#polish radfem

[radykalny-feminizm]

Polskie radfemowe polecajki

Dzielę się kontami na ig które obserwuję, jest sporo dobrych, które niestety już nie są aktywne, ale wciąż mają dostępne treści, z którymi warto się zapoznać.

Uwaga: Nie wszystkie konta są stricte radfemowe, ale są w moim odczuciu radfem-leaning/dotykają tematyki bliskiej radykalnym feministkom.

Aktywne:

Licznik kobietobójstw

Propagacja

Stowarzyszenie Bez

Detransitioner

Kolektyw Labrys @kolektywlabrys

Trans przemoc

Krytyka feministyczna

Kayaszu

Nieaktywne:

Chaperony

Radfem_pl

Edukacja feministyczna

Womanhood_wisdom_power

Detranzycja_pl

Szkodliwy woke aktywizm

Koalicja LGB

Denializm płci

Jeśli znacie jeszcze jakieś warte uwagi konta radfemowe prowadzone w języku polskim podzielcie się proszę.

[gendiebrainrotreceipts]

My husband has extremely long hair, shaves his legs, and wears nail polish. He is getting so tired of explaining to people that he's not a TIM, that he's never had gender issues, that he just styles himself a little differently. Every time he gets called an "egg" he gets really self-conscious and it breaks my heart. People aren't allowed to just be gnc anymore

Idk how they can’t see that all they’re doing is reinforcing gender roles when they go and designate people as potential trans people just because they’re gnc.

[fem-lit]

In a stunning move, an entire replacement culture* was developed by naming a “problem” where it had scarcely existed before, centering it on women’s natural state, and elevating it to the existential female dilemma.

— Naomi Wolf (1990) The Beauty Myth

*the beauty myth was the replacement culture for the “religion” of domesticity as described by Betty Friedan.

[maria69dulebianka]

"lesbians should be open to dating trans women, examine your biases"

First of all, yall damn ugly and your penile maleness is oozing off you through the ears and im not attracted to that. Preop postop it doesnt matter. You are all narcissistic and pretentious and moreover, very annoying.

[radsloth95]

This. All of this. I have no issue with painting nails, as I feel like it can be a fun thing to add a little color to life, and unlike makeup or shaving, I feel like society doesn't tend to give a shit whether or not your nails have paint on them or not. But I DESPISE fake nails.

I was raised by a nurse and these are the reasons my mother gave as to why I was under no circumstances allowed to have fake nails while growing up:

- Acrylic nails must be applied to a rough surface which means they file down your actual nail, which makes them weaker

- the space between your acrylic nail and your real nail is a great spot for bacteria to hide and grow.

-acrylic (and gel) nails literally have to be soaked in acetone to be taken off

-you can't do anything with acrylic nails and they make writing, typing, and literally all activities of daily living more difficult

-cuticle trimming (often done before acrylic or gel nails are applied) is literally pushing back and trimming the very thing that prevents the skin surrounding your nails from infection. And just like removing body hair, removing your cuticle skin often causes it to grow back rougher.

Gel has become pretty popular in the last 10 years and in the interest of giving clear information, I feel like I should state that there are two different products "gel nails" may refer to. The first is artificial nails made out of gel that bond to your nails with UV light. Basically this goo is applied to your nail and then 'cured' under a UV light, so that is hardens into a tough shell attached to your nail. The second product is gel polish, which is regular nail polish with a gel component, that is still dried under a UV light and generally lasts longer than regular nail polish due to the gel curing under UV light.

-while gel nail polish isnt quite as bad as artificial nails, please keep in mind that UV light is used to seal this type of polish. I know some people like gel polish because it lasts longer than typical nail polish, so if you absolutely insist on using it, at least put sunscreen on your hands (or feet, if painting toenails) before putting them under the UV dryer. And consider taking breaks in between gel with no polish at all, as repeated use can lead to brittle, cracked nails.

