#i would love radfem opinions on this btw

[ikarus-and-daedalus]

the normalisation of violence against women theough porn is completely crazy.

i have a story to tell, because im still very upset i might delete later. Didnt sleep very well after this.

I was at a counter christmas board game night yesterday. Bunch of leftists from diff economic but all academic backgrounds, ages 25 - 60. 8 women, 2 men, one I’ve known for years and trust.

We were eating everybodies christmas leftovers, complained about our families. People were starting to get drunk & stoned & whatnot. I mostly talked to a female acquaibtance i love to make bad jokes with and the male friend i have known for years. I had a good time until i left for the loo.

When I got back, the mood in the room had completely shifted from people talking loudly in 3 conversations at once to s more silent, mysterious one. the strange man and one woman were looking around the apartement for smth. I asked what happened, nervous laughter but no answer.

I‘m a little confused but I wait until the strange man returns with a rope. He prepares a scene, i dont understand that yet but look at the rope a little concerned. He quietly asks me with a grin „panic?“

Noone bats an eye as he sits down one of the woman on a chair an starts to undress her. My female acquaintance says „oh, rhe rope would have looked lovely on the black shirt though“

At this point I’m in complete panic. I look at the man and the rope. I look at my male friend and say „I‘n not interested in partaking in this mans erection“ He laughs a little and says something along the lines of „She seems to be okay with it!“

My female acquaintance, a woman who would proudly call herself a (sigh, queer-) feminist, says „He knows what he‘s doing he‘s not going to seriously hurt her“

I leave the room, male friend follows me. Asks whats so wrong about this, I repeat i do not want to partake in this mans erection and i dont want to watch this. I dont want this happening to her.

He says he asked everyone in the room for consent when I was in the bathroom . Bad luck. I inform him Im definitely going home now. He reacts a bit pissed and babbles about when and where these moral concerns are due, and the strange man is a good person and tied him up once, too. This not sexual st all, this not violent at all.

Every few seconds i can hear the woman squeaking as she is being tied up. The conversation in the room is commenting on this and that and the tie up technique in a chatty tone.

I leave.

I feel like im trapped in a bad myspginistic slapstick right now.

Its the ultimate power fantasy, besting your girlfriend up in front of self proclaimed feminists. Hoe fucking vile can you be? And they all fucking fall for it. And my male friend, after a conversation, can understand that „as a victim of rape“ i have a resction and its oh so unfortunate i wasnt there when consent was asked, bit he does not see how fucked up the whole situation is. Only in the framing of „this hysteric woman has not worked through past trauma, so we should treat her differently as a charity“, he seems to able to understand why i was pissed. I wasnt primarily offended as a victim of rape, but just as a woman.

Like, i can only compare this to me asking, would anyone mind if i piss on the floor right now and not even wait for an answer before pissing on the floor. But that still lacks the performsce srt made of physicsl violence against women.

Im at a loss for words right now. I dont really know the woman who „agreed“ to be tied up in this situation, thats a whole another cup of tea. I didnt really know most women in the room, but as i said all where from peogressive academic backgrounds. Were some of them pissed too, but quiet out of peer pressure/annoyance/ not wanting to party poop, or were they really ok wirh it?

I know that some of these peeps are active in sex positive/bdsm circles but this was not in any way an event made for this. I cohosted for my male friend, helped him with all the getup, made drinks and did dishes, we meant to forget our horrible christmasses over wine & games when we planned this.

This is how fucking desensitized my fellow berlin progressives are to violence against women. Dinner entertainment. An aesthetic. Nothing to worry about here!

Im not even trying to sound dramatic when I say I feel emtionally violated, because I do.

woman_screaming.jpg

[cios-correct-opinions]

@evilkaeya @aaabatteryy @starrynightarchive

see my other post about this here

to tl;dr this: when it comes to fandom and content creators, ppl tend to make content of the characters they already love and thus think about most often, which leads to, at times, male characters getting genderbent into women either thru cis or trans hcs, bc they are both genderbending, thats the definition of the term bc youre changing their gender, and getting mad at people for not, in your opinion, "appreciating" the female characters enough, is not doing anything except making people feel bad for not having the "correct" feelings about a character at best, or making them actively angry and thus fueling them to create more of that thing you hate out of spite at worst (for you anyway, not for the people who like it).

this doesnt mean they dont give a shit abt the other characters who arent their faves, but to create a work of art, you need to be able to like. care enough to do it. and that requires more care than just a general enjoyment or appreciation of a character, especially if the work in question is time intensive/would be time intensive, like writing a chapter fic/thousands of words long oneshot, or making a fully rendered piece of art, etc. obvi this will depend on the skill and energy levels of the artist we're talking about but yknow, on a general scale

op of this post blocked me so i cant respond directly on it but, for context

first of all: i'm not illiterate but i'm beginning to think some people on this post might be, given this response, because it is so clearly Not what i was talking about it's a little wild, actually!

also i hate to tell yall this, but the reason you don't often see people genderbending female characters to male anymore is bc of the spread of radfem ideology thru fandom spaces like wildfire. ppl genuinely lose their shit when ppl even have transmasc or trans man headcanons for characters assumedly cis female in the source material (which is genderbending btw. them being trans doesnt mean it isnt genderbending anymore you are still changing their gender thus it is genderbending thats the definition fellas) bc they fucking hate men and the idea of men existing

sorry not sorry but if you get mad at ppl who genderbend female characters into transmascs/trans men (transmascs aren't always genderbends, bc you can be transmasc and also a woman, but i digress/for the sake of brevity...) and go "you're TAKING AWAY a GOOD FEMALE CHARACTER!" i need you to stop for a second and consider why these people - most of whom are trans men/transmascs themselves - might be doing that to a character they like.

9/10 times when i see a cis genderbend of a male character to be female, the person doing it is a cis woman. when i see genderbends, of any kind, of a female character to be male or masc? it's almost always done by a trans man and/or a transmasc. and inevitably, they are almost always dogpiled for it with disgusting levels of hate. i've seen it happen so many times i stopped attempting to count a long time ago

don't come up here saying "you NEVER see-" because actually i see all of those things happen all the time. ppl love genderbending men characters into women, or emasculating/demasculinizing/feminizing them in order to make them personally more appealing, or saying "[mlm ship] would be better if it was two girls/wlw/two fem-aligned/etc" all the fucking time. and while i realize this is often a way for the people who say this to like, try to lash out at common misogynistic/lesbiphobic/transmisogynistic/etc sentiment irl, in doing so, they are not doing it in a way that allows for a nuanced understanding of their fellow fandom-goers. they make blanket sweeping statements and then dogpile people who disagree

the moment you start treating entire demographics of people as if they are a hivemind or a single identity, the moment you decide that something "never" happens bc you personally have not seen it? youve already lost any possible chance you mightve had at making a good point

[gynoids-over-androids]

