#recycled homophobia

[drusies]

ive ran into a couple of scornful normie takes on furries in general recently because of the vid of the n#zi getting smashed by that fursuiter and its so bizarre to me that with the ease of access everyone has to the internet nowadays and all the growth of the fandom ive seen in my decade-ish within it... normies still think furries are (as well as animal sex pests) entirely socially disconnected losers. redditors will be like "yeah, im sure the demographic of people who dress up as dogs on the beach are hooking up all the time 🙄" actually fursuiters especially are probably one of the most likely demographics to be going to insane parties and having copious nasty sex. you would know that if you knew ANYTHING....

[bli-o]

i fucking hate transphobes because they love to make up “actual reasons” trans people are trans like “they have a fetish for being (x) gender” or “they want to prey on kids” and it allows them to completely dodge actually interacting with arguments for the existence of gender and the non-existence of gender or sex binaries. It sets the discussion MILES upon MILES back because it’s not even a discussion of whether trans people are real, it’s a discussion of whether we’re xyz stereotype.

and that’s the express purpose! It’s the oldest trick in the book; if they make a strawman to argue with, they dont have to put in the effort to argue with you at all! Conservatives have done this for hundreds of years.

misogynists stereotyped women as emotional to have an excuse for not confronting whether women are inherently less capable or smart than men Racists stereotyped black men as predators to have an excuse for not confronting whether your skin tone was a valid reason to dehumanize and hate someone

homophobes stereotyped gay people as predators(rings a bell) to have an excuse for not confronting whether being gay is natural or not immoral.

Just as they stereotype trans people now as predatory(rings a bell) “autogynephiles” or as “TRAs indoctrinating kids.”

[featureenvyproductions]

I would like to pretend that I have a spine and keep trudging on but unfortunately when irl friends make fun of things I make every rebellious bone leaves me body and suddenly I'm in bed all day wondering if everyone who said something nice is lying and I should just throw every animation cel I've ever made in the trash

[minmos]

that one post about Messy Identities everyones been talking about the past day or two.. i wonder how much of this awful stupid shitty discourse comes from  people being uncomfortable that like.  other people use words to describe themselves they cant personally relate to bc it makes them feel excluded. or whatever. because i cant imagine any other reason someone would say that “it’s normal for sex repulsed asexuals to frequently have sex and enjoy it” like come on man

[unproduciblesmackdown]

doing a double take after pulling up One [let's see if this is humorous] thumbnail from someone's blog like waaait a minute about a possible interpretation of this, ctrl shift t bring that back up. & let's give their blog a classic /search/asexual test just like they say & yeah immediate & comprehensive failure lmao

[samwisethewitch]

Homemaking, gardening, and self-sufficiency resources that won't radicalize you into a hate group

It seems like self-sufficiency and homemaking skills are blowing up right now. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the current economic crisis, a lot of folks, especially young people, are looking to develop skills that will help them be a little bit less dependent on our consumerist economy. And I think that's generally a good thing. I think more of us should know how to cook a meal from scratch, grow our own vegetables, and mend our own clothes. Those are good skills to have.

Unfortunately, these "self-sufficiency" skills are often used as a recruiting tactic by white supremacists, TERFs, and other hate groups. They become a way to reconnect to or relive the "good old days," a romanticized (false) past before modern society and civil rights. And for a lot of people, these skills are inseparably connected to their politics and may even be used as a tool to indoctrinate new people.

In the spirit of building safe communities, here's a complete list of the safe resources I've found for learning homemaking, gardening, and related skills. Safe for me means queer- and trans-friendly, inclusive of different races and cultures, does not contain Christian preaching, and does not contain white supremacist or TERF dog whistles.

Homemaking/Housekeeping/Caring for your home:

Making It by Kelly Coyne and Erik Knutzen [book] (The big crunchy household DIY book; includes every level of self-sufficiency from making your own toothpaste and laundry soap to setting up raised beds to butchering a chicken. Authors are explicitly left-leaning.)

Safe and Sound: A Renter-Friendly Guide to Home Repair by Mercury Stardust [book] (A guide to simple home repair tasks, written with rentals in mind; very compassionate and accessible language.)