-the major problem with gel nails and gel polish isn't actually the gel, it's the removal of it. People often pick at the gel and peel away layers of gel polish instead of having them taken off with acetone at a nail salon. Picking and peeling causes not only the gel but part of the protective outer layer of the nail to be peeled or pried up together due to the chemical bonds. Pure acetone breaks the bonds so that the gel can be removed with less damage to the nail. The bond between your nail and the gel only solidifies more with each day and the longer you wait to have gel nails removed, the harder it will be to get them off, so the whole longer lasting thing doesn't really pay off.

Moral of the story: stick to regular polish if you are going to paint your nails. And never feel obligated to paint them, cosmetic companies run by men don't need any more women's money.

[butch-reidentified]

if you think agp is a thing(and presumably exclusive to trans women) what do you think of cis women claiming to masturbate in front of mirrors and CIA women who report being aroused by breastfeeding?

literally every single answer to these questions is available on my blog. I'm tired of writing the same posts over and over and over. if you can't find sufficient answers scrolling my blog, searching key words on my blog (or on google citing my blog, which yields better results oftentimes), going through the links in my pinned, or checking the tags referenced in my pinned, then I'd say if it's reeeeally important to you to get answers, your best bet will be to sit tight and occasionally check for updates to my Pinned as I am gradually adding more and more links detailing my views, and/or skim my blog from time to time - it's pretty much guaranteed to cycle through again within a month at most 🤷

I was actually gonna put a partial (that is to say, just not my usual thorough, detailed, and nuanced) answer at the beginning, but honestly I'm getting VERY tired of anonymous strangers who most likely just stumbled across my blog for the first time today thinking they're entitled to a personalized thinkpiece from me when almost every time I get an ask like this (which are distinctly different from good faith curiosities, which I'm more than happy to answer), I've already posted my answer, I've already written about the subject in depth on my blog. so I'll put my answer below instead so you have to read all of the above first, so you at least sort of vaguely kinda earn some response by putting in a miniscule fraction of the work/time I've put into both reading/informing myself about all sorts of different opinions, ideologies, experiences, perspectives, and views (rather than just demanding opinions from strangers on anon, lmao) and writing countless posts (& that's just on here, ignoring the offline side which is where I'm wayyy more active), which are almost always VERY long and detailed and proofread and edited and polished several times over.

btw, kind of a side note -- I have NEVER sent a single anon in my life, and I have NEVER, anonymously or not, demanded someone give me a personalized just-for-me explanation of their opinions (or any at all). the reason I call this entitlement is because you (most likely) aren't asking out of genuine curiosity or good faith. you (most likely) are asking because you dislike what you think my views are (you are most likely misinformed and think I believe things I do not) and you (most likely) think this is some kind of gotcha rather than the same ignorant, unoriginal, boring ass points that I've read countless times as far back as when I was a transactivist and trans-identifying myself. they've been debunked/responded to by a LOT of other women, too, and I'm very confident you could easily find at least one such response. I'm not holding you to a standard I don't also hold myself to; in fact, that I'm going to give you any degree of actual answer at all is demonstrative of my holding myself to a HIGHER standard. because again, nothing I'm about to say on this topic is just now in this post being born into the universe as a novel thought. or even a novel tumblr post; like I said, you could find the radfem answers to this ask yourself with just a tiny bit of effort - and while radfems are far from a monolith, and I am a frequent vocal dissenter on a variety of radblr hot topics, this isn't even really a matter of opinion. read on to find out why.

Part A - Not answering the questions here per se, but a clarification of terminology that may help you (any reader, not necessarily anon) see my perspective:

The word "cis" has different definitions. It used to mean someone who is not trans, whereas trans referred to sex-dysphoric transitioners, a demographic who now often prefer terms like transsexual or transsex or simply "sex-dysphoric" BECAUSE they don't agree with gender identity ideology (GII) and object to the way GII has been actively hostile to them and erased transsexuality (and thus their identities, needs, beliefs, and experiences as well), similarly to the ways in which GII engages with pretty much everything that isn't complete and total blind allegiance. These include but are far from limited to:

1. Obfuscating people's (especially children's/young adults' - as they are the primary consumers of most GII content by far) understanding of biology, particularly as it pertains to the sexes of human beings and sexual dimorphism, and inserting "gender identity" as a direct (but importantly not synonymous or remotely parallel) replacement for the material and biological reality of sex. Sex, absent patriarchy and the gender construct, is simply a neutral and factual categorization of human beings: sex categorizes human body types according to the two developmental pathways that evolved solely for the purpose of producing one gamete type or the other to enable perpetuation of the species via sexual reproduction. What this statement does NOT imply to anyone reading it with even an ounce of integrity/intellectual honesty: "women are defined by having babies," "infertile/childfree adult female humans are not women," "humans with anomalous sexual development of any variety are not male or female, but rather a 3rd sex or even proof sex is a spectrum," or anything along these lines; I refer to these arguments as intellectually dishonest because they are originally intentional (disinformation -> misinformation) misinterpretations & serve to moralize, dogmatize, and essentially theologize facts of nature.

This obfuscation of biology is committed via a variety of tactics that frequently include outright gaslighting; "gender and sex are different" turned into "sex is actually a spectrum" (it's not - read on to learn why not!) and then outright science denial while gaslighting others as being the unscientific, uneducated, "3rd grade understanding of biology" ones (again, this is simply factually not true*).

*Feel free to request to see a peer-reviewed neuroscience journal publication bearing my name and/or my thesis (original research regarding the overlapping genetics + epigenetics of norepinephrine dysregulation in both dysautonomia and attention deficit disorders) if you are skeptical of my credentials regarding biology. alternatively, feel free to cite your sources and I will provide a free-of-charge peer review service :)

2. Building from #1, the erasure of patriarchal sex-based oppression of women & girls (by definition: human beings of the female sex, adults & children respectively) via aforementioned tactics obfuscating sex biology & human biology in favor of an innate, internal "gender identity" which is extremely poorly defined with the individual "gender identities" themselves left utterly non-delineated. Gender identity ideology is to be taken entirely on pure faith, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support gender identity as a universal component of human beings/universal human experience. In fact, the existence of absolutely any nonzero quantity of human beings who do not experience gender identity firmly disproves it as universal human experience - and we know not all humans have a gender identity. However, every human being experiences sexual development, be it typical, disordered (DSDs, congenital infertility, etc), or otherwise anomalous; the vast majority experience typical sexual development, and one's sex is entirely clear in the vast majority of atypical cases as well. Female humans are oppressed on the basis of our biological reproductive capabilities; patriarchy desires control over the female sex as a direct product of its desire to control reproduction. Patriarchy created the gender construct to instill and enforce a caste system between the sexes upholding the patriarchal dogma of male supremacy and female inferiority. Similarly, patriarchy created father-gods in order to make the creation of life a male act. Erasure of sex in favor of the gender construct serves male supremacy and cannot ever be anti-patriarchal or feminist. Evidence of sex based oppression abounds offline (frankly, you need look no further than menstruation stigma in all its forms up to and including menstrual huts, but there is infinitely more evidence) and right here on my blog as well; I even have some posts tagged to serve as proof of sex based oppression.

3. Erasing homosexuality via working toward erasure of exclusive same-sex attraction (this is particularly targeted at lesbians, and this is VERY well documented. I have many examples of this in my TRA Receipts tag, including a particularly excellent masterpost containing, in total iirc THOUSANDS of screenshots), once again replacing sex with "gender identity" as if one's orientation being defined as attraction to another human's invisible, internal, and highly individual "gender identity," which not all humans even purport to have in the first place, could possibly make any sense. This is uniquely absurd.

As stated in the 2nd link in #1 on my Pinned, I object to the usage of "cis" for non-trans-identifying people. Why? At the core of it, because the most commonplace definition of "cis"/'cisgender" that I see at this point in time is "having a gender identity that aligns with what was assigned at birth." As stated above, gender identity is not universal, rendering "cisgender" equally as personal and internal of an identity label as "transgender" - and these are not a pure dichotomy by any means. Radical feminism does not grant any degree of objective factual legitimacy to the gender construct; thus, no radical feminist is or can be, by definition, transgender or cisgender (this does not carry over to whether or not radfems can have dysphoria or even be medically transitioned). Radfems are not the only humans without "gender identities," and it is dishonest and disrespectful to force the term/label onto everyone else according to an ideology we/they may not share.