How do you deal with being a radfem in the art world? In feel like I made a huge mistake in my younger years when I was drawn into queer art and now most of my art contacts are 'queer'. Not only is queer art getting worse and worse when it comes to quality and pretty void of intelect but I also feel if I say exactly what I want with my art, Ill be outcast forever. Not that I have loads of succes but everything would be over then : ( these days Im staying off feminist topics because I know, if I do something woman centric, people will not like it..... I feel like an idiot coward.

im currently switching to tech and continuing art on the side, to secure my wellbeing financlially at least. i think if i wasn't doing it, id be way less eager to talk about feminist topics...

i also feel like a coward sometimes, i know what you mean. for example for this exhibition/art residency i didnt outright tell im a radical feminist, i said im a "materialist feminist who goes to the root and re-mater-ializes female history" lol. i know i wouldnt be "allowed" to mention it at best (happened to another art piece about a radfem) and #cancelled at worse. i know other radfems who are more outspoken about this, i feel like a coward compared to them, but i also think being strategic wouldnt hurt. i think there are ways to present your work and yourself that wouldnt compromise it but also wouldnt completely erase what you want to say.

when we were working on this exhibtion, honestly i didnt even say anything when they were talking about certain topics cause that would be high risk, low reward. for others, id turn their own tactiques on them ("wow, this is something i only hear in the west! maybe i dont understand this cause im an immigrant", "wow thats crazy that there are so many different genders, in X language we only have the word for sex and we use the english word "gender"for sexist stereotypes") etc. It was VERY funny!

i had accusations of transphobia because i often depict vulvas in my work abt women, so i just mad fun of these accusations ("what, do i need to stick dicks everywhere then? im not interested"). a male artist with a piece about gay men which only depicted dick havers didnt (normal) have this criticism ofc.

i agree 100% with what you say about "queer" art. it's such a meaningless label today in the art world, it's anything but subversive. ime it's something these (western and middle+ class) artists use to mean "abnormal", but about ANYTHING! (ex. making art about your stay in a mental health clinic is "queer"). it's SO bigoted.

personally i have a "squeeze every opportunity" mindset. if TRAs want to infiltrate the art space (predominantly female at least in the beginning btw) and make everything about them, why cant we? we need to use every opportunity we can, because i can guarantee no one else is gonna make real feminist art. we need to be strategic about this, sure.

another thing (and thats just my opinion) sometimes we just need to present feminist work without marking them as radical. expressing radfem views and describing them as normal feminism is safer for us and makes the piece more accessible to others, and thats my ultimate goal. im not interested in arguing with cultists, im interested in making art for women.

finally i think its important to create our own spaces and opportunities. id love to make an exhbition or a book abt radfem art one day.

if you want to dm me to talk more, you're welcome, i'll respect your desire for safety

tldr i deal with this by humour + idgaf attitude + trolling + not depending on this financially + being strategic with what you say

[xx-slug-xx]

Intro

Slug | He/They | 23 | Aspec

Hey, welcome to my stupid side blog that I treat as my main!

Here to talk about proship stuff and my other views on things, fandom-related or otherwise! I’m pretty open-minded about things, and I love a good discussion! I also post selfship shit too! Feel free to send asks and such about anything! I like talking, but usually not through DMs unfortunately. My method of interacting with people is reblogs and asks lol

I talk about topics that could trigger people, but I always try to provide a tw on the post's tags that discuss those things! I also try to tag things appropriately so people can avoid my posts! I frequently discuss nsfw as well, so if that makes you uncomfortable, then be aware! Feel free to block me if you would like, I really don’t mind if you don’t want to see my content!

Here's a link to my f/o list btw!

More under the cut! (It's very long :( lol)

Tags I Use Sometimes

slugs rambles (where all my bullshit goes)

Fandom tags, but only the main ones (fnv, homestuck, and gravity falls mostly)

Certain ship tags

Anything that’s a typical trigger is usually tagged with “tw” before the trigger (sometimes I forget, sorry)

If I don’t tw my tag, then it will have the trigger without the “tw” in front of it as the tag

Any general tag tbh

Things About Me

AuDHD

OSDD1b system (we speak in first person, we try not to use “we” unless discussing system things)

LGBTQ+ (aegosexual, biromantic, nb, trans masc)

Non human (alterhuman really)

Pro kink (even the scary ones! Pet play, abdl, ddlg/ddlb, and the like are all fine and cool as long as it’s with consenting adults!)

Para neutral (big three is NON CONTACT but I don’t care what gets you off if you aren’t hurting people lol)

Radinclus (not radqueer though)

Comship (but most of my ships are pretty basic lol)

Self ship (ask me about my f/os IF YOU DARE)

I hate the government (all of them)

Proship in the way I’m 100% anti censorship, but I personally don’t like certain types of fictional content and I’m against harassment if it purely involves opinions over fiction.

Fiction can affect reality, but fiction affects everyone differently. Fiction should never be taken at face value. Some people just lack critical thinking skills and they let fiction affect them in a way that dictates their real life morals, or the other way around :/

Fandoms I Like To Talk About Sometimes

Listed, top to bottom, from most to least relevant btw lol

Fallout (replaying New Vegas currently!)

Homestuck AND Beyond Canon

Hiveswap

Gravity Falls

Wimp Witch (check it out, the artist is cool!)

Hazbin Hotel/Helluva Boss

Smiling Friends

Pokémon

Undertale/Deltarune

Mlp

Fnaf

TF2

Undertale Yellow (play it, it’s good)

Steven Universe

The Binding of Isaac

South Park (not in the fandom, but used to be lol and I still enjoy it)

Invader Zim

I like a lot of things though, feel free to share your fandoms if ya want :D

Other Interests

No particular order

Paleontology (special interest)

Zoology

Speculative zoology/evolution/biology

The environment

Evolution as a whole

BUGS! (Arthropods really)

Kink and the psychology of sex/arousal

People I don’t really like

Not a dni, but serves a similar purpose of expressing who I don’t agree with. Not all of these people are disliked equally, some are disliked more than others. And I may not even dislike people in this category at all, as I may just be uncomfortable and that’s it. Y’all can interact all you want, but I won’t agree with you when it comes to certain things in this list lol. And I'm not opposed t blocking people either lol

Proana

Self harm community (is there a name for it? Idk)

Anti mogai/xeno gender/neo pronoun

LGBTQ+ exclusionist

Terf/radfem

Anti ace-spec

Nazi

Lolicon/shotacon

Pedophile/Map/nomap

Pro harassment

Endogenic systems (I’m a traumagenic system and it makes me uncomfortable. Just so we’re clear, I do believe if you know you are a system, then you are one though lol)

Transid/radqueer

Anti shippers (depends on how you personally define that term though lol)

Anti recovery

Zoophile

Incest/consang

Anti kink/sex negative

Pro contact para/supporter

Minors (/hj)

Anti recovery

[ms-revived-frogs]

Thoughts on religious women being feminists/gender critical? I saw a radfem on here talking abt how those women are 'hypocritical' which I personally disagree with as being a feminist is more about doing actions which benefit women not about personal choices of belief, for example a woman can be Catholic and have the personal opinion that abortion is wrong but she can still fight for the rights for other women to have the choice to get one even is she herself wouldn't. I'm not Catholic or against abortion btw lol and I'm new to radfem so I'm probably wording this wrong but I wanted to know your thoughts

Hi! So I have a lot of conflicting feelings about organised religion, especially as I've been involved in two particularly patriarchal faiths: Islam and Catholicism. Personally, whatever belief system a woman has isn't important to me, so long as she's doing actions to help women and actually out there advocating. However I think that a religious woman who does claim to be a feminist should at least be able to criticise her own religion as well. There's a certain level of critical thinking and analysis needed within feminism - like how the wage gap is far more complicating than simply paying female workers less - and this is needed introspectively as well. A muslim woman can absolutely be a feminist, but she must at least be able to point out the misogyny within her religious system. In denying any misogyny in religion outright, women delude themselves into just succumbing to another form of patriarchy (This is present in the whole "hijab/burqa is a choice and empowering!" thing that western Muslim women have going on).

