#it means RADICAL FEMINIST. which you are obviously not

[musical-chick-13]

Genuinely I cannot take the phrase "de-centering men" seriously anymore.

[doberbutts]

it's crazy how trans men said "it makes us sad when we're constantly bombarded with jokes about how terrible men are" and now every post is like "ugh why are we doing #notallmen again!"

As I said before, I only started talking about this when- in a queer-focused and trans-run facebook group- there were constant jokes from cis women about how attraction to men is a curse and why would anyone actually want to be with a man and how unnatural men are and why would anyone want to be a man, and when a couple trans men went "hey uhhh these jokes are pretty hurtful can we maybe... not do this in a queer group? I hear this enough from homophobic/transphobic people" they were told they were the ones at fault and promptly removed from said group by the trans man who was the admin.

I repeat, in a place that is supposed to welcome all queer identities, it was seen as praxis to continuously bash men and when queer men protested they were kicked out.

When my cis lesbian friend is complaining about a dude being a creep or having The Audacity, I'm not offended when she turns to me and says "Jasper, why are men????? WHY????" Because I get it. I also have dealt with creeps and male audacity. She's venting, she understands that there are also dudes that are not like this, and she's addressing a conversation that needs to happen about the way [usually white, cishet, abled, etcetcetc] dudes act especially towards women. She would not be friends with me if she felt I was acting this way, myself.

What I have a problem with is when venting transforms into politics- because at that point the logical "obviously she knows and does not mean every single man in this entire planet" stops being true when it becomes "no but for real I mean it, we should kill all men and start over as a society" which is a thing I have actually seen stated by radical feminists.

I think there's a big difference between two people having a private conversation that is perhaps not the most inclusive of all nuance and viewpoints, and blasting your personal opinions about how you think men are disgusting and and attraction to men is unnatural within a space occupied by people who A: are men B: are attracted to men C: have been told repeatedly by society that their attraction to men makes them disgusting and unnatural.

[velvetvexations]

I honestly do not really like how a common response to "trans men don’t experience misogyny! (because only women experience misogyny") is "well some trans men are also women", even by people who do believe and talk about transandrophobia. Because why are we giving way to radical feminists? Why are you (seemingly) agreeing that of course women always have it worse and the misogyny trans men who aren’t women experience is obviously not as bad as the misogyny women experience?

I do want to hear about the experience of other multigender people, but I really do not like this implication here. That trans men who aren’t women (whether they’re binary or monogender or not, because as a multigender & non-binary trans man who is not a woman, I also hate how multigender is always used to mean man + woman, because it just goes to show that y’all don’t take non-binary genders seriously still, but that’s another topic) still experience less/less bad or even no misogyny because they aren’t women is pissing me off.

The response to "(trans) men can’t experience misogyny, because they aren’t women" should be "yes they can" not "well some (trans) men are also women so check-mate 🤓"

Trans men who aren’t women in any way still experience misogyny! And it’s not less important to talk about or not as bad to experience just because they aren’t women?? Do the people who make this "defence" even think about what their words imply?

Yes, the experiences of people who are both men and women are important to talk about. But that can be done without putting down or making assumptions about the experiences of other people.

A lot of people are averse to talking about men's issues because it's considered "centering men," which is ridiculous. There's nothing about addressing the problems faced by men that means putting them above women. We're in this together. Refusing to accept that trans men also go through really horrible stuff is no better than TERFs insisting on binary oppression based on assigned sex.

[lorynna]

i would consider myself a radical feminist also and i agree with the vast majority of your views. honestly i am just curious why you think aromantic/asexual people don't exist or shouldn't be labeled. i don't mean this as hate i'm honestly curious to know if it is part of most radical feminist views

if you can accept someone who is lesbian, and knows for themselves that they aren't at all attracted to men, why would you not accept someone who realizes both that they aren't attracted to men and they aren't attracted to women? (obviously very different identities and experiences i'm just wondering why some people can be trusted to know who they're not attracted to and others can't)

Hello anon, thank you for asking so kindly.

I am going to try and explain what my personal opinion on the topic is, as well as I can, and please keep in mind that I don't speak for the radical feminist community but just for my own views.

First of all, the definitions I have read of both terms (aromantic and asexual) so far aren't really specific, differ from each other at times and leave open room for interpretation. The gendies meanwhile continue to preach "everything means something different to each person" and "it is a broad spectrum" just like they do with gender, which according to them is so complicated and unfathomable that you have to ask each person identifying with it seperately, to know what their gender means to them.

The first thing that comes up when I google the definition of both terms displayed below (just as an example of what I mean):

Like, what do "sexual feelings" all include and to which extent does "little romantic attraction" go?

I do think that people who fit the mainstream criterias for being asexual or aromantic exist, I am not trying to say that it is naturally impossible to experience no sexual or aromantic attraction to anyone. I do think it is really really rare for this to authentically occur though, and that a lot of people identifying with these labels have experienced some kind of trauma or are doing it because it has become a trend.

The thing I most dislike about these labels are not only their inconsistency in definitions but also how much they are starting to get pushed online = trend. In my personal experience I have seen not only online but also offline how younger kids and teens start to pick up on these labels without knowing what they truly mean, because they are "cool" and just like gender it is starting to become a similar trend. Seeing who publicly identifies as those labels, it is again mostly the demographic of teenagers who are going puberty and the several different, crucial developmental phases that come with that.

Since you are asking if this is a common radfem belief, I cannot say. There surely is a variety of opinions, however I have seen some good takes from which I remember being said that a person doesn't need the label of "asexuality" or "aromanticism" as an excuse to not participate in dating culture or to not engage in sexual relations. It should just be common sense to not ask strangers about their dating lives and not ask "why" if they say they are not dating or having sex as if it was something unusual.

Also answering to your last question of "why I don't trust those people to know who they are attracted or not attracted to" is not what I am trying to do insinuate by questioning/criticizing the labels they use to describe said attraction. It is not about me trying to say "I don't believe you, you are lying" it is "why do you need those labels". I just don't think it adds anything valuable to society and it's getting more mainstream each day. Now even with teenagers using those labels when they haven't had the time to figure out themselves as a person yet. It just looses its meaning.

I've seen women going through long periods without having partners (radfems participating in male seperatism for example) being asked "oh, so you're asexual, right?" or "oh, so you're unable to form a romantic connection?" because people start assuming, forgetting that there are so so many reasons why people might not have partners or might not want to.

Again, people who truly are not experiencing any sexual desire or romantic desire are really rare but through so many people mindlessly adopting the label it looses it's meaning because it gets more broad in definition and everyone continues to define it for themselves. "Yeah, I am asexual but sometimes I have sex. Like once a month but that's barely enough so I must be asexual." Like... you might just have a low libido and that's totally okay! Why do you feel the need to label yourself as asexual? Is it easier because of your partner's expectations, maybe? Is a simple no not enough for them?