Part B - The Long-Awaited Answer! [I changed my mind since this ended up significantly longer than initially planned so here ya go]

Autogynephilia was coined as a term with a specific definition. That definition is still the same one in use today. That definition explicitly states that only males can qualify. That definition is: "a paraphilia that describes when a man experiences sexual arousal from the thought of himself as a woman" per Google, and "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female" per Blanchard's original stated intention for the term he created. Wikipedia goes on to add "intending for the term to refer to 'the full gamut of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies.'"

I have many criticisms of Blanchard himself and of the quality of his research methodologies. However, the evidence for the existence of the paraphilia itself is abundant and undeniable given that many males outright refer to themselves as autogynephiles and many have openly discussed their experiences as someone with this paraphilia. What I do not believe is that all trans-identifying males are AGPs, that there is proven legitimacy to the HSTS/AGP dichotomy (even Blanchard himself said not all OSA trans-identifying males are AGPs - just a whole lot of them), or that non-trans-identifying males can't be AGPs - actually I think it's likely that most AGPs don't identify as transgender.

The core of the paraphilia, the source of the arousal, is a product of the patriarchal sex caste system; autogynephiles are aroused by the idea of themselves as women - as they themselves have stated - because of the sexual objectification of femaleness and/or because they're aroused by degradation and humiliation (as is blatantly obviously on brilliant display in the existence of and obsession with "forced feminization" and similar female-degrading sexual concepts), and the AGP male views femaleness and the gender that patriarchy has forcibly ascribed to femaleness ("femininity") as inferior and thus sees his engagement in performing femininity as degrading - which in turn sexually excites him.

One reason some women find themselves arousing in their own bodies and natural non-performative states is the same as when men find themselves arousing in their own bodies and natural non-performative states: self-confidence increases libido and associations can be made between A and B. Where women and men inevitably differ, however, is about the arousal surrounding performing femininity and/or sexual self-objectification. It is not at all unreasonable to speculate that some women can be turned on when they "feel hot" for a reason other than just self-confidence; for one speculative example, it's possible that some women may see herself in the mirror all dressed up in hypersexualized clothing and feel that they've succeeded in mirroring the pornified images and sexually-appealing-to-males beauty expectations. Ultimately, this is self-objectification. It's patriarchy and the male gaze that have forced these associations onto all of society, and hypersexual associations have a tendency of causing sexual arousal in people (duh).

Oh and I've never heard of women being aroused by breastfeeding, only complaining about it being painful asf, but like. Nipples are among the most common and well-documented non-genital erogenous areas so? This seems terribly unlikely to be a common phenomenon, but utterly irrelevant to the existence of autogynephilia regardless lol. If this is a thing, like I said I doubt it's commonplace at all, but even just hypothetically, I'd say it would distinctly fall in line with everything else I say in this answer. Patriarchy and its pornographers have indeed sexualized breastfeeding - there are a concerning number of men who ask their partners NOT TO BREASTFEED their babies - his own children! - because it makes him JEALOUS and even resent the baby. I'm dead serious you can look this up, it happens. So... read on for elaboration.

I neither know nor care precisely what you're referencing in this ask, because the answer remains the same: autogynephilia by definition can only affect males, and males who have a fetish for the idea of themselves as female, be that through imagining themselves Fucked (anatomically female, specifically in a sexually objectified - aka Fucked - manner; the anatomical/biological form of autogynephilia fetishizes the male subject imagining himself as the female Fucked object of pornography) or Feminine (as discussed above) fundamentally are not and cannot be the same as women who are turned on by feeling like they look sexually appealing or by their own natural anatomy or biological functions (which have been violently hypersexualized by patriarchy). This is a form of internalized misogyny; when men do it, it's just misogyny. These are not the same.