That being said, I still recognise how religion can be used for good and for the self, rather than a patriarchal tool. My baka (grandma) is a devout Catholic and uses religion for comfort. Sometimes I do as well. I would say that myself I am culturally Catholic, after having converted from being Ismaili Muslim, so while I do attend church and do many activities at my church (Croatian singing and dancing), I would not say I completely believe in Catholicism nor support all actions of the Catholic Church. It's like this that I believe a woman can balance being religious while feminist; however we must also recognize that Abrahamic religions are in no way feminist, we just need to recognise that women are and can be feminists without rearranging their entire lives. Remember that nobody is the "perfect feminist".

I would love to hear what others think!

[sammygender]

long post below be warned

i dislike the way in some feminist circles—and in this particular instance, this means a Guardian review of Barbie, so it’s not even a feminist circle, but i see it a lot while hate-stalking radfems and i hear it a lot in conversation—every little fucked up psychological trait people do, if the person talking about it is a woman, is attributed to womanhood. ‘i am a woman and to exist as a woman is horrific under the patriarchy (true!) and therefore i do this messed-up thing (insert statement).’ and when starting to think about this i said this: i do not know if my dislike of this phenomenon is because it’s true, and it makes me feel weird to think about it because i am a trans man, or because it’s not true, and it feels weird that people attribute human things to Women things (or woman-socialised, non-cis-men, anything that woke people use as a buzzword when they mean ‘woman and anyone i see as a woman’) and act like non cis men have some unique capacity for empathy that cis men/men (differing people will have their own opinions on trans men, and obviously the terfs just think it’s afabs, but i’ll go at this from a perspective where i ignore them) don’t have.

or, rather, i said: i’m sure it is true, for some people, that womanhood has been so traumatising for them that they developed defence mechanisms, but i would argue that is a result of trauma that happens to be gendered and not a thing every woman does & not a thing only women do. & i don’t know if i’m being weird and picky and potentially antagonistic in not LOVING this phenomenon, or whether i’m simply aware of gender essentialism. bc it’s not nice to police how people talk about their oppression. but it also just… feels overly simplified.

FOR EXAMPLE. some of this is because i am a trans man, and it’s horrible to think that my intense, cyclical self-awareness of ‘so i’m doing this, but i KNOW i’m doing this, so it’s okay that i’m doing this!’ is because i was raised as a woman. and that starts to feel like it could be true, because i do have experience of being a girl within me, and who am i to say that this complex, a result of constantly feeling Annoying and like the only way to break that cycle of being Annoying is to be Aware of being annoying because somehow that makes it better, ISN’T because of that? when you actually think about it, though, this feels… silly. how in any way is this an experience unique to women? maybe that they are taught to police themselves and their looks and their everything - true. maybe that leads to that experience of needing to be too self aware. and i see how someone could recognise this trait within them and go This must be because i’m a woman but. it’s like very much a trait i can see in men just as much, just as often, and i think we need to hesitate before ascribing experiences precisely to genders and gender roles we inhabit. first time i ever saw this feeling of irony-piled self-awareness properly expressed was in fucking homestuck, the striders, at one point bo burnham’s 2021 special inside articulated it well. when i read homestuck as a transmasculine 13 year old it felt vaguely like a ‘guy experience’, mostly because i wanted it to be. now i often see this voiced as ‘girl-coded’, something every woman experiences, often paired with poems about making sure you’re always aware of how you’re perceived. but it’s the same damn thing, maybe slightly occasionally different, but same thing. gendered socialisation fucks you up, yeah. women get it worse because they’re oppressed, yeah, but the whole concept of gender enforced into a child is traumatic.

anyway one day ill write an essay on this. & fandom reception. stuff like ‘eldest daughter syndrome’, traits that are seen as inherently gendered but just Aren’t always. it’s always a simplified take.

this goes both ways BTW i’m talking about the problem in feminism bc i am a feminist. but it happens everywhere. one of the most glaringly annoying examples is the idea that ‘men can’t express emotions’. like yes, that is true (to an extent) that men are seen often as weak if they cry! it is ALSO true that, historically, women have been legitimately locked in insane asylums for having feelings and wants more complicated than serve husband and make food for child. it is also true that if a woman shows emotion in front of a man, very often she gets easily dismissed as insane or hysterical. arguably this problem is worse for women because women are like actually oppressed.

and it’s interesting because this leads us to a conclusion - that just you can say ‘i repress my emotions because i’m a man and have been punished for expressing them, in a uniquely gendered way’, you can say ‘i repress my emotions because i’m a woman and i have been punished for expressing them, in a uniquely gendered way’. to go with my previous example - you can say ‘i’m ironically self-aware because i’m a guy and not meant to feel emotions genuinely’. true, this is a thing men are taught because they’re men. you can say ‘i’m ironically self-aware because as a woman i’ve always been mocked for being genuine.’ true, this is a thing that happens to women because they’re women.

anyway. until we get past just designating things and experiences as ONLY for certain genders, we will never get free of gendered oppression/misogyny bc it’s innate to this obsession with gender as 2 binary polar opposites. there’s commonalities, yes, but nothing unique about female or male ‘socialisation’ and you don’t necessarily have more in common with someone the same gender as you just as you don’t necessarily have more in common with someone the same race or the same age - you have SOMETHING in common, but not everything. & it’s weird to presume you do

[butch-reidentified]

I notice articles of Radfems' teaming up with conservatives to curb trans activists. I thought radfems are left-leaning. Why do radfems team up with the right wingers if that's the case?

This is going to be long but contain a lot of very important information people need to understand about the radfem perspective on gender compared to both the conservative one and the genderist one.

I don't personally know any radfem who would ever do this so the simple answer is I can't tell you why someone would bc I've never even witnessed it, let alone gotten to ask their reasoning. People who call themselves gender critical and get called TERF aren't necessarily radfems. Radical feminism is by definition a left wing ideology. If you were active on radblr, you would see frequent posts calling out conservative women who try to act all buddy-buddy with radfems re: trans stuff. We on radblr do not tolerate that or their presence - at least not in the corner of radblr where I exist. I block right wing blogs on sight.