"I'm 15 and I haven't had a crush on anyone so far. I actually think boys/girls are ew and I can't imagine kissing anyone, like ew saliva. Also the girls/boys in my class are so annoying!!" And no, I've heard statements like this several times before. I mean, give yourself some time you're only 15.

Why do we always have to slap a label on top of everything and why can't we just go through life saying "yeah at the moment I really don't feel like having a partner, I don't want to date or have sex. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not and either way it's okay, I'm open for change. " but we have to say "oh yes, I'm an asexual aromantic without doubt and that won't change, that's my identity" and then when that changes we get an identity crisis realising that oh, maybe that wasn't me? Who am I now?

It all boils down to me not being able to take those labels seriously anymore, which is why I reacted so sarcastically in the post you're probably referring to, where I talked sarcastically about those terms.

"labels are different for anyone"

like no.. to define means to limit, to define means to exclude people who don't meet those criterias and that's okay, that's what makes labels and words meaningful = contributing to a conversation of mutual understanding instead of having to first discuss what each person means by using one and the same word.

Like I can't go outside in a clothing store saying "oh I want a red dress" and when she shows me a red dress I then say "oh that's not red for me, that's yellow by my own definition." How do you expect everyone to effectively communicate by leaving the option open for everyone to seperately define one single term??

But as we know, the gendies aren't fans of definitions.

[butno1heardafvcknthing]

in school we had to watch a campaign ad for both kalama and trump, which both were so obviously biased. but honestly, as a radical feminist, hearing the trump ad talk about “tHe RaDiCaL lEfT” as if any of these politicians that are middle at furthest is just funny.

yeah, because apparently not wanting gay people dead and not saying abortion is murder means you’re inherently a radical feminist? so much of our society is so uncomfortable with (at best; when not against) leftism that being in the middle makes you a radical feminist in the campaigns ads for not believing people should be dead.

note: even tho this is a very new blog, if i get some “pro life” pro birth idiot here saying how abortion is murder, i will throw something out a window. (i know. how violent i am.)

[fierceawakening]

So… what IS “liberal feminism” anyway?

Those of you who know me know that I believe the basic things I think feminists believe. Society has a history of patriarchy, of men being seen as rulers and statesmen, and this filters down so deep that men are described as little kings of their homes. Women are assumed to be supporters and nurturers, helping behind the scenes and raising kids. None of this is evil as an individual choice, but when it’s blown up and dictated as the rules of society, it hurts both the people who don’t want to or can’t follow the rules (and many if not most people can’t now that economies assume 2 income households) and also those who do follow them, by hiding other options from them and not letting them bend the rules if they find they need to (see the bit about economies assuming 2 person households.)

Im no longer active in explicitly feminist groups, because I had bad experiences in groups that became high control, to the point where I found an intimate partner in one of the groups, and she turned out to be verbally abusive (and did things that put me at physical risk too, which I think were her testing the waters. I think if I’d stayed another month, i would have been hit.)

So I hang out on the edges—yeah, I agree mostly but I’ve been burned so I’ll be over there. Come get me if you need more people, I got you. I just need to lurk close to the exit, it’s nothing personal.

But there’s one thing I keep seeing, including recently, that I never could figure out: the idea of a “liberal feminist.”

I know HOW the term is used. It’s an insult, mostly. A way to say that someone cares on the surface about feminism but won’t REALLY have your back if you need them. But WHAT it means, I don’t know.

If you ask the people doing the insulting, it means someone who only cares about women’s rights under the law. Someone who very much wants hiring discrimination to stay illegal but gets squishy as soon as someone wants to leave an abuser because “personal choice” isn’t and shouldn’t be covered under the law.

Back in My Day, “liberal feminism” was contrasted with “radical feminism.” Liberal feminism was described as the movement of activists trying to write, pass, and enact laws ensuring equal rights.

They were, however, namby pamby. “Radical” people “got to the root” of the problem. What “the root” was, much ink was spilled in an effort to define, but no one that I remember actually ever hit on a working definition that made clear who needed to do what or how we knew we finished doing it.

This I think is another bit of proof the groups were high control. It’s very common for high control groups to have a core slogan that’s very vague, precisely so that they can spend most of their time infighting about what it means and purging subgroup a whole thinks it means this in favor of subgroup b who thinks it means that.

It’s also how i personally think “radical feminism” went from “many groups are trans exclusive, but it’s not inevitable” to basically synonymous with trans exclusion.

The people who saw trans people as invaders had a clear task: expel them! They paired this with a clear measurable goal: how many are gone? Is that rate fast enough?

In contrast, the people who saw “the root” as something more nebulous, while better people, had no similarly clear conflicting vision for what it meant and what to do, so they were eventually pushed out.

All this as long preamble to say: I think we had it wrong when we condemned others as “liberal,” and I think the degree to which we had it wrong is coming home to roost now that we have a fascist government.

The people the fash are targeting are not just people who have a vague, scary notion of “the root.” They are targeting women’s legal rights. Directly and obviously. They’re literally saying men should proxy vote for their families.

Why is this happening?

Because legal rights and legal battles are not, as many groups describe, a funny little cherry on top of fighting oppression, where you get a little prize but there’s a kraken lurking under there.

The legal rights and legal battles are HOW you fight the kraken under there. They’re armor and weapons.

To put it in rpg terms: Each legal fight you win upgrades your gear.

OF COURSE the enemy is going to target your legal status. You can’t effectively fight a level 999 end boss with Tattered Leather Breastplate and a Notched Shortsword, and your enemies know it.

[doberbutts]

I remember reading a post that men are the oppressor class so why would they bother to dismantle systemic patriarchy when they actively benefit from its existence? And as I read it, I thought, Damn, so an entire half of the population can never conceivably help us, and the people who love men in their lives are doomed. It wasn't a helpful post. It basically felt, here's some actual material analysis on feminism and said, That trying to educate and make men be part of feminism is fundamentally a flawed effort, because again, they are the oppressor class, why should they care about uplifting the oppressed?

And it made me think about this very good pamphlet I read, explaining how the white worker remained complacent for so long because at least they weren't a Black slave. And that the author theorized the reason labor movements never truly created exceptional, radical change is because of internal racism (which I find true) and failure to uplift black people. And the author listed common outlooks/approaches to this problem, and one of them was: "We should ignore the white folks entirely and hold solidarity with only other POC, and the countries in the Global South. Who needs those wishy-washy white fragile leftists who don't care about what we think or want?" (roughly paraphrased.)

And the author said, This sounds like the most leftist and radical position, but it's totally flawed because it absolves us of our responsibility to dismantle white supremacy for the sake of our fellow marginalized people, and we are basically ignoring the problem. And that blew me away because this is a position so many activists have, to just ignore the white folks and focus entirely on our own movements. I wish I knew the name of the actual pamphlet, so I could quote entire passages at you.