How To Keep House While Drowning by KC Davis [book] (The book about cleaning and housework for people who get overwhelmed by cleaning and housework, based on the premise that messiness is not a moral failing; disability and neurodivergence friendly; genuinely changed how I approach cleaning tasks.)

Gardening

Rebel Gardening by Alessandro Vitale [book] (Really great introduction to urban gardening; explicitly discusses renter-friendly garden designs in small spaces; lots of DIY solutions using recycled materials; note that the author lives in England, so check if plants are invasive in your area before putting them in the ground.)

Country/Rural Living:

Woodsqueer by Gretchen Legler [book] (Memoir of a lesbian who lives and works on a rural farm in Maine with her wife; does a good job of showing what it's like to be queer in a rural space; CW for mentions of domestic violence, infidelity/cheating, and internalized homophobia)

"Debunking the Off-Grid Fantasy" by Maggie Mae Fish [video essay] (Deconstructs the off-grid lifestyle and the myth of self-reliance)

Sewing/Mending:

Annika Victoria [YouTube channel] (No longer active, but their videos are still a great resource for anyone learning to sew; check out the beginner project playlist to start. This is where I learned a lot of what I know about sewing.)

Make, Sew, and Mend by Bernadette Banner [book] (A very thorough written introduction to hand-sewing, written by a clothing historian; lots of fun garment history facts; explicitly inclusive of BIPOC, queer, and trans sewists.)

Sustainability/Land Stewardship

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer [book] (Most of you have probably already read this one or had it recommended to you, but it really is that good; excellent example of how traditional animist beliefs -- in this case, indigenous American beliefs -- can exist in healthy symbiosis with science; more philosophy than how-to, but a great foundational resource.)

Wild Witchcraft by Rebecca Beyer [book] (This one is for my fellow witches; one of my favorite witchcraft books, and an excellent example of a place-based practice deeply rooted in the land.)

Avoiding the "Crunchy to Alt Right Pipeline"

Note: the "crunchy to alt-right pipeline" is a term used to describe how white supremacists and other far right groups use "crunchy" spaces (i.e., spaces dedicated to farming, homemaking, alternative medicine, simple living/slow living, etc.) to recruit and indoctrinate people into their movements. Knowing how this recruitment works can help you recognize it when you do encounter it and avoid being influenced by it.

"The Crunchy-to-Alt-Right Pipeline" by Kathleen Belew [magazine article] (Good, short introduction to this issue and its history.)

Sisters in Hate by Seyward Darby (I feel like I need to give a content warning: this book contains explicit descriptions of racism, white supremacy, and Neo Nazis, and it's a very difficult read, but it really is a great, in-depth breakdown of the role women play in the alt-right; also explicitly addresses the crunchy to alt-right pipeline.)

These are just the resources I've personally found helpful, so if anyone else has any they want to add, please, please do!

[crazyalien87]

'you see, it started with "gay people have really devoted relationships, u gotta call them husbands and wives so they can be more happy" & whatnot. which is reasonable. sometimes. but then it just escalated into "don't just call gay partners married now they are actually married" & like totally redefining words as like the ultimate cope'

Considering all the legal benefits that come with being married, & the restriction of it to only straight couples seems to be just from religion (in usa at least), it is perfectly reasonable to allow gay people marriage rights. I mean marriage is just a natural extension of romantic attraction for many people. There's no reason that can't extend to gay people.

Besides, a couple's marriage mostly just affects them. Whereas letting trans ppl into single-sex spaces of the other sex affects other people. Changing words around women's issues & calling as weird demeaning shit like "birthing people" & expecting us all to be ok with that affects other people. but gay marriage doesnt like affect others that much unless u are like the officiant or giving out marriage licenses or something. & like if u dont like giving marriage license to ppl u dint like then suck it up or get a different job damn.

anyway it's not fair to compare sexual orientation to gender identity. sexual orientation is innate & unchangeable & normal & not harmful to anyone (except homophobia is harmful). but,, gender identity? dysphoria? that's a lot more complicated. I mean maybe it is innate to some people. but not all people. i mean weve got many different trans ppl id as trans for many different reasons & even many different reasons to have dysphoria. that's way more complicated than just "2 ppl in love & wanna get married oh & they happen to be the same sex as each other". i mean they are other still the same dynamic of romantic love as with straight couples. but like trans is so different from not trans.