[drbased]

A guide on how to be a radfem AND an actual leftist!

So say you see this comic shared by a radfem online:

OK, so straight off the bat we have a kind of... suspicious portrayal of a trans person. In my experience, if a comic has this kind of overly polished art style, well, it's probably not made by a radfem, and it's probably made by a man. In fact, the comic style this reminds me of the most is stonetoss, a barely covert neo-nazi, whose comics I have seen, once again, shared on radblr!!

(fyi this isn't the exact comic bc I couldn't find the one i saw on radblr a while ago, but you get the idea)

If you're an actual committed leftist, you probably don't want to be platforming outright neo-nazis.

And unfortunately for us feminists, a lot of neo-nazis are also anti-trans. So if you're about to share something from outside the radfem bubble, you just might wanna check first to see if it's thinly veiled hate speech that this guy MrPumpkinFace (whose name is in the comic, just to make searching easy for you!!) supports and -

oh - oh god -

Yeah, doesn't take much of a search to find out exactly what kind of politics this guy supports. I repeat:

It doesn't take much of a search to find out exactly what kind of politics this guy supports.

Also, here's a bonus stonetoss comic for ya:

So that's your definitive guide for not being a

complete fucking moron

In the name of 'owning the transes'!!

All you have to do is use that famous radfem pattern recognition and the equally famous radfem common sense and the equally famous radfem ability to check sources - all of which goes out the window when it comes to this subject apparently!!!

(Sorry, did I say this was a guide on how to be a 'leftist'? Sorry, I mean this was a guide on how to do the BARE. FUCKING. MINIMUM.)

Please, please, please don't leave it to random idiots like me to have to keep doing basic google searches for you all, and good fucking luck getting your average mainstream leftist to have any sympathy for you when you're uncritically sharing literal nazi comics on your supposedly feminist platform!!!

[radykalny-feminizm]

On the anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, it's important to remember the remarkable role that women played in this tragic and heroic event. Thousands of women participated in the uprising, which began on August 1, 1944, taking on various roles, from frontline soldiers to medics and couriers.

The Roles of Women in the Warsaw Uprising:

Soldiers: Women fought on the front lines, often alongside men. They were members of regular units of the Home Army as well as spontaneously formed volunteer units. Many women, who had been involved in underground activities during the occupation, took up arms to fight for the freedom of the capital when the uprising broke out.

Medics and Doctors: Women made up the core of the medical staff. They worked in field hospitals, providing aid to the wounded, often under extremely difficult conditions. They frequently risked their lives to evacuate the injured from under fire. Their courage and dedication were invaluable, and some were posthumously honored for their heroism.

Couriers and Messengers: Couriers and messengers played a crucial role, carrying orders, messages, and supplies between units. They often moved through areas under fire, exposing themselves to great danger. Without their invaluable services, communication between units would have been significantly hindered.

Women in the Resistance Movement: Even before the uprising, many women were involved in the resistance movement, engaging in underground education, publishing activities, diversion, and sabotage. Their work was crucial for organizing the armed action.

Notable Women of the Uprising:

Among the women who fought in the uprising, several stand out, such as:

Krystyna Krahelska ("Danuta") - a poet, medic, and author of the song "Hey Boys, Bayonet on the Gun!". She was rescuing a wounded colleague when she was shot three times in the chest and died on August 2, 1944.

Anna Zakrzewska ("Biała Hanka") - served with the Polish underground army as a courier and a medical orderly. She was killed in the course of desperate combat during the Uprising.

Elżbieta Zawacka ("Zo") - one of the few female paratroopers of the "Silent Unseen" (a special forces unit), a courier, later a brigadier general. She survived the war and died in 2009 at the age of 99.

Wanda Traczyk-Stawska ("Pączek") - a marksman in the "Parasol" unit, later a psychologist and social activist. She is still alive and remains a prominent figure, advocating for historical memory and social justice issues.