But I feel this is the same for men. Obviously, we should prioritize and have women-led and women-focused feminism. But saying that men are an oppressor class so they can't reliably be counted upon in feminist activism--it's such a huge oversimplification. And mainly, I'm a Muslim, and I've been treated with plenty of misogyny from Muslim men. And also plenty of misogyny from Muslim women. And I love my male friends, I want men to be part of the movement, and I dunno. Thinking about communities, movements, and the various ways we fail each other and what it means to be truly intersectional keeps me up at night.

I don't know the pamphlet you're talking about but I've read and been taught similar. There's a reason much of my anti-racism is so feminist and most of my feminism is anti-racist. Many people coming at this problem from a truly intersectional angle have seen that there is no freedom to be had without joining hands across the community. Not picking and choosing our allies based off of identity but off of behavior.

As used in a previous example, a white abled moderately wealthy man saying "wow Healthcare sucks in this country, why does this system suck so bad" should be told "hey, this system sucks so bad because it's built off of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism. You want to improve the system? Fix those things and it will be much better in the long run" and not "shut up you're a man. Healthcare is always going to be better for you". The second response doesn't fix that Healthcare is still a problem even if you are at the "top" of the privilege ladder. If we want true change, we have to dismantle the entire system at it's core and build it up without the yuck, otherwise you're gunna get to the top and realize this place sucks too.

Something something if the crabs worked together to hold each other up, they could all get out of the bucket and be free.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

David Bailey’s son Sascha: Diversity targets mean men are transitioning to enjoy the perks of being a woman

Three years ago, Sascha Bailey almost changed gender. Now, he’s about to become a father – and sounding the alarm on trans ideology

By: Julia Llewellyn Smith

Published: Mar 15, 2025

Sascha Bailey emanates happy excitement. He and his girlfriend of three years, photographer Lucy Brown, are expecting their first baby in August. “I’m ready for the challenge,” says the 30-year-old son of legendary photographer David Bailey and his model fourth wife Catherine. “As you get older, you realise there’s more to life than shallow things like going out and partying or being pretty.”

His joy has extra poignancy, since just three years ago, Bailey was on the verge of changing gender, a decision that would have made it impossible for him to father children.

Suicidally unhappy in an unhappy marriage, he was convinced that undergoing irreversible surgery to become a woman would allow him a fresh start. “I’d been in 10 years of living hell in my relationship and I’d reached a limit where I felt I had to reinvent myself because I couldn’t survive as a man,” he says.

Only after leaving the marriage, intensive therapy and the support of Brown, 34, did he realise that his issues had nothing to do with biological sex but were linked largely to being abused as a child by an older man, something that left him unwilling to identify with male role models. He binned the oestrogen patches he’d been prescribed but not yet started. “Thank God because they would have destroyed my fertility, and having children is important to me,” he says.

[ Bailey recently annonced he’s having a baby with photographer Lucy Brown ]

Now, the handsome, hyper-articulate and charming Bailey is on a mission to highlight how easily young people are seduced into thinking changing sex will solve their problems, and to prevent authority figures such as doctors and teachers, let alone parents, enabling them to embark on a course with irreparable psychological and physical consequences.

“Society’s made something that’s harmful to children acceptable and that has to stop,” he says. “In the UK, sex education is starting younger and younger and getting stranger and stranger. Kids should just be kids and shouldn’t be shown the transgender option at all. I sometimes thought I wanted to be a girl when I was 11, but I also wanted to be a cheetah. If you go down this route, it gets to silly places very quickly.”

For expressing such views, Bailey has received vicious online trolling. Many of his friends have “cancelled” him, withdrawing invitations. “People are bonkers about the issue,” he says. “They won’t have a logical conversation, they just assume any questioning of trans issues makes you a bad person.”

Few appear to have actually listened to Bailey’s arguments, which – in fact – are deeply nuanced. He has no problem with adults transitioning, “though they probably should have more stringent mental health checks.”

“I’m saying people under 18 obviously shouldn’t have anything to do with this. Under 18, you can’t get a tattoo, you can’t drink but for some reason you can change your gender.”

The UK has seen a huge increase in the number of under-18s referred to NHS gender identity service, from 94 people in 2009-2010 to more than 5000 in 2021-2022. This rise has become a key factor in the culture wars. On one side, anti-trans activists or “Terfs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) claim parents and children have been brainwashed into thinking normal teenage angst can be cured by changing gender.

Trans activists fire back that the numbers simply reflect growing acceptance around transgender people, who make up less than one per cent of the world’s population (the 2021 census showed 0.5 per cent of the UK population identified as transgender).

Bailey sees no evidence to back such a conclusion and laughs at trans arguments that historic female figures such as Joan of Arc were transgender. While he’s glad trans people are rarely persecuted compared to the past, he’s convinced the rush to embrace the movement has had “dangerous” consequences.

Growing up in the 1990s, he was a slightly effeminate boy who sometimes dreamed of becoming a girl but never voiced such yearnings. “Acceptance sounds like a positive thing, but I think I was saved by the stigma around trans at that time. It meant I didn’t talk about those feelings too much. If I had, I would have been sent down the medical route,” he says.

The turning point in the conversation came around a decade ago when a spate of high-profile trans people started being feted by society. Olympic decathlon gold medallist Bruce Jenner (stepfather of Kim Kardashian and father of reality stars Kylie and Kim Jenner) transitioned, renamed Caitlyn Jenner to considerable “societal accolade”.

“You saw her career get a boost from it,” says Bailey. “People who might previously have had thought about transitioning but not done it, were more drawn towards the idea, because there was now an incentive.”

Dressed in a slick black Dolce & Gabbana suit, a souvenir from his brief modelling career, Bailey’s sitting in the kitchen of the artefact-stuffed, north London home of his parents, where he’s staying while he prepares to move in with Brown,“She gets on great with my family and I with hers, it’s really nice.”

He prefers not to talk about his father, now 87 and suffering from vascular dementia, “My dad always told us it’s important to be your own person, so I’m proud of my family history but it doesn’t define me,” but says his parents are “inspirational.” He grew up between their houses in London and Devon, with his older brother Fenton and sister Paloma, where regular guests included the likes of shoe designer Manolo Blahnik, his father’s model ex-wife Marie Helvin (Bailey Sr was also married to French actress Catherine Deneuve) and Rolling Stone Ronnie Wood, “He told me to tie people’s shoe laces together at some event.”

[ Sascha Bailey (far left) with father David, mother Catherine and brother Fenton in 2013 ]

It was a happy, loving family but being the child of famous parents had its burdens. “In the UK, there’s a very negative attitude to famous people. People assume you live in fame land and so have magic money because of who my dad is. You can’t work in normal places because people ask why aren’t you working in a special place and if you work in a special place no one thinks you deserve to be there. The best times I had in the workplace were the ones where no one knew who I was and judged me for no reason other than my own merit.”

Diagnosed as dyslexic, Bailey was educated privately at a specialist school for children with learning difficulties, but he left at 16. Within a year he’d been signed by the model agency Storm. He doesn’t think his catwalk experiences fed into his gender dysphoria, “but I was never comfortable with the way I looked, I had a great deal of imposter syndrome.”