seripusly like u are just being disingenious. like that is not even a total redefinition of marriage. it is still a forever romantic relationship commitment. just not expanded to same-sex marriages also. whereas changing woman from "adult female human" to "whoevwr wants to be one" is not just being more inclusive but making it way different. making it more inclusive would be like "adult human who is female either in sex or gender identity" or maybe like "adult female human but like fully transitioned trans women also are female" or something like that. but that's clearly not how it is or else women wouldnt have to be called cisgender & assumed to have a gender identity to even be considered women. that is just totally restructuring the word to be about gender identity instead of sex instead of being about both.

[vroomvroomwee]

Lgbtq people saying it's queerbaiting because two people didn't kiss or fuck on screen has the same vibes as cisgender heterosexual people saying two characters aren't gay and completely missing romantic undertones just because the two didn't kiss or fuck on screen

Aphobia is just recycled homophobia

[anistarrose]

I just saw a post with a very dangerous conflation of terminology going around (and on International Asexuality Day, no less!) so as a polite but firm, and apparently much-needed reminder:

Sex repulsed/averse, sex indifferent, and sex favorable are terms used by the asexual spectrum community to describe individual feelings and interest levels towards sex. You don't have to identify with any of these terms (all of the time, or any of the time) to be ace-spec, but lots of ace-specs consider them useful vocabulary — since we do, after all, exist on a wide spectrum.

These terms are not the same thing as being sex negative or sex positive, and they should not be used interchangeably! Sex negativity and sex positivity refer to attitudes towards sex in a societal setting, and the associated regressive, queerness-punishing societal norm (sex negativity) or movement to fix/overthrow that societal norm (sex positivity).

Calling sex repulsed asexuals "sex negative" conflates ace people's individual feelings about sex with societal sex negativity and cultural conservatism. Maybe not to you using that term, knowing what you mean, but to potential readers. And that doesn't mean you're consciously aphobic or anything, but it's still a vital misconception to address — because implying, accidentally or otherwise, that ace people are invariably sex negative or even responsible for sex negativity is pretty fucked up!

It encourages acephobia in queer communities (especially online ones), drives wedges between people who would otherwise be among each other's closest allies in the fight for queer liberation... and even neglects the fact that even sex repulsed asexuals suffer harm from sex negativity, too! Sex negative culture doesn't let you talk about asexuality without being accused of "oversharing," or "corrupting the youth!" That's, like, one of the aphobe talking points, even though it's just recycled homophobia and transphobia, and it proves the need to truly understand asexuality and sex positivity as forces that are by no means inherently opposed!

TL;DR: Please don't conflate sex negativity with sex repulsion or aversion — it feeds misconceptions that in turn feed aphobic discourse. This sex positive, sex averse ace, and many others in the same boat or similar boats, will all thank you for using the right wording!

[noahschnappinfs]

People easily believing it and this is pure homophobia I wish Noah would sue this kind of page

https://x.com/DropPopNet/status/1862252233443696955?t=lhLgBfXSKnnzM1qoBWpObQ&s=19

it’s disappointing that noah always ends up being the target of homophobic jokes and nobody calls it out. it’s not only about noah, it’s so harmful to spread homophobia and make fun of him this way. i’ve seen people make jokes about serious issues with him like AIDs and monkeypox which clearly are homophobic dogwhistles, and there are also tweets that are borderline sexual harassment. i also saw that grindr interacted with that tweet, it’s so annoying to see that and it’s also disappointed to see lgbt+ focused pages/apps doing this too, they should know better. i was so sad that noah wasn’t at pride this year but if he keeps getting treated like this, i don’t blame him if he keeps skipping it. he keeps getting disrespected every day and people keep mocking his sexuality.

it’s also concerning how many people fall for these tweets, people not only are antisemitic homophobes but they are dumb as rocks because according to twitter noah has survived the 7 plagues and hundreds of natural disasters at this point.

please my advise here for these kind of tweets is not engage with it even if you get angry because they make money out of it. that’s why they keep recycling the same 5 tweets making fun of him. just encourage people to make a request to add a community note because every time a tweet gets a community note, it gets demonetised.