[autistic-katara]

jesus fucking christ i hate these guys-

[heterophobicdyke]

How do you deal with all the homophobia in radical feminism? I can't stand radblr anymore because of the constant lesbian hatred, all the "classic" radfem writers were polilezzes, and even when I try to meet up with feminists irl they are all bihet homophobes. I want to help other lesbians, but every radfem space I check out is just FULL of homophobia. Is there anywhere else for real lesbians to go?

I hate it too. Like I am a radical feminist because I believe in re-ordering society to eliminate male supremacy. That’s why I care less about microanalysing small behaviours like nail polish and dildos, and care more about brainstorming how to overthrow men - I find the navel gazing self-analysis/consciousness among radical feminists a product of our socialisation. It’s not “feminine” to want to rip society down and start again, so we’re expected to internalise - microanalyse how we, personally, are contributing to patriarchy, rather than taking an active role in warring with men who are the root of the issue.

I’m also a radical homosexual rights activist because I believe in re-ordering society to eliminate heterosexual supremacy. So it’s tough being in radical feminist spaces because they aren’t as radical about ending other forms of oppression - and it conflicts sometimes! For example, we should all be anti-gender because it not only affects women but homosexuals. Gender is misogynistic but it’s also homophobic. However, many radical feminists see gender as a solely misogynistic thing, they see homosexual people with a gender identity as the enemy when they’re equally as victim to gender as women with eating disorders are to beauty standards. Heterosexual women are given the most empathy under radical feminism and it’s almost gendery in how it evolved - lesbians are seen as more predatory all because they’re attracted to women… therefore we’re “like men.” To be a perfect female victim to patriarchy you must desire men and have them betray that desire by abusing you once you’re in love. And don’t you dare suggest these women not enter relationships with men at all! Because then you’re victim-blaming as a stranger to the cause, someone who just Doesn’t Understand. While there’s an argument for lack of agency in specific dire situations, like a woman resorting to prostitution to pay off debt or a drug habit, or a woman in a severely abusive relationship to a man not being able to leave, I think radical feminism must get to a stage where we admit we will never overthrow patriarchy while OSA women choose their male partners over the feminist revolution. They’re not compatible. That’s why many turn to liberal feminism and believe they can self-empower while in these close ties to men. As if these men aren’t oppressors living in your home and influencing your daily lives.

Meanwhile, the radical feminist sex wars (ongoing) involved “political lesbians”—some not even attracted to women at all—telling Actual Lesbians that in fact THEY are part of the problem because sexual desire towards women is a Man Thing that can only ever be objectifying unless you’re having sex in “equal ways,” laying side by side and microanalysing any sexual act for “manliness.” I’m kink-critical, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people should be emulating rape or kidnapping or racism or pedophilia in the bedroom. But they went as far as to say strap on or sexy talk or whatever was all off limits if you considered yourself a feminist. But women who are not in an abusive situation marrying whole men? Poor babies.

I think radical feminism ate itself when it became about women checking themselves for “manliness” rather than distancing from Actual Males. Lesbians will always lose that because homophobia suggests any form of sexual desire for women is a man thing. Like throughout the sex wars and beyond, women in relationships with males were seen to be permanent victims unable to possibly live a female-centred life unless they got to appropriate the term lesbian, and be Better Lesbians than Actual Lesbians. We know that not all women are inescapably and powerlessly with men, and can’t leave, especially when you consider the radfem polls showing most are middle class with a university education. Where the attention went, and goes, instead, was towards women policing their own behaviour for evidence of “maleness.” Which is gender! Butches, especially butch/femme relationships, and any lesbian with a sexual appetite, were/are critiqued more than discussing how women can distance from actual males! As if masculine/feminine relationships and penetration are heterosexual, male things, and a woman exhibiting those things are worse than women who refuse to leave men who exhibit those things (because she’s so vulnerable and victimised!). In fact, women who are deemed “manly” for such things are seen as a bigger betrayer than men themselves because they see it as coming from inside the house. They can delude themselves into thinking they’re using men for sex and romance but are still fighting some feminist fight internally, yet actual lesbians with no dependence on men whatsoever are somehow class traitors for *spins wheel* not being feminine enough in how they have or want sex? Make it make sense!