When he was 19, he met Japanese lawyer Mimi Nishikawa, 16 years his senior, through a mutual friend. They fell in love instantly and within three months were married. “I was very lonely at the time. I’d fallen out with my friend group, I didn’t have anyone around and I ended up being pushed into something that was wildly inappropriate. At the time, it seemed she really cared for me, but in hindsight, I think I was taken advantage of.” They settled in east London where he worked curating art exhibitions, at first happily but things quickly turned “toxic.”

In 2019, hoping for a fresh start, they moved to suburban Tokyo, where Bailey found himself isolated and miserable, to the point where he wrote a suicide note on his phone. At the last moment, he decided not to go through with the attempt, but afterwards found himself struggling to get out of bed.

The idea of changing gender began to crystallise. “I felt so lost as a person, I didn’t really know who I was anymore. I thought the only way out was to erase the old me. I was coming up to 28, and I felt if I didn’t act on this idea soon I’d only get a few years to enjoy my new life.”

This notion of transgenderism as a “solution” was reinforced in internet chatrooms he frequented. Yet the biggest incentive came when Bailey started to post AI-generated photos of himself transformed into a statuesque blonde, “a stereotypical, plastic LA person” on his Instagram account.

“Suddenly I was getting so much affirmation from people, an increased amount of ‘likes’. I thought, ‘OK, people are positive about the idea.’”

The idea that people might undergo life-altering surgery simply to attract more social media followers seems ludicrous, but Bailey assures me it’s true. “Girls get more attention on social media than men, and when men transition suddenly, they’re getting the attention a girl would get. That’s addictive.”

Men feel pressured to start transitioning as young as possible, “because young ones pass [as women] better and can be better acclimatised by society. Basically people are saying ‘I’ll be prettier,’ which is an absurd reason to transition.”

Conversely, he suspects many girls transitioning to male do so as a reaction to their maturing bodies. “They start to get male attention and don’t like it, so their solution is essentially to be Peter Pan.” The situation’s exacerbated by social media, with the likes of TikTok overflowing with videos encouraging transitioning. “One girl who’d been thinking about it told me, ‘Everywhere I turn, there are pictures of mastectomies. It’s almost like the culture is daring me to do it.’”

Bailey’s comments will infuriate trans activists who insist transitioning has deep-rooted psychological causes and suicide risk is much higher in children who are denied puberty blockers. Bailey again questions the data: “As far as I can tell the suicide rate doesn’t change. In studies I’ve looked at, the suicide statistics are usually taken from people who’ve never thought about being trans, versus people who have thought about it – so they don’t compare.”

Bailey was heartened when, in December, the Government banned puberty blockers, following a recommendation from the Cass Review, a four-year study by Dame Hilary Cass, who pointed out various potential side effects, such as osteoporosis. “We know, beyond the shadow of a doubt now, that puberty blockers are damaging. The idea that we can control nature in that way and not cause irreparable harm is absurd. The Government has taken pretty much all of the appropriate steps, so the main thing is making sure none of this rears its head again.”

He’s horrified by reports that a former psychologist at the Tavistock Clinic, the controversial NHS gender identity clinic that was shut down last year after a damning review accused its prescription of puberty blockers as “unsafe”, is now setting up a new private clinic in Leeds charging £1500 to assess under-18s for gender dysphoria. “The whole thing seems like a grift at the expense of children. These people seem extremely money-driven and don’t want to give it up. It needs to stop.”

Fortunately, Bailey was too old for puberty blockers when he decided to transition. Instead, he visited a Japanese private doctor, who, in less than 10 minutes via a translation tool, diagnosed him as “gender dysphoric”. He was prescribed a month’s supply of oestrogen – the first step towards “feminising” his body. Yet days afterwards, unable to endure his marriage anymore and “in a different mindset” having taken the first transitioning step, he fled Japan.

He returned to the UK determined to continue transitioning. His family, he says, were “supportive. They were just happy I was back. They were definitely doubtful about my changing gender, but they didn’t know much about what it would actually involve and societal pressures mean you just have to accept these things.”

Wanting another month’s prescription lined up before he started oestrogen, he put himself on the long NHS waiting list for gender reassignment. “That wait for an appointment certainly helped change everything.” As he reconnected with old friends, his loneliness and unhappiness diminished. Unlike his family, who didn’t question his decision, Brown – then an acquaintance – and others gave him a new perspective by quizzing him about the ramifications of his plan, making him see how “illogical” it was.

“I’m bisexual and Lucy asked me things like, ‘OK, who are you going to date? It’s only going to be weird guys and weird girls.’ I burst out laughing. From that point the idea petered out.”

Bailey began reevaluating his diagnosis. “The problem with all the psychological arguments around gender identity is they rely on self-reporting, so there’s no logic. Gender dysphoria is so vague that it can be applied to anyone who has a feeling of not wanting to be themselves – which is really common in confused young people. How could I know I wanted to be the other gender when I’d never been it? It’s subjective, so to give it this objective label is dangerous.”

[ Bailey: ‘The problem with psychological arguments around gender identity is they rely on self-reporting, so there’s no logic’ ]

He began speaking out about his narrow escape, to the horror of contemporaries – many of whom identify as “gender fluid”.

“I saw some who, rather than focusing the fact that I tried to kill myself, that I almost transitioned, immediately jumped on me saying you’re hurting the trans community, even though most of them don’t have a single trans friend, they’re just getting angry by proxy.”

His ostracism furthered his bonding with Brown, a Cambridge graduate, who’d herself attracted much controversy for having taken a job working for a production company called Rebel Media, filming Tommy Robinson, the then-leader of the English Defence League (EDL) as he travelled the country. Even though she quit the production company after falling out with Robinson, whom she’s said she has “no time for,” many were outraged by the association and she was kicked out of her flatshare. “We were both outcasts, both building our lives back up and both pretty much cancelled by everybody,” he says.

He has as many reservations about vocal trans activists as about the “gender critical” faction, unofficially headed by author JK Rowling. “Instead of explaining how the issue affects them, they can be so aggressive, posting pictures of trans people who look ‘bad’. It doesn’t contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.”

As part of his research into the issues, he’s interviewed “transmaxxers”, men who decide to transition to benefit from the perceived perks of being a woman, which can be as petty as reduced car insurance. “I spoke to one who wanted to get into the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programme at school but wasn’t allowed in because they wanted to boost female numbers. So six months later, they came back and went, I’m trans now, and they let them in. It’s not the only reason they want to transition, but all of these small incentives add up.”

He sees the same issue with trans athletes competing and – because of innate masculine strength – often winning in women’s sports. “I’m not even sure if these people are acting maliciously, but they think I can’t be the world champion male weightlifter, so maybe I’ll be the world champion female weightlifter, and society is telling me it’s OK.”