Contrary to popular trans belief, we don't agree with conservatives on trans matters either. Where conservatives want to reinforce gender, maintain the existence of gender, and are bioessentialist (a term genderists use incorrectly btw*) by nature of their predominantly Christian beliefs, radfems are gender atheists and abolitionists.

*Bioessentialism doesn't mean "vagina = woman, penis = man." It refers to the belief that women (aka female humans) are genetically/inherently nurturing, caregivers, emotional, sensitive, intuitive, quiet, physically weak, like pink and princesses and flowery dresses, etc., and that men are genetically/inherently strong, resilient, tough, outdoorsy, aggressive/violent, stoic, rational, leaders, like trucks and mud and red meat, etc.

While bioessentialism is the belief that all these stereotypes are innate, these stereotypes themselves are what make up gender. "Gender stereotypes" and "Gender roles" are redundant phrases. Gender *is* just stereotypes based on sex. Male aka "amab" people are expected to adhere to the truck-loving, tough, aggressive, stereotypes mentioned above. Those stereotypes are placed based on their physical body - the male body - not placed on them because of their INTERNAL "gender identity." For proof, look no further than the baby gifts an expecting mother receives after finding out the sex of her unborn child: they are not random, gender-neutral gifts, they're blue pajamas with dinosaurs on them because boy.

Radfems want to eliminate gender. We view sex as a neutral biological fact, like your height, foot width, or hair or eye color.

Imagine if, before a baby is born, doctors tested its future hair color, and that information was believed to determine everything about the child. Oh, it's a brunette! So it will be opinionated, love playing with building blocks, enjoy science, and its favorite color will be green! Oh, a blond? Well, better get it yellow EVERYTHING covered in butterflies, and order some craft supplies (blonds are just naturally more creative than brunettes, of course). Be prepared... blonds are soft and sensitive and moody. They're very artistic but struggle to keep up in math and science classes, and are so indecisive!

This is what gender is. A massive, all-encompassing set of traits that are assigned to one sex or the other, designed explicitly by patriarchy to maintain the oppression of the female sex. It defines everything, starting with how people treat you before you're even born, including who you will be expected to be all your life forever, up to what jobs you're likely to get and how much you'll be paid. Society has decided that which type of gametes your body is designed to produce (whether or not you successfully produce them is utterly irrelevant to what your body is DESIGNED genetically to do) determines every last thing about your life. There's a stronger argument for astrology than gender.

So conservatives want to perpetuate gender, keep males doing all those things I listed (which we call "masculinity") and females doing all those things I listed (often called "femininity"). Radfems want gender gone. We want your sex to be no more relevant to your life than your height or hair color. We believe that regardless of whether your body is structured to produce large gametes or small ones says absolutely fucking nothing about who you are, what you are capable of, your likes or dislikes, your intelligence, or anything else.

So, no. I would sooner die than team up with conservatives. We have nothing in common. You are by definition NOT radical feminist if you support gender and will team up with those who do, just to ~own the trains~. That isn't a no true Scotsman, it's just how definitions work.

I am not against trans people. I am 100% in favor of safety and protection for trans people. I simply don't view gender the same way many trans people (specifically those we call genderists or TRAs) do. I don't believe in an internal gender identity any more than I believe in an internal hair color identity. I do, however, believe in EVERY human's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare, self-expression, non-discrimination, etc. I believe clothes and toys and hobbies and occupations and likes and dislikes and skills and weaknesses all have zero to do with your sex.

This is my struggle with gender identity ideology: nobody has been able to answer the most fundamental defining question I have about it. If, as many trans activists claim, their gender identity has nothing to do with clothing, nothing to do with haircut, nothing to do with being hairy vs shaven, nothing to do with personality traits, nothing to do with likes and dislikes, nothing to do with whether you prefer dolls or hotwheels, nothing to do with all those stereotypes I mentioned... but it's also not simply a descriptor for one's sex, what is left? What remains to give gender meaning? What is a boy/man or girl/woman? Without referencing any sex stereotypes or sexed body parts, how do you know which one you are?

If anyone could give me a genuine, logical answer to this, an explanation for gender identity that has nothing to do with sex stereotypes and makes concrete sense, on God I would become the biggest TRA on earth.

Because I don't believe that gender is anything more than sexist stereotypes, the idea of gender identity is incompatible with my values. Because I view sex as a simple biological fact which should be as neutral as hair color, I don't think it makes sense to believe one can fully and truly change sex. If you dye your hair blond, the roots will still grow in the original brown color determined by your genetics. You may be able to appear as a blond and convince some people you are naturally blond, but it doesn't *actually* change the reality.

I believe there are people with physical sex dysphoria, like myself and my best friend, for whom medical transition is in many cases beneficial (it was for me) in alleviating those odd "phantom sex characteristic," very neurological-seeming symptoms. But while having a double mastectomy did help the sensations, it didn't turn me into a male human (man), and I have certainly never wanted to be one. My best friend lives a life where everyone perceives her to be female, though she was born male, simply because the medical process she went through to alleviate those neurological sensations resulted in people perceiving her as female (passing). Her "social transition" was not intentional or gender related, just an incidental byproduct of the medical one. It was simply easier, and probably safer, to assimilate into social womanhood than to tell everyone she's actually male despite appearing female, though she still does not have a gender identity, does not wear makeup or skirts or perform femininity, and couldn't care less about pronouns - I use "she" because that's how my brain naturally perceives her. Outside of this concrete, material, neurologically plausible view of sex dysphoria (which still has nothing inherently related to *gender* about it), I don't understand what it means to be trans.

Radfems want both sexes to be utterly free to be whoever they are, without being influenced/socialized into gendered (aka sex-stereotypical) behaviors and preferences. We want males comfortable & safe wearing flowery sundresses and crying often and being homemakers if they wish, and females under zero societal pressure to shave, wear makeup, etc., and totally free to speak their minds and wear cargo shorts without so much as a sideways glance. Conservatives want males to be "masculine" and females to be "feminine," whereas we want "masculine" and "feminine" to be as absurd concepts as "blondian" and "brunettian" sound. Fundamentally, radfems & conservatives exist in opposition.

Anyone who has an issue with trans people, and for whom that issue is so important they'll team up with conservatives just to fight the trans movement, has utterly lost sight of the goal of feminism (if they were feminist to begin with), which is female liberation. Radfems believe gender abolition is a crucial step toward female liberation; working with people who want to enforce gender such as conservatives would be working against our own interests.

I've been on radblr a few years and never seen anyone team up with conservatives. Whoever you've heard about in the news, idk who they are, but I fully condemn cooperation with the right wing and assure you that is not something your standard radfem will tolerate. Much like how most trans people feel about Caitlyn Jenner.