[miwiromantics]

It’s important that he made that video, no just because he’s a lawyer, but in fact because he’s a gay man who grew up in the 80’s and has personal experience with homophobia and heteronormativity during that time. His perspective is important.

Milevens always use the phenomena of straight women fetishizing gay men as a gotcha to discredit byler entirely. His mere existence forces them to drop that as an absolute truth and puts pressure on them and casual fans to actually consider it. Here we have someone that goes against that assumption and he’s using his own experiences and skills in law to make points that are very strong and deserve to be considered more broadly.

And let’s not pretend that a majority of us on here ourselves haven’t recycled stuff from years before, and have created our own interpretation through that. And good thing, because we’re better for it! It’s allowed us to rework a lot of earlier concepts and discover even more things people previously hadn’t. The reality is that a lot of stuff is understood now as not just one persons theory, but the reality of what the show may be trying to convey.

He’s also from this Tumblr himself and has been here for a while, so he is included in those that have provided evidence over the years. He’s not some outsider and to insinuate that he is, is just bullshit.

this!!! this is exactly how everybody should take it. why are we hating guys???? WHY ARE WE HATING???

thank you anon. thank you so much xxxx

[feminist-furby-freak]

Well can you explain Gender Ideology with who uses it and where? Can you show where I can find it? Can you describe it without conspiracy theory or recycled homophobia? You are welcome to try.

So I think some of the confusion might come from the language. I know you’re being facetious with this comment but anyway. I am literally a gender studies major so this will probably be more in depth than what you’re asking but maybe someone can benefit.

Gender Ideology™️ isn’t some sort of official concept and doesn’t have an agreed upon definition or foundational text like other social theories. It’s a way of conceptualizing sex and gender. Other analogous frameworks would be biblical gender roles, the Christian fundamentalist ideas of men and women, or postmodernist queer theory, something like Butler’s Gender Performativity.

You’re right that gender ideology is vague and non-specific and I think this is because of the interaction between academia, politics, medicine, and popular culture. Sure, academics and theorists influence society, but rarely in such a direct way (please feel free to correct me). For example, the American civil rights movement and women’s liberation movement had academic elements, but were not governed by how academics theorized race and sex, they were based on people’s lived experiences. Transgenderism, I think, is the opposite and somewhat of an escaped lab experiment. Towards the end of the 20th century, academics began to write about gender in more provocative and philosophical ways. Obviously, this was not the first time anyone had done this, but there was a huge shift in the way academic spaces thought about gender in the US after women achieved full legal rights (which didn’t happen until the 1970s btw). I’m sure the fact that women and gays/lesbians could finally be scholars and professors was important as well. Anyway, I might disagree with Butler, but her theory work is at least intellectually robust. And if you read Butler, it’s very obvious that she is first and foremost a philosopher, not a sociologist or an anthropologist, and this is clear when you hear her speak (which I’ve done btw). Contemporary transgenderism, as a social category, is a direct result of these theorists. There is a lot of misrepresenting or even rewriting history but “transgender” as we understand it today did not exist 20 years ago. We like to call people like Marsha P Johnson transgender, but he didn’t identify that way. He called himself a gay man, a cross dresser, a drag queen, a transvestite etc etc. TRAs often say “trans people have always existed” and homosexual behavior and gender nonconformity (and maybe even sex dysphoria) have always existed but trans as a concept undeniably has not. I could talk a lot more about historical falsehoods and Transgenderism but for the sake of getting to the point I’ll move on for now.

Gender ideology, is how groups like radfems refer to the Frankenstein monstrosity that is the framework Western left/progressives use today to think about gender and sex in order to be inclusive to transgender identifying people. The main ideas are that biological sex is not real and neither is sex-based oppression. It maintains that social and medical transition is necessary for transgender people to live, and that medicine is able to change someone’s biological sex (it can’t). Being transgender is not just dysphoria but some innate sense that someone’s soul is differently gendered than their biological sex (except biological sex is also somehow not real, one of many paradoxes). A woman is “someone who identifies a woman,” even though this phrase is completely meaningless. Because gender is not tied to biology sex, it relies on social ideas. As a result, gender ideology reinforces regressive gender roles and stereotypes, without which it cannot exist. 20 years ago we said boys can play with dolls and it doesn’t mean they’re gay because gender stereotypes aren’t innate and are very harmful, today “we” say that boys who play with dolls are actually girls and need to be given a pink makeover and put on medication. While society was beginning to move away from gender, gender ideology has brought it back to the center and gender is once again considered to be central to one’s identity (and personality) and maybe even the most important fact about them. For this reason “misgendering” and similar actions are considered violent attacks on personhood. Crucially, gender ideology converges with conservative gender ideals through its obsession with gender and performing femininity and masculinity.