He’s not a huge fan of Donald Trump’s economics or his sidekick Elon Musk but applauds the US president banning transgender women from competing in female sporting categories “completely right,” and signing an executive order to reverse the policy to allow trans and non-binary people to either mark their gender as X or choose a gender on official documents such as passports. “I don’t see why people need the government to approve their gender. It doesn’t change anything, and it doesn’t protect them to have the wrong biological sex on there.”

While married, Bailey curated exhibitions and created one of the first platforms for artists to create NFTs (non-fungible tokens, which are digital collectables often tied to pieces of online art). His views have now alienated him from many in the art and fashion communities, but he hopes to re-enter the tech world, using his experience in fields such as crypto currencies. “These are areas you can’t be cancelled from. The industry has a reputation for being very libertarian, so you can be weird and do what you want – in fact many friends from tech have been messaging me to support me.”

Secretly, many others from the fashion and art worlds have contacted him with stories about their transitioning narrow escapes. “It happens everywhere, people just don’t speak about it.”

He’s also been inundated by messages from parents of would-be transitioners, as well as older trans people. “They’re happy they transitioned, but now they see it’s getting out of hand, it’s no longer happening naturally, it feels pushed. Before this 99 per cent of people in big cities didn’t bat an eyelid at trans people, but now trans issues are being forced down people’s throats. It’s breeding an attitude of discrimination against people who just want to quietly live their lives.”

All this has made him determined to remain vocal. “This issue matters to me a lot. So if I can keep speaking about it in a way where I think I’m helping people I will.” He blogs and is planning to write a book about his experience. He’d love to talk to schoolchildren about it. “But schools don’t want me,” he says sardonically. “I’m a bad person, who says bad things.”

Imminent fatherhood has only piqued his determination to make a difference. “I want this sorted for my kid.” If his child wanted to transition, how would he react? “The only thing you can say is wait until you’re 18. Even then, I’d obviously strongly oppose it. I’d talk about my experience, provide them with all the information, and explain the surgeries in graphic detail. But the main thing would be to encourage them to know they’re great as they are, to help them see what they can achieve just by being themselves.”

[ Via: https://archive.today/MU1bb ]

[starstuffandalotofcoffee]

hey, can we avoid absolute statements about "terf" being "meaningless"? obviously it gets misused and distorted, like many other terms. but in reality there are many feminist-identified cis people who explicitly or implicitly see trans people's existence as anti-feminist and unworthy of feminist goals. the right has successfully exploited this view to pull people into their generally transphobic agenda, but the phenomenon also exists on the left, even among those who otherwise call themselves trans allies. if we want the left to defend trans people, be a political home for trans people, we all have more reason than ever to notice and resist this type of thinking. please let's keep a little perspective.

I mean this very seriously: I do not know who you are at all, and I have not made any original posts. This is a conversation you should be having with OP.

With that said, this post, which I assume is the one you're talking about, is literally saying "call people transphobes if they are transphobic." Period. End of Sentence. It does not say "this is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon." It does not say "you should not call out transphobia in feminist spaces." The issue is that many people have successfully conflated being a transphobic radical feminist with being a feminist at all, or alternately conflate being a general run of the mill shithead rightwing transphobe with being a radical feminist. It is horrifyingly common for people online to call outright "we must get up the birthrate/women are property" types "terfs" instead of "misogynist homophobic transphobes".

like...OP, for example, has been a big proponent of 4B. and you know what, I have complicated feelings about that because I'm someone in my mid-30s who really didn't think I wanted children until quite recently, and am single and am having a lot of difficult personal considerations that this election has complicated even further. but I do support women who are choosing 4B. and that includes trans women. And it is people from the left who are attacking 4B as transphobic (vs. people on the right who are just attacking it bc they are misogynists who think women should submit to men) even though it is about avoiding sex and children and marriage with men. If you think that trans women are women then you should automatically think that trans women can be 4B and can be partners of people who are 4B. If you see the word "woman" and don't automatically assume it means "trans women" that is on you, and in fact I think it will be more effective to fight these transphobic self-identified feminists by, instead of acting in bad faith and assuming that whenever any feminist says "men" they mean "cis men and trans women" and therefore by extension assuming all feminists are inherently transphobic unless they shout from the rooftops "NO, WHEN I SAY WOMEN I ALSO MEAN TRANS WOMEN", using the word "women" and assuming anyone who isn't a violent bigot knows that trans women are part of that group.

(obviously if you are trans I understand that you might need to do a calculus based on context clues, in the same way that any oppressed minority needs to confirm that spaces do in fact include them. It is not different than how I as a Jewish woman need to sus out if non-denominational/secular/interfaith means "not anti-semitic"; this post is not about that.)

There are people who identify as radical feminists who are trans-exclusive. I personally think TERF is not a useful term anymore BECAUSE if you are not for ALL bodily autonomy for ALL women you are not a feminist. Being trans-exclusive should, in my opinion, take away your feminism card. We should treat them as transphobic infiltrators in feminist spaces, and not as feminists of any kind, radical or otherwise, and we should call them transphobes. That is what I mean, and that's what I think OP means. It is not a denial that there are self-identified feminists who are virulently transphobic (and specifically transmisogynist). It is saying "we need to stop calling these assholes feminists and start using the word 'transphobe' across the board, regardless of the other political beliefs they may have or claim to have." When it's not uncommon for people to call both Putin a TERF AND actual trans people who (correctly) point out that "uterus-havers" is a really alienating way to talk about people who can potentially get pregnant TERFs, yeah, I think it's worth retiring the term. This isn't a denial of the reality; it's saying that the specific word isn't used to reflect that reality in a meaningful way.

[hellsite-yano]

“Porn addiction exists. And is also NOT a moral judgement on one's value as a person.”

Well, it shouldn’t be, but I think the actual problem here is that 90-some percent of the time people run into someone talking (or preaching, usually) about porn addiction online, it is, because the person raving about it is either a self-obsessed wannabe crusader that hates porn for being “degenerate/sinful” almost as much as they hate addicts and soy beans, or a radical feminist who views Men as the root of all evil, and pornography as an apex manifestation thereof. 

And these types both like to pretend that even seeing erotic mention of a breast, vagina, or penis is a morality-destroying cognitohazard. (You know, the way people demonize most addictions.) So it gets hit as a scapegoat with the one-two shot of “porn is moral taint” AND “addicts are moral failures” from the obviously moralizing asshats, which leads to backlash which goes too far in rejecting them and lands at “Porn addiction isn’t real, and only [obnoxious nutcases who I hate and also disagree with politically] believe it is.”

Plus, the social stigma around porn derails most reasonable discussion in the first place, because mentioning it means putting a neon sign atop a wanking wickerman for fuckwits to come scream at you because you disagreed with them over whether or not it’s the worst thing in existence.

which leads to backlash which goes too far in rejecting them and lands at “Porn addiction isn’t real, and only [obnoxious nutcases who I hate and also disagree with politically] believe it is.”

