despite many of them speaking out against the comparisons between transgender people and intersex people), to LGB people (lesbians and gays being massively harassed for their sexual orientation, as well as bisexuals who refuse to follow the gender narrative), and to gnc kids (parents transing their kids out of fear of them being gender nonconforming or, fuck forbid, possibly homosexual; the children cannot consent to any of that, as they are literal children or minors; if minors cannot do something as simple as legally drink, then I think it stands to reason that they also cannot consent to permanently life altering puberty blockers or surgery; they are also rarely asked, the parents contacting services such as MermaidsUK and the like and deciding their kid must definitely be trans).

Also, to reiterate: terf is a slur aimed at women who disagree with the trans ideology, who are gender critical or against the porn industry, or who are simply same sex attracted women. No actual radfem, or really any actual feminist, unironically defines herself as a terf, we did not claim this term and it does not define us.

"Feminists like me" are... the actual feminists. When feminism was created, it was not created to cater to males. The transgender movement also did not exist until recently, compared to feminism, and if anyone's a reactionary movement, it's them. They have little logic backing up their statements, their activists are often revealed to be blatantly misogynistic, straight up sex offenders or even pedophiles, and their movement is irrelevant anywhere else but in the West. Take a look at Eastern (Korean especially) feminists and what they're doing, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about what actual feminism looks like and what it aims to solve.

Patriarchy is not a formless entity, it is a system constructed by men, which benefits men and oppresses women. Even the "good men" benefit from patriarchy, by way of the standards for what constitutes as a good man being shamefully low due to the large amount of more dangerous men this system allows to flourish. You're exhibiting a very Christian sort of "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude in saying that it's the patriarchy's fault, not men's fault; men make the patriarchy, they cannot be feasibly separated from this system they've created.

Perhaps feminism can support other movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, or the LGB rights movement, or movements for the rights of disabled or chronically ill people, or anti-capitalist movements, because all these affect women as well. Feminism however is not meant to "support everyone", it is for and about women and girls. The human rights movement is called marxism, or just the human rights movement, and you are welcome to be a part of that if that is how you wish to spend your energy for bettering humans' lives, there's nothing wrong with that! But do not call yourself a feminist if you do not center your activism around female liberation and women's rights. That's literally the definition of the movement, and no matter how much you want to change that, women and girls all around the world will continue to fight for their rights just as we've done all this time.

One last thing: of course feminism has a bad reputation. It opposes the largest, most widespread oppressor class: men. It fights with men, and it fights with women who are too complacent or deep into their internalised misogyny to see that they're being systematically wronged. The answer to feminism's "bad reputation" was never to cater to males though. There is no answer other than fighting on. It's a harsh movement, not all flowers and sparkles like the media has done its damnedest to make people believe; it's a movement that forces you to look reality in the eyes, and fight for your rights no matter how hopeless it may seem, just like our foremothers have done.

Also, respond to this if you want, but I ain't taking this conversation any further. I've made my words as clear and concise as possible and refrained from any "hateful" comments, just simple facts and logic. Maybe think a little bit on this, maybe send some asks, it's never a bad thing to educate yourself. Have a good day.

If the only time you care about male rape and abuse survivors is when you want to discredit women, you’re an asshole.

(Don’t reblog if you’re a terf/radical feminist)

[i-ran-away-without-a-map]

Thanks for explaining the definition of "witch" to me... a witch. It is in fact a practice, as many witches can be atheists, no belief system required. And it was not simply demonised, women were straight up murdered for accusations of witchcraft, sometimes those women were actual practitioners, other times they were simply wise women, nurses... or disobedient women. I mentioned it because of the literal witch hunts that used to take place back then, which were largely aimed against women. So, you know. A witch was used as an example of a bad woman, just like nowadays, only now we have new buzzwords.

I dunno what the hell biology you were taught in 9th grade, but in my country (which btw is in Eastern Europe and very homophobic)... we were in fact not taught anything homophobic? What are you even talking about? Are you trying to imply that learning about genetics or reproduction is somehow homophobic simply because it states that only heterosexual sex can create life? Cause that's the only thing I can think of that might bother some so called "queer people" and like, hate to break it to ya, but that's not homophobic, it's just reality. Nowhere in my biology classes at all did I learn about homosexuality being unnatural or whatever, we didn't even touch upon it cause it wasn't really within our lessons.

We didn't pick the title "terf" for ourselves? We've been saying it is a slur ever since it was created and it started being popularized. Many women called terfs aren't ever radfems, they just know to differentiate reality from delusions. Hell, many people called terfs can even be gay men, who sure as fuck aren't radfems, but they don't appreciate being called "transphobic" for being homosexuals (and good on them for standing up for themselves too). Terf is a slur which trans activists came up with, and it's not even an accurate one, since the only trans people we're "excluding" are transwomen; we're not excluding them for being trans though... we're excluding them for being male.

Ultimately, the whole debate here just comes down to these few simple facts:

- radfems seek to get rid of the concept of gender, which is a toxic social construct, a set of stereotypes that differ from culture to culture, but ultimately end up being a tool for oppressing women

- radfems seek to obtain female liberation; men are not a focus at all in this movement

Here are some helpful definitions, since these are usually sorely lacking in many trans activism circles:

- woman = adult human female (where female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes; a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei)

- man = adult human male (where male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring; a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei)

- homosexual = a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own biological sex

- lesbian = female homosexual (a woman attracted only to other women)

- gay = male homosexual (a man attracted only to other men)

- bisexual = a person attracted to both men and women

See how none of these have anything to do with "gender"? It's because all of these are based on the physical reality of one's body, aka reproductive sex. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Nobody can magically change from one sex to the other. And gender is not a physical reality, it is based on stereotypes. Get rid of the concept of gender and you get rid of the issue of gender dysphoria. The answer isn't to encourage people to create more ways to "express their gender"; it's to leave people alone and stop assuming being a man/woman means you automatically behave in a certain way.

I’ve recently had the displeasure of looking through some of the lgbtq+ blogs on here who are shamelessly transphobic and really, it’s sad.

So many people out here hating those who should be their allies, and for what? Nothing, that’s what. They claim to be feminists and then attack trans women for existing, saying they’re not “real women”.

Bitch, you’re not a feminist. A feminist is someone who believes that women should have the same political, social, and economic rights as men. Women. And what are you doing? You’re not trying to make us all equal. You’re trying to make yourselves feel better by putting other women down, telling them they’re not “good enough” to be a woman, a feminist.

So I’m a feminist. My dad is a feminist. My English professor is a feminist. My three year old cousin is a feminist. But you, terf? You are not. You do not stand for women’s right until you first stand with women - all women.

You aren’t “radical” - you’re cherry picking who and who can’t be a woman based on your personal definitions with no regard to who people are. You say things like “abolish gender!”

Try again, because if you really stood for abolishing gender you wouldn’t have a damn thing against trans people and in fact would be proud of them for being who they are. You stand for your personal gain, the gain of no one but cis females, and you disregard the entire rest of the lgbtqai+ community because you can’t think to look past your own desires and maybe show a little fuckin empathy.

You look to the male world for respect and then are so bold as to deny other people just as injured and just as discriminated against that same respect. Shame on you for daring to call yourself a feminist.