[not-terezi-pyrope]

I think the online queer community needs to reckon with the fact that prejudice against polyamory (including recycled arguments about legal equality being a slippery slope!) is more common than it is not in some spheres even when populated by lefty gay/trans folks.

You are all for liberation until someone suggests that monogamy is not universally sacred. Then you get all uncomfortable and start rattling off some pejorative nonsense about "cis bi polyam dudes being weird at a parties" or some straight up evangelical-style slander about polygamous cults marrying minors without batting an eye.

And then you'll continue on waving pride flags like you haven't just smeared and casually dismissed the legal rights of a sexual minority. Because it makes you uncomfortable to face that your preferences might not be universal, I guess.

Honestly no better than old fashioned homophobia I will be honest.

[bilesproblems]

Quick points to hit:

1. Yes I have the exorsexism essay, I am gonna finish that before I start this, but might as well plan this at least

2. I am qualified to talk on this subject because of course I'm a lunian, bi lesbian, ply lesbian, omni lesbian, and thalassic (neptunic lesbian) but also I am asexual, absexual (microlabel for absolutely no sexual attraction), demiromantic, and apresromantic, possibly aplspec and other atertiary stuff if I would get around to exploring that side of attraction, so I am part of both communities. Not only does that mean I'm not speaking over communities I don't belong to, but it also means I face both forms of discrimination and can say that they're both similar.

3. I did not go through aspec discourse because I was convinced to not identify as ace when I was younger and ace discourse was big. However, I do feel the effects of our community having lost so much culture because of discourse having resulted in so much destruction. I would absolutely love for a survivor of ace discourse to be a guest writer for this essay, to give a better perspective on the kind of popular rhetoric at the time.

4. I will not make a point similar to "oH jUSt sWitCh tHe wORdS" because I think that's a fundamentally stupid argument. Yes you can take "bi 'lesbians' are just bi people trying to be special and invade the lesbian community" and switch"bi lesbian" with ace, "bi people" with straight people, and "the lesbian community" with "the lgbt community" and it will just mirror ace discourse but you can also say diet coke is disgusting and unnatural, then switch out "diet coke" with "gay people" and suddenly it mirrors homophobia. This doesn't mean hating diet coke is homophobic it just means changing the words in your sentence changes the meaning, so it's a weak point. I will be pointing out common sentiments, as "bi lesbians are invading the lesbian community" and "ace people are invading the lgbt community" have more in common than similar wording, but I'll take the time to deconstruct it properly instead of just switching out words to show they're the same.

Ok that's all please vote y'all

[thatgirlinskullz]

i've been reading a lot of reactions and thoughts and reviews of the first 3 episode of Acolyte and i just don't, and cannot comprehend how so many people are just so against this show from the getgo.. some are even reviewbombing other shows and movies called acolyte because they're just so hung up on making this show fail. its sad, to be honest.

Is The Acolyte perfect? No, none of Star Wars is perfect, and i say that as someone who LOVES everything SW that i've seen so far, and if you say that "no, star wars is flawless" you're kidding yourself, but more power to ya i guess. i am not here to argue with anyone on their opinions and i never will, so if thats what you're looking for.. good for you???

anyway, obviously a lot of the "criticism" aka outright hate that Acolyte is getting is rooted in racism, homophobia and misogyny, cuz of course.. BUT ignoring that part, because i just can't deal with that part rn, people are saying that it's "lore-breaking" and that "it destroys anakin's uniqueness and makes him less special" and that it "recycles ideas" or whatever to which i'm just like ??????

i don't see it that way at all.