[ex-terf-anti-terf]

You mention a couple times that radfem ideology didn’t have to be transphobic, but I’ve never seen it anywhere but, well, TERFs. Would you mind talking about some of the more inclusive tenets and/or pointing me in the direction of a source or two where I could see that? It’d take a lot to make me trust someone who was still using the term “radfem” to describe themselves (as opposed to describing a specific belief statement) in this day and age, but I’d like to at least know some of the non-hateful context if it exists.

Congratulations on getting out, btw, I know how hard that can be and even more so to do the work to unlearn all the layers of shit that are forced on you by an ideology that turns out to be based on lies 💙

The thing about radical feminism is that in its original form it was inherently trans-inclusive, and the original proponents of the movement were trans allies. Early radfem thinkers violently opposed bioessentialism, which you may have noticed is a core tenet of modern radical feminism because it’s been warped over time into a form that is unrecognizable and difficult to trace back to its roots and quite honestly doesn’t reflect the name. FITs love to point out that radfems are the ones that gave us things like legal abortion and women’s rights to their own money but they always omit the part where the most prominent radfem leaders would have been called “TRAs” today.

In the ‘80s and ‘90s, radical feminism took a dive because forward-thinking progressives like Judith Butler took the things they learned as radfems and built Queer Feminism (and Queer Theory) off of it in the ‘90s and ‘00s.

I can’t seem to make up my mind on whether or not radical feminism can be reclaimed to be trans-inclusive again at this point, but I do love reading other people’s thoughts and opinions on it.

Really sorry if this doesn’t answer your question!

[absolutepx]

So I've been playing Death Stranding lately. Wait, that's not what this post is about. Well, it kind of is. Hang on. What is Death Stranding about?

A: Norman Reedus getting bare ass naked B. Sneaking around ghosts with the help of your sidekick, an actual baby C: Carrying 50 Amazon packages up a hill while trying to not topple over D: Waking up in the morning and drinking 5 Monster Energy™ for breakfast

For those following along at home, the answer is actually none of the above. Despite the set dressing being bizarre to the point of near absurdity, what the game is actually about, like thematically, is actually really simple.

See, the development of Death Stranding was actually quite a trip. Hideo Kojima is the video game world's equivalent of an auteur director. He has a very recognizable personal style. It's thoroughly horny – he caught a bunch of shit for the design of Quiet in MGSV, but like, a lot of Kojima characters are just -like that-, including the dudes. Also, this is going to possibly be important later.

Anyway, so Kojima was going to do a rebootmakequel of Silent Hill, and the demo actually made it to the PS store and I could actually write a whole side essay about why P.T. (it was called P.T. for some reason btw) was brilliant game design for how it used the same hallway over and over and it was somehow beneficial to the overall feeling of horror. So Konami it turns out kinda sucks nowadays and they like, fired Kojima (they were huge dicks about it behind closed doors, too) and scrapped the project and kicked him out on the street and kept the Metal Gear series which was his baby (literally the baby in the sink in P.T., he snuck a bunch of messaging about the Konami situation into the demo like a breakup album) and Kojima would go on to form his own studio and poach some of the people who worked with him to boot. So the thing about Kojima is this: he's got a reputation for already putting some wild shit in his games, like a ladder that takes like 10 real time minutes to climb in MGS3 for dramatic effect, and a boss in MGS3 that summons the ghosts of all the people you were too lazy to stealth past and killed, or a sniper battle with a really old guy that he wanted to have last two weeks or some shit until he died of old age but he was "told that "this was impossible and not recommended." That is a real quote I just looked up. So he's coming off the heels of making this hugely successful game with MGSV and the hype of the P.T. Demo and he fucking, he like took all the people that were going to be working on P.T. Along like Guillermo Del Toro was going to co-write it and Norman Reedus was going to star in it, and he's like, I'm going to make this game called Death Stranding. And the first trailer comes out for it and it's completely nuts. Norman Reedus wakes up naked on a beach crying with a baby and there are floating people in the sky? So we're all like hooooooly shit, there's no one to tell him "this is impossible and not recommended" anymore. What's he going to make now!?

So the whole time the game is in development I keep seeing these tweets where it'll be like, Kojima and one of his homies smiling with some saccharine message about being spiritual warriors and changing the world. And not just Del Toro and Reedus, there was Mads Mikkelsen (another guy Kojima puts in the game just because he apparently loves him), and the band Chvches, and also like, Keanu Reeves at one point? You know how everyone has just kind of accepted that Keanu is a being of light? Here he was endorsing Kojima. The hype was pretty confused and frantic.

The game eventually comes out. A lot of game journos hate it because I think there was this expectation it was going to be, you know, less weird and have more of the conventional structure of a video game. That's not to say the average gamer wasn't also dismissive of it, but I think on the ground level there was more of an understanding that like, yeah, Kojima just be like that sometimes.

Because the game was a timed console exclusive and your homie don't play like that, I spent the first year or so cautiously viewing Death Stranding from a distance. I wasn't sure I was going to like it – except for being really impressed with P.T., I wasn't actually a big fan of Kojima's games as games – but I -was- sure that I was going to buy it, because of the way Konami fucked him over, just out of support. And the shit I was hearing was really out there. The primary mode of gameplay is just delivery packages. You collect Norman Reedus' bathwater and pee and use it as grenades. You get a motorcycle that looks like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus, and when you sit on it, his character in the game says "Wow, this thing is like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus!"

But I didn't really want to know that much about it. Something has that much fucking crazy person energy, you want to go in mostly blind, right? So maybe people just weren't talking about this, or maybe I wasn't seeing it, but then I watched Girlfriend Reviews' video about it and they came right out and said it (link provided if you want to hear Shelby say it more articulately than me):

Death Stranding is basically about the exact opposite of Twitter. It's about remembering how to be kind to each other, how to reconnect in a world where people are so often hostile to each other by default. Prophetically, it's about a world where people are afraid to go outside or touch other people and how damaging that is. It's not a game about carrying packages, it's a game about helping people by being brave enough to walk through a wasteland carrying their burdens because they can't. It's about rebuilding the lost connections between people, about restoring roads and giving people hope. I bet, for Kojima and the people close to him, it's about how to answer hostility with compassion. You can't kill people in Death Stranding. You can and are absolutely encouraged to fucking throw hands with people sometimes, but all the tools and weapons are nonlethal. So I think Kojima took all the Twitter heat he got over the Quiet nontroversy, and all the feelings of isolation he had from Konami separating him from his team during the end of the development of MGSV, and all the support and encouragement he got from his bros Del Toro and Mads and the rest, and decided to channel that into making a game that was a statement about all of it. And sure, it's a little heavy handed, and sure, it's a little saccharine, and sure, the gameplay sometimes borders on miserable in service of creating emotional payoffs. For me, especially in 2020, this message is a huge success. Social media should be an opportunity for all of us to feel more connected to each other, yet primarily it feels like one of the main forces driving people apart. Why is that? Why is the internet of today such a hostile place? I'm old enough to remember web 1.0: I can haz cheezburger memes; YTMND; the early wild west days of Youtube... What happened to us? I've thrown the blame at Twitter in the past, and I think the architecture of the user experience on Twitter is absolutely a big piece of the puzzle, because it fosters negative interactions. But in terms of the behavior, people have observed that 2018 Twitter was actually almost exactly like 2014 Tumblr. (For the record, Tumblr is now one of the chillest places left on the internet, because so few fucks are left to give.)