I've noticed this type of argument comes up a lot in vaguely leftist spaces whenever they feel like they're on the back foot in the late-stage of a particular discourse. Instead of engaging with the subject further in an attempt to reach mutual understanding they'll just throw their hands up and claim the problem isn't real. Race isn't real, sex/gender isn't real, borders aren't real, porn addiction isn't real, etc. It's the academic equivalent of throwing a tantrum and swiping the board game off the table.

[softcells]

I'm pro sex work. I want to be very clear in that when I say that promoting sex work as like punk ? Like. I get what people mean when they allege this but it's like sex work is just labor. It's not like radical and sex work so long as it is criminalized the laborers in the field are being exploited. It won't ever cease to exist and keeping it illegal merely keeps the thumb of the misogynists right on it. I just hate that we have to frame sex work as a rad punk anti system activity to respect it- I can't say there's no argument for it. But it is such an empty conversation. Sex work is work. That should be all there is too it. It shouldn't be a leftist praxis to be respected. You should respect sex workers simply because they are workers just like you and me, and ultimately their work is no more or less radical than that of a garbage man. Positioning sex work as some sort of anti capitalist pursuit is crazy.

And even if we allege that it is, sex work as it is now currently in the USA is the product of women's subjugation not their liberation. It isn't just survival it's a job like any other- but like imagine I came on here and said hotel janitor work isn't just survival- it's resistance against a system that tells undocumented workers to be quiet and obedient. Like obviously not a one for one comparison but like when you're not yassify choice feministing the conversation it's two labors that are often reserved for disenfranchised groups of society that aren't granted the full rights of other workers. Janitors are necessary and deserving of respect. Janitorial work doesn't need to revolutionary for this to be true. The same goes for sex work

Idk I'm just noodling my thoughts bc I feel like these ideas have contributed to the grooming of many young to be empowered by sex work which okay that is their right but they're being told it's empowering to be a laborer with no rights for a sugar daddy who doesn't care about you the same way 18 year olds join the army bc they don't care if u live or die but don't u feel empowered by college. Like ???

[honeyriot]

You're a woman hater! You're pro rape if you think women aren't allowed to have boundaries from men, especially lesbians who are not sexually attracted to male bodies, whether they're in a skirt or not. You have the audacity to suggest the only people standing up for women are Nazis???? So you love rush Limbaugh and male supremacy and hate women. Got it. Loud and clear, bigot

Yeah, pretty much. Who comes to the #letwomenspeak rallies? Who fawns at Tucker Carlson and Fox News? You have no idea you are even indulging it because you have turned feminism into a single issue: trans. As if that were the crux and final coffin in feminism and then sneak around and condone or tolerate LITERAL FASCISTS like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Mr. "What is a Woman" Matt Walsh, organizations like Libs of Tik Tok, Reduxx, Gays Against Groomers, who are racist, nationalist organizations funded by right wing investors. We never question that nature of the prison system or how sports have historically been a means of demonstrating male superiority and a means of perpetuating capitalist competition and we need an entire revamping of bathroom privacy but no let's burn the gays and the trans (because these fascists want you dead as much as they want trans people. to them a feminist is a witch the same as a trans person. they only accept you because you glorify them. you don't want to look at nationalism and capitalism as the machinations of men. You have never come in contact with any trans person you are just a paranoid person who fell for the propaganda from fascists. It was considered crossdressing for a woman to wear pants. Gender essentialism ties in nicely with eugenics and ethnonationalism. Why are so many prominent terfs complete nazis?

Anna Slatz cofounder of Reduxx, a vastly huge and respected GC TERF company, is a absolute fascist collaborating with white nationalist Lauren Southern, who preaches Great Replacement theory is under investigation for receiving Russian funds to spread white supremacist propaganda. Who's that on the left?

That's what reactionaries do in Terf communities. You will all write it off and call me the evil one for pointing it out. To you, feminism is a big joke. You don't study feminist theory and history, you spend more time on trans issues because they seem like a bigger deal and leave the rest of the issues on the back burner because they are tougher and would require real change.

You will never talk about it. It will never be addressed although you will be promoting neonazis and by you tacit refusal to investigate this very real reality, you become an accomplice to it. Many "feminists" spend more time attacking trans people than talking about any real feminist issue, of which there are many that need much more attention than these people are giving at the same time as them NEVER being around trans people.

In fact you probably do not see fascism as a very real thing. Your political science may not be very scientific or historical. If you are so mad, prove me wrong rather than saying I hate women and condone rape when that is obviously not true. I get called the same when I call out racist anti immigration speech. Nationalism and racism are diseases to community.

Do we have to answer the "trans question"? We all know there is a final solution to all the undesirables of society: communists, feminists, gay/lesbian and gender nonconforming/trans. But the questionan is that the systems need to be imagined from the ground up. We cannot build the future on yesterday's institutions.

So yes, it is possibly flattening reality to just randomly call a "trans excluding radical feminist" a nazi. But you have got to know you are flattening reality as well with a skewed understanding of history and political movements (including feminism). I will be posting a link to a bunch of feminist pdfs in a few days so check back!

If that's an ad hominem I hope it forces you to study harder and be a better feminist and, ya know, maybe pick up on doing actual feminist activism instead mischaracterizing the fight for women's liberation.

if you shrug this off as crazy ramblings and cease to understand the political aligning with fascism that trans (and gay and lesbian and gender nonconforming) hate groups have, you will unkowingly perpetuate the very structures and conditions that we are fighting against.

[methaim]

This was originally going to be a post about literary criticism but bc the OG post was about Nimona, this is now a Nimona post lol

So let me start off by saying that I love literary criticism, and the reason I love it is because when done right, there's obviously so much passion behind the criticism and analysis. When done right, the spirit of "there are no right or wrong answers" you hear in English class lives on. But it's all dependent on perspective and the lens you view a piece of media through. That's why you can disagree with someone's literary criticism without them being entirely wrong.

I bring this up bc I was looking through the Nimona tag and saw someone's analysis of the film. As I was reading it, I disagreed with their analysis, but they weren't entirely wrong considering the evidence they used. I won't be linking to the post bc I don't want to start any beef with OP, I'm merely observing a phenomenon when it comes to literary analysis and criticism and why perspective matters.

Spoilers for Nimona under the read more.

So OP claimed that Nimona was misogynistic, and based on their evidence their analysis wasn't entirely wrong. They stated that one of the main characters was a man (Ballister), a gay romance between two men was prominent (Ballister and Ambrosius), and that the main antagonists of the story were women (The Director, who was nameless throughout the film save for her title, and Gloreth). They also implicitly claimed that the movie didn't pass the Bechdel test (which save for the backstory scene with Nimona and Gloreth, isn't entirely untrue, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie). Given this evidence and only this evidence, then their argument isn't necessarily incorrect: in Nimona, women are antagonistic and the story primarily revolves around the story of a man trying to reclaim himself after being wronged by a woman. At first glance, this doesn't scream "feminist media."