Masculinity and femininity are simply what we associate with men and women. The problem isn’t really masculinity and femininity, it’s that they’re forcefully applied and naturalised to the sexes. Harmful beauty expectations like youthfulness and thinness are a subset of femininity designed entirely to make women small and childlike. In the same way “toxic masculinity” is the sort of masculinity designed to give men more power over women through naturalising aggression among men. But there are plenty of good/neutral things associated with men, therefore “masculinity,” that women can and do possess, such as short hair, desiring to penetrate, being good with money and wanting to protect/defend their partner. And some women (and men!) exhibit what we’d consider good/neutral “femininity”: nurturing, preferring being penetrated, in touch with their emotions, animal-lovers. These two types of women, as lesbians, being in a “butch/femme” relationship is not emulating heterosexuality because there is no male involved. But “political lesbians” and other radfem homophobes believe(d) they were/are the higher form of lesbian (despite being attracted to men) because they don’t engage in feminist-neutral forms of lesbian culture and history.

This distraction from the real issue—women living lives that focus on men including their partners—goes on. I think radical feminists misuse the victim label to apply to things they don’t want to change or address. OSA women “can’t help” focusing their life on men, so do we forfeit the revolution for it?

But I’ve come to terms with being a radical feminist regardless of those who have deluded themselves into thinking they can end patriarchy holding hands with a man, and all the homophobia that comes along with protecting that CHOICE. Because I rest easy knowing the barebones foundation of radical feminism—eliminating male supremacy—is what I believe and live my life doing, along with likeminded lesbians, febfems and celibates. I’m not going to stop identifying as a radical feminist because of fakers, in the same way I’m not going to stop identifying as a radical homosexual rights activist despite the TRAs thinking they, also, can reclaim the system and simply rework it in “self-empowerment.” Both homosexual TRAs and deluded "radical feminists" belong to the oppressed classes I want to be empowered, and that's where the solidarity ends. I don't have to bite my tongue to hold their hand in the path towards overthrowing heteropatriarchy. I won't be guilted into playing nice.

That’s how I deal with it.

[sw1tez1anka]

hello, welcome to Natie's blog !!

have u ever thought of dating a girlblogger?

𐙚 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

୨୧┇ Natalia, "Natie", "Świtezianka"

୨୧┇ polish girlie (gmt+2)

୨୧┇ huge feminist (NOT radfem) & patriot ♡

୨୧┇ MINOR so don't be weird plz

୨୧┇ crying, girlblogging & listening to lana

୨୧┇ FiSe sp649 phleg-sang?? (still learning)

୨୧┇ rpg maker games lover

୨୧┇ 🇵🇱 ♡ 🇵🇸 🇸🇩 🇨🇩 🇺🇦

𐙚 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

꒰ strawpage !!

more specific dni list

add me on airbuds ♡ ꒱

bye-bye ⋅˚₊ ୨୧ ‧₊˚ ⋅

[radfem-polls]

Ok I need to know if this is a polish thing or an european thing... (or just a thing in general)

Do people in your country wear the rainbow totebags from tiger (or rainbow totebags overall) to signify they're lgbt?

1. Yes (Polish)

2. No? Wtf are you talking about? (Polish)

3. Yes (European)

4. They're popular but idk if it's a gay thing (European) (it probably is but idk your country)

5. No (European)

6. Yes (Non-European)

7. They're popular but idk if it's a gay thing (Non-European)

8. No (Non-European)

9. Secret ninth option

-🐌

[starscatteredsky]

Could i get tips for starkin/alienkin?

star and alien tips

pt: star and alien tips

get glow in the dark makeup/clothes/nail polish/jewellery

decorate your ceiling with glow in the dark stars, or hanging planets

collect or make some star charts!

paint some planets or stars from your solar system!

write down or catalogue alien plants and animals you remember from your homeplace!