I think part of it is the anonymity. The dehumanizing disconnection of the separation of screens and miles. Louis CK, before he was cancelled, had a great point about cyberbullying, and why it's so much more savage than kids are IRL. When you pick on someone in person and you are confronted with seeing the pain you caused them, for most sane people it causes negative feedback and you become disgusted with your actions and eventually learn to stop being a shithead. Online, at best you can "break the wrist, walk away".

At worst, you can become addicted to "clout chasing" and the psychological thrill of being cheered on by your social ingroup. It's even worse if you feel like it's not bullying and your actions are justified because whoever you've targeted is a bad person so you don't have to feel bad about what you do to them. This is where reductive, unhelpful catchphrases like "punch a nazi" come in. For every argument, one or both sides have convinced themselves that the other side is subhuman because their beliefs are so disgusting. And sometimes it's even true! A lot of times, especially these days, people really are acting like animals or worse online. Entire disinformation engines are roaring day and night, churning out garbage and cluttering the social consciousness. (Kojima talked about this bit, too, way back in MGS2. As if I wasn't already in danger of losing my thread through this.)

The human brain was not built to live like this. You can't wake up every morning, roll over and open your phone, and be immediately faced with a tidal wave of anger and indignity. It wasn't built to be aware of fully how horrible the world is at any moment ALL AT ONCE, ALL THE TIME. And you will be. Because of another way that our brain works – the way we are more likely to share negative opinions. And because of the cottage industry built on farming outrage clicks, and because of constant performative activism.

It's not that I don't agree that being informed is important.

It's not that I don't agree that the causes people get riled up about are important.

They are. They absolutely are.

But we can't keep living like this. The constant, unending flood of tragedy, arguments, and hot takes. How much of the negativity we associate with online culture is the product of this feedback loop? What if the rise of doomer culture has been, if not entirely created by, has been nourished and exacerbated by our hostile attitudes toward each other?  Incels and TERFs, white supremacists, radfems, tankies and Trumpers – it seems like on every side of every issue, there are people simultaneously getting it wrong in multiple directions at once and there are more being radicalized every day. They are the toxic waste left behind by the state of discourse. And any hill is a hill worth dying on.

So what am I actually advocating? I don't know. There are a lot of fights going on right now that are important and we can't just climb into bunkers and ignore our problems hoping that Norman Reedus and his fine ass are going to leave the shit we need on our doorsteps. We need to find the strength to carry those hypothetical packages for ourselves sometimes - and hopefully, for others as well. Humans are social creatures. We need interaction and enrichment.

We need love.

So just try to remember the connections between humanity. Try to put more good stuff into the world when you can. Share more shitposts and memes. Tell your friends and family that you love them. Share good news when you hear it. Go on a weird fucking tangent about Death Stranding. Find a way to "be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes."

[papirouge]

I'm a radfem and I'm definitely pro-choice but I do follow you cause I like to keep a variety of opinions on my dash. To be very blunt I have very little respect or patience for pro-lifers (btw I do not interact with you and I've never sent you an anon before this one, I'm a silent reader). But the longer I have followed you, the more I get to know about why you're pro-life (for ex from your tags in a recent post re: sex trafficking), and you always make some good points. However none of them are good enough to convert me to a pro-life stance. I think you are a very sympathetic person and you obviously don't *intentionally* want to harm women with your politics, your sensitivity and real-life experiences somehow brought you to an anti-choice stance (plus you're religious, like me, so I get how that might play into your final decision), but I hope you understand that the average pro-lifer is not like you & do not carry your best interests at heart. I hope that you continue to bring your valid criticisms of abortion to the table because they are valuable, but I do encourage you to re-examine how having the *choice* to abort is absolutely critical to the liberation and well-being of women. I have always been pro-choice (but never a *fan* of abortion), because I've seen how absolutely brutal it is to live in a place where that choice isn't there (I'm from SE asia but I can't give details cause I would like to remain anon). We aren't enemies and when I think that if me and you were in the same country, you'd vote against women having that choice (if we ever get the chance to vote here, that is!) it would be such a loss. We need voices like you, people who understand the problems with normalising abortion and the trauma it can bring to women's bodies but also love women enough to give them that choice. I hope you don't see my message as a cheap emotional dig at you, I'm not accusing you of not caring enough about women, I wouldn't be sending you a message at all if I thought so (I don't see value in debating people online who don't center the best interests of women in their politics). I hope I can invite you to discuss/read more about this at some point in the future (at your convenience and discretion).

First of all, I’d like to say I think you’re a very mature and open minded type of pro choice person to follow someone who’s pro life and I’m glad following me made you realize “we” had valid arguments

One thing I’d like to know is when you’re talking about the “average pro lifer”, who are you talking about? The American one? the religious one? the secular one? the French one? I don’t even know what a “regular” pro lifer is as being pro life isn’t a definite “personality” type. It makes total sense that toxic people might weaponize this opinion to feel entitled to be awful and shaming and bully women, but they do not represent the pro life movement as a whole. And yet, pro choicers/Radfem are fond of using that brand of toxic pro life people to brush this whole movement as misogynist and religion focused, totally ignoring the countless other pro life people or organization who are led by women, social/health workers, non-religious (not that all religious pro life organizations are bad though), non-conservative, etc... which are rather proponent of a more encompassing approach this issue with no condemnation concerning abortive mothers or sexually active women.

I acknowledge some pro choicer can be as sensible & moderate as you and are not all sociopaths bragging about having countless abortions (there are literal posts floating around in tumblr stating “they love abortion”). The “pro life movement” isn’t a monolith. It’s just a bunch of people who think 1) the humanhood of unborn baby is non-debatable 2)murdering unborn babies is fundamentally bad. It’s just the way they’ll convey this message may vary according to their political, social, cultural or religious background. I wish pro choicer had the honesty to acknowledge that instead of brushing the WHOLE pro life stance as an evil movement which only purpose was to hate and bully women... Which leads to your second point : linking abortion to female liberation. To which I’d like to ask back : what freedom(s) does pregnancy remove? Trying to normalize abortion based on the “inconvenience” of pregnancy is like trying to cut your whole hand when you catch a finger in a door. Pregnancy is preventable (we all have a “choice” to not get pregnant by choosing to not have sex) and is a normal biological process which itself isn’t harmful with a proper health system. The only reason pregnancy is harmful for women is because of male violence (rape, forced marriage, etc..) and lack of sexual education - both are totally independent of the objective reality of pregnancy. Yes pregnancy takes a toll on the body but so does abortions. Again, I hate how pro choice rely on abnormal situations to defend abortion, using American flawed health system to paint pregnancy as some mortal disease, calling fetuses “parasites”... With a decent health system, pregnancy death is totally preventable. In my country (France) there are 85 deaths for 811 000+ pregnancy per year, which amounts to 0.01% pregnancy death rate... So the narrative that pregnancy is this murderous & nefarious phenomenon hurting the female body is dishonest and wrong. So much for the “love our body” slogan... pro choice will be very quick to literally demonize fetuses and treat something as natural as pregnancy as a literal disease....