However, this analysis would be what I would consider from a feminist lens perspective. In terms of analysis, OP did a great job providing evidence and explaining how that evidence supported their claim.

But I still disagreed with their analysis. And that's because I viewed the movie and analyzed it from two different lenses: a queer lens and a racial lens. Now, again, when doing literary criticism and analysis, it is important to choose which lens you're looking at the film from. Choose too many and you contradict yourself if you aren't trained to write a review (OP wasn't writing a review, they were writing a critical analysis).

The thing about Nimona is that, in my opinion, it isn't a feminist movie; it's a movie that deeply criticizes institutional violence while also being an allegory for transness. A feminist message isn't at its core, but that doesn't mean the movie can't be viewed from a feminist lens, especially if viewed from an intersectional feminist lens.

A lot of people have already pointed out that The Director is supposed to be representative of White women, i.e. the violence inflicted due to White women's fear of those they deem "dangerous"(i.e. non-White non-cisheteronormative individuals, sometimes even extending to All Men including White men but especially men of color). Not only does her fear wrongly villify a man of color (Ballister), but it also directly causes the death of a Black woman (The Queen). This could be seen as a criticism of the current radical feminist movement in which anyone who isn't a White women is immediately a target of White women's fear.

While this movie does explore racism and the role of race when it comes to intersectionality, I've seen most people describe the primary internal conflict as representative of the divide between cis queer people and trans people. This is the queer lens perspective I mentioned when it comes to critical analysis; while the role of race is a theme that is explored in this movie (and I'll try to get into it as much as I can in a Tumblr post), there is a focus on the queer—specifically trans—allegory. Ballister is a gay man and this is explicitly showed rather than implied; his romance with his love interest (Ambrosius) is an important plot point in the movie. He is implied to be cis (narratively speaking) given his initial treatment of Nimona and his inability to understand her and his initial rejection of who and what she is. Although he grows to accept her for who she is by the end of the movie, it's a learning process that ebbs throughout, and his progress reverts at the climax of the movie (when he calls Nimona a monster and reflexively grabs his sword when she shows anger). This is reflective of how even cis queer people can be insensitive to trans peoples' experiences and have much to learn. There's another great Tumblr post out there about how Ballister, although vilified, still has a chance at redemption if he chooses to reject Nimona (the bar/restaurant scene), but Nimona has been demonized and has no chance at redemption bc she has only ever been viewed as a monster. This reflects the divide between cis queer people and trans people in terms of societal treatment; while non-heternormative monogamous couples are being more widely accepted (in the United States at least), trans people are being further demonized as evident from the current political climate.

OKAY so this started as a commentary on the nature of critical analysis but now this is just my Nimona analysis and honestly I'm excited to talk about the racial implications in this movie bc they were apparently. Obviously Ballister is a Brown man (voiced by Riz Ahmed, most likely modeled after him as well) but I have been wanting to speak about Ambrosius for so long bc I have seen very little about his racial implications given that he is explicitly Asian (revealed in behind-the-scenes/making-of) and also modeled after Eugene Lee Yang, an openly queer Asian man (love him <3). Obviously we know the racist implications of Ballister being vilified for 1. being poor/a commoner (explicit reason in the movie and 2. a Brown man (implied). He's up against a White woman in power who is driven by fear (which is why I didn't agree with the feminist analysis of the movie). BUT AMBROSIUS. He's an Asian man, and I personally have not seen many explorations of racism faced by Asian Americans in popular media (not that it's not out there, I just don't think it's very common). There was something about Ambrosius being placed on this pedestal that he didn't ask to be placed on and also leading the search for Ballister. Obviously he did this so that he could bring Ballister in safely since someone else might try to hurt or kill him. But the fact that 1. Ambrosius was seen as an ideal knight and 2. he was being manipulated by a White woman made me think of the stereotypes placed on Asian Americans (there's a reason we're known as the silent and invisible minority). Ambrosius' race played as much of a role in the story's implications as Ballister's race did and as an Asian American person I was so drawn to it. I don't know if it was intended by those who worked on the movie but it just. I'm losing the words for it but it really did mean a lot to me as someone who constantly feels like I'm not allowed to talk about my experiences in any circles when it comes to regards to my race/ethnicity. It all boils down to "Asian person being set up as a model for others (i.e. other races) to aspire to by White society who only wish to use their Asian-ness as a tool." NOT TO MENTION the scene in the car with Ambrosius' meltdown, things he wanted to say but couldn't because The Director had certain expectations from him... THAT hit me hard as well. Someone else please do a deeper analysis about this because all I can do is scream about it without being completely coherent.

Anyway, if you read this far, thank you! Again, this started as an observation on the nature of critical analysis as a whole but spiraled into my own analysis about Nimona. I'm sorry if it seemed messy and rushed, this wasn't well thought-out, it was more of a stream-of-consciousness ramble. I would love to hear your own thoughts, or see other analyses of Nimona. Also if you know the OG post I was talking about PLEASE don't harass OP, from what I could see I don't think think they were a TERF or radfem I think they were just analyzing from a strictly feminist perspective.

[bandzboy]

I work in IT and also did my thesis on AI, only now in the masters degree we got a subject on the ethics of AI, which (fortunately) is mandatory, but I was so disillusioned when the first discussion on deepfake and its exploitation started none of the male students saw this as an acceptable justification why deepfake should be heavily regulated and forbidden for individual use a distribution. And their explanation? "Because it is fake after all, what is the harm?". I was so grateful to our professor who grilled the guy who said it for like 10 minutes asking what if someone did that of him. At the end many others took the subject and him (the professor) more serious.

But that really makes me think about the solutions for that problem. Because usually I'm not an "eye for an eye" kind of person, but when it's about distribution of artificial pornography especially of that kind I really want to doxx those perpetrators and just give them a taste of their own medicine, also making such horrible humiliation rooms for them so others will be deterred. I know in practice that is probably impossible and would require a lot of group effort but I just want those people who did stuff so nonchalantly understand what it's like. Because I deeply believe that anyone can be rehabilitated. Of course doing it by doxxing and creating deepfakes of the perpetrators is kind of against that but I really don't know how else those people can be broadly and efficiently corrected in their behaviour (meaning without wasting so much time single talking to each of them and convincing them to stop).