decorate your living space to look like space or the planet you were from!

watch things like starwars and startrek!

explore near your home and experience earths beauty!

go stargazing!

use space themed neopronouns!

hope these help! enjoy! -🩸

hope these help!! enjoy! -🩸

[image description:

a DNI banner with the background being the promotional image for Little Nightmares 2. The writing reads:

"DNI: radqueers, proshippers, radfems/TERFs, antikin/antitherian, homophobic/ ableist/ anti ACAB/ transphobic/ rasist/ antisemitic/ xenophobic/ antitheist/ anti athiest/ bigoted in any fashion, NSFW/sh/ed/cringe centered blog, fakeclaimer

Before you interact: We are pro mspec gays/lesbians, anti endo/tulpa "systems", enjoy MCYT/DSMP, pro self diagnoses with extensive research, multiple alters are punks/ anarchists"

end description]

[limeade-l3sbian]

Whats your opinion on dyed hair? If im correct you said you didnt wear nail polish..so i just wanted to know what you think. I personally dont wear or own any makeup and never do nails and everything like that but i have bleached hair and ive noticed that some radfems have bright colored hair and some are completely against it🤔

My honest response is a big, fat shrug. That's also my response to nail polish too. I take umbrage with these things when women start to believe that these things are tied to their worth and feel that, without them, they are "ugly."

Same thing with make up. I had a gyn ask me if I thought make up was bad and my answer is no. Some things pushed upon women as a necessity are not bad by nature. It's the connotations we place on them that end up making them toxic. You want to fart around in make up, whatever. But my concern raises when you're showing me stories of mothers who need to have make up on while giving birth.

I have extremely dark brown hair and in another world, where I'm not lazy, I would dye it white. The brainwashing worked on me. I think white hair on black people looks dope lol. But my sense of worth and personal opinion of myself are not tied to this. I do not think that without white hair, I am ugly. I think I am a person with value, with or without it.

[warcrimesimulator]

blocked a polish rightoid on twt for run-of-the-mill pro-russian takes about muh bombass children :((( and saw a few days ago he was arguing w/ a ukrainian user w/ rainbow flag emoji who was saying poles killed by the UPA deserved it- i scrolled further up in the thread, wider context was that she was defending israeli war crimes. when I clicked on her page she's also a radfem with a ton of "ADULT HUMAN FEMALE" "LGB WITHOUT T" posts in-between islamophobic and pro-israel posts from that visegrad 24 acc. I feel like I got shot three times.

Twitter is fun I hope everyone here dies

[heterophobicdyke]

i agree with you that it's so frustrating for so-called radical feminists to not stop dating men, or even view it as integral to the radical re-ordering of society to eliminate male supremacy, when even regular straight women are remaining single and even having kids alone because men are so shit. but you and i know that these hetfems will continue identifying as radfems almost outta spite. relationships w men are so normalised that these women are SHOOK u dare to critique it. they MUST date men

look you're not wrong. my issue is i just can't handle the hypocrisy and contradiction. like i stopped referring to myself as a radical feminist for years because i was tired of gay men being strawmanned as the Real Issue while these osa women literally choose to date and even marry osa men--the ones out there raping us--and the most defensive of it are het-partnered ssa women bc they know they have another choice. the reason i'm back is bc i realised all the microanalysis of lesbian sex and microscope on gay men, as if osa men aren't the WORST danger, is homophobic distraction from the elephant in the room: osa radfems choosing osa men when even regular non-feminist women are growing better standards. i dont care whether a woman wears lip gloss and nail polish and likes strap ons. i care about the actions of men and how intimately women allow LITERAL MEN into their lives while they're so dangerous. i'm more concerned with the physical presence/influence of men on women's lives than i am into judging whether having male colleagues or watching game of thrones is feminist enough. most violence males inflict is on their partners/families. so, realistically, women denying them that is probably the MOST radical action because it gets to the root of patriarchy and eliminates male supremacy in her life by re-ordering priorities away from men completely. 100 male friends dont require the same effort and energy as one male partner.