Getting pregnant because of a “bad” action doesn’t make the result of this action (=pregnancy) something to be erased to 'make up for it'. Actually in some instance it even helps to cover horrendous things (sex trafficking). That’s my biggest issue with this narrative of weaponizing the (already) harmful actions of people to justify the murder of unborn babies: instead of trying to fix the problems, they rely on a tragic and destructive ‘band-aid’. When you said it’s “brutal” for you to live in a country that doesn’t legalize abortion, what’s the source of that “brutality” exactly? the innocent unborn child or the actual perpetrators of this “brutality”? what leads to these unwanted pregnancies? It’s possible for women to control their fertility without relying on abortion to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The idea of “safe sex” is a delusion as there isn’t a 100% reliable contraception. It’s impossible to distance the biological capability of women to get pregnant when having (heterosexual) sex. My best got pregnant 2 times while taking the pill...

That’s why the whole “reconciling women with their biology” narrative pulled out by pro choice radfem never made sense to me because they are in the absolute denial of that biological reality. Saying this statement is considering women as “breeder” is false and inaccurate. No one is forcing you to have sex. And like I said, trying to eradicate the violence against women (rape, child abuse, forced marriage..) that is the root issue of unwanted pregnancy IS actually defended by many pro life organizations who a proponent of better healthcare & social policies. But when talking about violence, I’d like pro choicer to realize the actual violence of abortion : Planned Parenthood is taking donations to specifically abort Black babies, since 1973 (year abortion was legalized in the U.S.) more African American babies have been killed by ABORTION than the total number of African American deaths from all other causes COMBINED, letting disabled people know that they don’t deserve to exist by systematically killing in the womb babies with the same condition as them (one of my sister is one of them), and let’s no forget forced abortions on disabled and poor people... This is violence too. But somehow this violence is totally overlooked by pro abortion who in the same time pretend caring about Black Lives and think they’re allies to Black and disabled people.... I am not a “political” person, I don’t vote. My country has legalized abortion since 1974 but I don’t handle the pro life fight as a political one, but more of a social one. Spreading awareness online is already a good step. The simple fact that my blog helped you to handle this topic on a new light proves this strategy is working. Even if it doesn’t make anyone a “pro life”, it’s important to grasp the awful reality of abortion and not trivialize or glamorize it. I am not a proponent to make abortion illegal (=criminalizing aborting mothers), just make it unnecessary and inconceivable, with the help of better social & health policies and sexual education. Also, and I know it’s a controversial stance, remind people that abstinence is a total valid way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Again, everyone has a choice to not get pregnant : it’s to NOT have sex. Legalizing abortion everywhere in the world won’t “liberate” women as female oppression reeks from male violence, not unborn vulnerable children. There’s literally nothing to justify the murder of someone innocent, and pro choicer know it. That's’ why their either try to vilify the existence of fetus (”parasite”), deny the humanhood of the fetus (‘it’s okay to kill it if it’s not human‘), or simply decide to put on the same level the consequences of abnormal situations (unwanted pregnancy) with their actual cause (rape, forced pregnancy...) to reckon BOTH as undesirable and needing to be eradicated (=> a child made from rape has to be eradicated BECAUSE rape is bad). I’d like also to note I was a former pro choice and follow a bunch of pro choice radfem account, so I’m quite familiar with that community and grasped a bunch of their arguments. It’s only when I started questioning this practice and documenting myself on the reality of abortion that it became obvious that I wasn’t on the ‘right’ side.

[radiqueer]

I’ve been trying to figure out how to contribute to the “born this way” conversation, but I’m not fully sure how to articulate my ideas. For me I feel like my identity... like I feel I was “born this way” like I’ve had intermittent dysphoria for as long as I can remember. But also as far as mspec labels go I could ID as pan, or poly, or Omni, but I’ve always felt bi fits and that’s the identity I choose. My partner tho, feels that they, more than anything, chose to be bi (1/2)

My partner feels that they had no inclination towards being anything other than a straight man until well into their thirties, when, due to a lot of factors, they decided any company was good company and decided to see if they liked being with men. They had a good experience, and they feel they could have left it at that but CHOSE to continue to pursue their attraction to men, and then much more recently, in doing their own research about gender identity and being around me (2/3 oops)

They chose to question their gender identity (which as of right now is inconclusive), and my partner feels happy as a bi questioning person, but also felt happy as a straight man and could have remained so but chose to be happy a different way. Idk it’s complicated/messy and I don’t really get it but it’s how my partner feels and I believe them. And then Political lesbianism is a thing. Idk it’s hard for me to wrap my head around I wish I could contribute more. It’s def not one size fits all tho

this makes a ton of sense, thanks for sharing!

I feel like - in a lot of ways, being queer and identifying as queer changed me as a person. it changed everything, from the way I think about and approach new topics, the way I see myself and the world, my politics, my tastes in books and art. queerness is fundamental to me, but I can conceive not being queer. if I didn’t know it was an option to identify this way, if I didn’t grow in a home that encouraged me to question and pursue new avenues, I would be a different person. and I cannot with any certainty say that I would definitely identify as queer at some point, if not at 14 then at 17, 19, 25, 40. I think I am happier for being queer, because it is relieving to share an experience and a community (things which have been difficult for me in the past) with people who love and support me. I like having a voice and an opinion on issues. I like my politics. I don’t like being discriminated against, but who does?

there are so many ways to have a fluid identity. you can be the same person all your life with the same experiences and label yourself differently over time. like your partner. one could be happy in one’s assigned roles but happier in a different set that they sought out and choose (kudos to your partner for keeping an open mind and allowing themselves to be happy in a non-normative way, btw), you can have a fluid identity that changes with time, you can be one thing and identify as another, you can refuse a labels on principle, you can be a political lesbian (or it’s equivalents, I suppose? I don’t know if we have something analogous to political lesbianism in other queer subgroups. I think certain parts of the ace community are the closest we’ve come) 

the problem is the idea that there’s only one way to be and feel about queerness and identity and labels. which, IME, is what the BTW crowd seeks to do - normalise us because we are an expression of naturally occurring human diversity. we deserve equality because we are people, just slightly different, and we didn’t choose to be this way any more than you did. it’s not our fault! give us some money! [/s]

people who are written over by this narrative, in no particular order:

questioning people who don’t even know whether they’re straight - they may or may not be

nb people who are often told we are special snowflakes, a symptoms of the excesses of liberal/left wing politics. that we wouldn’t exist if not for the internet [true of me if not for you / ymmv]

bisexual and mspec people

people with fluid identities

people who choose to present a certain way

political [orientation]

people who are choosing to not labels themselves out of fear

people whose identity is informed by trauma

etc

the problem is the dichotomy that seems to be essential to this debate - that you can only have one or the other, that people on one side keep trying to erase the opposing narrative. I frankly don’t know. I’ve only been a part of this debate for a few months and all my thoughts about BTW are informed by personal experience and what I have stumbled across on tumblr. not a comprehensive start by any means. but ime it’s always the BTWs who are trying to shove differing narratives away, and not the choicers. maybe @korrasera and i have different experiences! in fact, I think we have very different experiences 