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think if possible there should be a vigilante like response to that or rather rely on (inter)national media pressure to get the governments to pass useful laws AND implement them?

first of all, thank you for sending this question. second of all, i am glad your professor grilled that guy because truly i remember when ai started to become more popular and i remember seeing a lot of feminists and women online say that this could eventually become dangerous and become a tool to harass women even further and with all of these deepfake ai cases happening around the world it's proving just that. taking someone's likeness to generate something should not be allowed or you shouldn't get away with it without consequences and this is a hill that i am gonna die on because i hate the fact that it's something that is becoming more and more utilized to do things like this and since there aren't any regulations or laws around ai, people just get away with doing the worst possible things like deepfakes of sexual nature.

honestly, i feel there will be time that governments will have to do something about this since this is becoming an issue, especially towards women and it's being talked about more and more as of recent so i would like to believe something will be made but it's obviously taking a lot of time for anything to happen. so i mean... i do believe that people who do these heinous acts should be exposed and shamed publicly since, like you said, feel so comfortable doing this to others surely they would like to be exposed to do world right? (sarcasm)

but anyways, i believe there may eventually be a law of some kind around ai and deepfakes of this kind. still, the truth is people, especially women, have to do everything they can to protect themselves even if it means going to such lengths to expose whoever did it and also keep this subject alive and look out for each other which is also important. we live in a deeply misogynistic society and make up ways to oppress women even further and truly i don't blame women for doing something radical to protect themselves for the time being

[wildchives4]

the weirdest thing to me about terfs and one of the main elements that snapped me out of transphobic "feminism" (i think it's relatively important for me to talk about this bc a cornerstone of the terf community is the idea that "no one goes back" after engaging with radical feminist and/or transphobic material (i know those aren't the same, but terfs often don't) and, like, i went back. to rationality and kindness. and so can anyone else) is just how insane it is to look at a person who is obviously presenting in a way that's meant to be interpreted as feminine or masculine and regardless of how well you think you can discern someone's biological sex (eye roll emoji), it's deeply counter-intuitive to refer to that person with the pronouns used for their assumed biological sex. if they're presenting otherwise. like, you have to be trying so hard to be a bigoted asshole if you refuse to refer to a person who is presenting a very clear gender as their obvious or even sometimes STATED pronouns. do you know what i mean. like. ok. the only trans woman i know irl, i've known her since 4th grade and we used to be really close. i almost exclusively know her as a male person, our friendship is only online now bc we're just kinda in different worlds. but when i bring her up to, like, m (bc we all went to school together, know each other), i naturally use she/her not bc she has requested as much (she has), but bc she's??? i've seen her?? idk???? that's a woman???? it'd be weird as fuck to call her male or use typical male pronouns. not bc she's now a perfectly gender-conforming woman (i don't know any woman, cis or trans, who is perfectly gender-conforming), but bc her intent, preferences, etc. are made clear by how she chooses to present. it's weird bc radfems will acknowledge the degree to which gender presentation affects cis women but refuse to acknowledge that it's an important societal force for all people. then we get into the contrived black&white separation of biological reality & social reality. i could go on. these ladies are insane unfortunately (i was).

[lettucedloophole]

hello, i'm so glad i found this blog! it's amazing to know that there are people in this space doing the work. if you don't mind me asking, how did you turn away from terf ideology? i find it frustrating that many radical feminists are terfs and i'm wondering if there is a way to bring more power to the side of trans-inclusive radical feminism, or arguments that cause terfs to realize transphobia is not feminist. not all people are the same or will have their minds changed by the same thing, of course, but if you have any insight on this, please share it!

hii :D i don't think of myself as doing work really, just kind of talking here, but i'm glad you like my blog!

this issue is a tough one. at it's core... people aren't going to change if they don't want to. i think it's especially hard to deradicalize as most of the time the spaces younger terfs are coming from are liberal queer spaces, and they're obviously very terf-exclusive places despite the fact that there's still rampant transmisogyny there. so essentially it's like, you can't acknowledge you're wrong, because if you're wrong then you're a bad person who's harmed a vulnerable group and no one will accept you anymore. but the solution to this isn't to be like "well just stop being angry that people are/were oppressive" because that also leads to more bigotry. i guess it's a catch 22 of sorts.

it's kind of haunting to think about but some of the people i knew in terf spaces even privately admitted to me that they felt bad about what they were saying but in the end, their ideological beliefs told them it was okay and they didn't want to lose that sense of belonging. as you know, being in proximity to terfs as someone who even so much as sympathizes with trans people makes them rain hell down upon you.

i think it's best to focus on preventative measures. mainstream trans (and left) spaces should have a better understanding of misogyny, transphobia, and transmisogyny. the reason i rejected transness is because i thought i understood what it was and the social conditions around it, and especially if you're tumblr socialized, you're aware of the ways in which you're disprivileged and if you're multiply marginalized (like myself and a handful of terfs) it's easy to think you can't be in the wrong, wielding power over people because you're the victim. hence the necessity of learning about transmisogyny.

for people who are terfs now, though... well, the way i got out was on the grace of trans inclusive radfems, largely trans women. being in proximity to terf spaces really took a toll on them mentally, though. i think it's best for tme people or, more particularly, cis women to step in and try to educate about transmisogyny while leaving trans people out of the line of fire. in mainstream spaces, however, it's best to support trans women and boost their voices. yada yada. all that ally stuff.

idk if you were looking for particular arguments to sway terfs. ideologically and materially, they're just wrong. trans people, esp transfems, are oppressed. even if they can bring up 1000 bad trans women in news articles by conservative media, that's still such a small fraction of the trans population and we can recognize fearmongering when we know better, like right wingers who post about how many latino immigrants killed and raped Real™ us citizens, logically in that scenario you can go... but that doesn't mean EVERY immigrant. but fearmongering preys on your ignorance. education is the only shield.

idk if you're trans but i would say if you're not, consider engaging with terfs or just kinda transphobic people seeking out other opinions genuinely. it takes time to grow out of a mindset but if they're willing to listen, it might help to point out logical inconsistencies, bring up statistics (i have learned. so much about transmisogyny in particular just from pulling up fucking stats to argue with terfs), share transfem experiences & perspectives you've heard (but. not their accounts in case they decide to be assholes to them. use your judgement here)

i have faith that you'd be good at that. i argued with terfs earlier on this blog but it's something i'm growing increasingly erm, allergic to as it just kind of dampens my spirit and harms me mentally. idk. maybe it's cos im transitioning now or my immense guilt at ex-tervery. Probably Both.

i appreciate that you're looking for a way to help the issue. i would say... don't worry about radical feminism too much in particular. it was important to me too to clear radical feminism's name before as well, but really, when you see the sheer amount of terfs in rf nowadays, they make up the majority or at least, the vocal majority, you have to understand why trans people are weary. the name of radical feminism isn't more important than the justified fear trans people have of transphobia, and it's not more important than the ideas in radical feminism themselves, many of which are expanded upon in transfeminism. would def recommend you look into transfeminist theory or, transfeminist accounts. i believe radical feminism will absolve itself in time, it won't be seen as perfect but as it is, flawed yet valuable.

so yeah! i don't know if that's the sort of answer you were expecting but i hope i could provide some decent guidance in some way. you're always free to ask more questions or shoot me a message. and, thank you for the ask. have a nice day :]

p.s. kinda realised i should put some actual arguments here so uh....

sex is not real! social constructionism beam wooshwoosh

statistics

yeah that's all i got but really that's all you need. lol 😭