The problem I’m trying to highlight, the whole reason I made this post, is that I’ve never seen someone suggest that only BTW is valid. In fact, the only times I’ve ever seen people discussing BTW was to specifically suggest that we have to do whatever we can to erase it as an idea because they perceive it as being inherently exclusionary, as though the existence of people who were BTW meant that people could not be queer, gay, lesbian, or trans without having been born in that state. I think it’s a reasonable assumption to consider such intentions as being somewhat noble, since they’re meant to criticize and deconstruct social constructs of legitimacy, but I literally never see the topic raised without it being ‘let’s get rid of the idea that BTW people exist, it’s not true and it hurts the cause’. 

[emphasis added all mine; taken from this post]

I have a different experience. I’ve seen BTW discussed as the only right way to be, and not only by exclusionists (I wouldn’t be able to find receipts on this - I remade my blog recently, and lost all my likes and the people I was following). even when I talk to people irl, I’m forced to resort to a narrative I don’t have any stake in to get my point across, a narrative that doesn’t help me. it’s frustrating and alienating. and I still don’t think we should do away with BTW. I think we make room for people like me to exist and talk, and define clearly what it means so more people can figure out whether or not they fit.

I read around some while I was writing this post, so here’s some stuff tangential but essential to my thoughts:

this post about the relationship of radfems to what constitutes essential womanhood

this post by the same user about why some people may choose a certain labels

another post by the same user

this post, which possibly everyone has read, but I was thinking about this part (emphasis mine)

My girlfriend Marna has been a queer activist since the late 80s. She’s told me about the incredible deliberation and debates LGBTQ+ activists had, in the late 90s and early 00s as the community began to see past the AIDS crisis and immediate goals of “surviving a plague” and “burying our dead.” There were a lot of things we wanted to achieve, but we had to decide how to allocate our scarce reserves of money, labour, publicity, and public goodwiil. Those were the discussions that decided the next big goals we’d pursue were same-sex marriage equality and legal recognition of medical gender transition.

From hearing her tell it, it seems like it was actually a wrenching decision, because it absolutely left a lot of people in the dust. A lot of people, her included, had broad agendas based on sexual freedom and the rights of people to do whatever they wanted with their bodies and consenting partners—and they agreed to put their broader concerns aside and drill down, very specifically, onto the rights of cis gays and lesbians to marry, and the ability to legally change your sex and gender.

As a political tactic it was terrifically effective. […]

Activists of 20 years ago chose to sideline and diminish efforts to blur and abolish the gender binary. Efforts to promote alternative family structures, including polyamorous families and non-sexual bonds between non-related adults. Efforts to fight the Christian cultural message that sex is dirty, sinful, bad, and in need of containment. Efforts to promote sexual pleasure as a positive good.

I couldn’t tell you why these posts stuck out to me while I was writing this, but they do a better job, by and large, of contextualising what I’ve said here

[shaftking]

You literally said that what my post was was “standard gendercrit rhetoric” and that radfems can “claim” my post.

You all continue to act like my post —a post made by a trans person who is critical of nonbinary based on how it hurts trans people because of nonbinary’s lack of definition, scientific evidence, and complete lack of respect for what trans and gender is— is a post for gendercrits who think that gender doesn’t exist.

My opinion isn’t “shilling for TRA” when I have my fair share of criticisms of current trans activism just like I despise the rhetoric of feminist gender essentialism. You both suck and I am beyond fucking tired of having to explain to you all, who seem to be stubbornly believing despite my continued explanations of my own opinions that I must just think exactly the same as you and only be paying lip service to another group I also think is shit.

You are radfems for the same reason that progressives believe in nonbinary. Because you believe gender is a social construct. The difference is your conclusion is what a “post gender” world would be. Both are stupid and insane btw because gender is literally just an innate part of the human biology and that’s not something that could actually be overcome. And I mean gender, not gender roles. I know you all love to conflate them.

You are doing this same equating of nonbinary and trans that I criticize in progressives too. Trans is a condition with definable features and while it’s not fully understood, is easily theorized and evidentially supported by scientific studies. Nonbinary repeatedly proves to lack any kind of definition or parameters that’s isn’t vague and undefinable like “outside the binary”. The underlying principle feature of being trans is literally just that someone’s neurological map of their body expects one sex while it exists as the other, this is what causes gender dysphoria or incongruence. It can and does effect people of all different political persuasions and backgrounds. Nonbinary is entirely based in an ideology and a subversion of gender roles and is entirely made up of people from a particular political bent. There is a reason why there are conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, communist, and even fucking alt-right trans people and only ever nonbinary people from the far left.

My god are you all so fucking exhausting. I said what I fucking said and just because you are incapable of nuance or understanding others doesn’t mean that I’m fucking lying or a closet radfem who secretly agrees with you. Get over yourselves.

Y’all fucked up a generation of GNC people by convincing them they weren’t actually men or women.

[mithliya]

I partially disagree with you. BUT u did help me find some of what i was referring to

“just say you hate het & bi women and go”

“all the lesbians coming at you remind me of trans “women” rn” (which btw was the post reblogged by a hetfem iirc which was then tagged w ‘we can never win’ or smth of the sort. not by op, but said hetfem who rb’d it. the reblog was deleted when i made this post)

“lesbians banned me from discord servers because of my straightness”

the rest, some of them may have bits that are a lil Yikes & all but i don’t have an issue w the overall message of some of them.

my opinion on the discord server is that there’s no issue with it. it makes sense for a server to exist where radfem women talk about their attraction to men since frankly, spaces where lesbians are im p sure many of us wouldn’t want to hear someone go on about how much they find men appealing. so like, i get it & i see its point, & im for it bc i know i wouldn’t want that to be in a server that talks a lot about same sex attraction. i don’t think it’s existence would inherently mean these women think they’re oppressed or special for being attracted to men. but the shit that came out as a result of the discord drama sure as hell looks like they think that. and on one end, ok i get it it’s unfair for ppl to attack & harass u over making a server where u can discuss ur attraction to men more openly. fair. but on another end it’s like... are u rly helping urselves by acting like ur opposite sex attraction is marginalised bc of the negative responses? that’s where i personally have an issue.

the only thing i think lesbians can’t actually relate to or truly understand is being attracted to males. but anyone who argues that we don’t get what it’s like to love males or we don’t experience male violence or w/e? stupit. stupit as hell

pls let the hetfems have their opposite-sex-attracted discord server, they’re out here thinking they’re oppressed for being straight bc of this & im not having it