introducing another witch coven, essentially another religion, that has its own interpretation of the Force is nothing new or lore-breaking to SW. it has been done before when the midichlorians were introduced or when we learned of the Nightsisters and their magiks or when we saw the Mortis arc or The World Between Worlds or when we saw the Force Witches that Yoda meets ??? It doesn't intend on replacing any of the previous concepts we've known so far, it just EXPANDS on the idea of the Force. it builds on it and adds more interpretations.. might i say, "ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW" ?! cuz remember "from a certain point of view" ?? that's been a core idea in SW for so long i don't understand why this is so hard to fathom for some people.

this also connects to the ridiculous idea that the show "makes the Jedi look evil and destroys their significance" or something. people are saying that the Jedi are supposed to be heroes and the Acolyte shows them as invaders who steal children and possibly cover up crimes.. no, i don't see it that way. we've already known from the prequels and the Clone Wars that the Jedi were not perfect and that their beliefs were very limited to their beliefs and nothing else and they acted like they knew the answers when they obviously didn't. aka they were a liiiitttllee bit problematic, even if the core idea of them was to be "keepers of peace", they didn't always succeed or they took measures that may have been questionable to say the least. so showing a different perspective of the Jedi, in a different era, showing that their corruption and downfall was a loooong process and was building over time, just adds to the Jedi's complexity. they're not villains, but they're also not always heroes. to a family whose children they may "invite" to the Jedi Order, they may actually seem like invaders, because THEY ARE kinda enforcing their own religious beliefs and ideas on these people and especially the small, impressionable children. i don't see this as "lore-breaking" or erasing the Jedi's significance as "the good guys", i see it expanding in the idea of the Jedi and adding more depth to them and showing that there DOES need to be a balance between Jedi or Sith, good or bad, light or dark, one cannot exist without the other.

and the way the Twins in Acolyte erase how Anakin was special, how he was supposed to be the only one concieved of the Force? again, i don't see it that way. i see it as: Anakin was concieved BY THE WILL OF THE FORCE, he is still space jesus, HE is meant to bring balance because THE FORCE WANTS BALANCE. the Twins were concieved USING THE FORCE by the will of 2 mothers who wanted children. those two are not the same in my mind. i feel like until this point Anakin was the only one we knew of who'd been made with/by the Force, but that doesn't mean there had never been another similar case before, right? its just that we weren't aware, now we are. plus, knowing that some witches could use the Force to create life, adds to the idea that Plagueis and Sidius were researching creating life and cheating death, it means what they wanted to do was possible, and maybe they came across these exact witches? or their writings? and maybe used some of their techniques to experiment, maybe these techniques are part of how Palpy managed to return.. we don't know yet, but The Mothers creating the Twins doesn't erase any other previous concept or remove the significance if Anakin whatsoever. in my mind at least..

and the idea that "the show is recycling ideas" aka using the idea of twins again.. have you ever heard of a little quote by George Lucas " It's like poetry, they rhyme" ?? this has been a MAJOR part of SW ever since the prequels and they have been making references and nods and parallels between shows/movies/books/games for decades now and i think its a beautiful part of SW because they need to think of things that can work as "rhymes" in the given contexts, and that is ART in my mind..

yeah, the writing and line deliveries are a little wonky here and there, but it wouldn't be Star Wars otherwise. it has never been 100% perfection and that is fine. and i LOVE Star Wars and i will always sing its praises but i also see its flaws but as someone who has spent years in this fandom and has experienced the ups and downs of the franchise, i still don't see the Acolyte as "bad, lore-breaking fanfiction" as some claim it to be.

anyways, that's just my 2 cents, i don't intend to fight with anyone about this, i just needed to get this out of my system.

if you like Acolyte, cool. if you hate Acolyte, cool.

just.. try not to spread the hate too much? that's one part of SW that i am not proud of, how much hate some of can spew even when one of the main points of the franchise is that hate is bad and dangerous.. oh well.

anyway, again, I love Star Wars.

[not-gray-politics]

anyway the americanized version of 4B is just a repackaging of terf ideals and we should call it what it is (I don't have enough context about korean culture/history to pass any judgement on the original movement; this post is specifically about the most recent version of the movement that's been gaining popularity in the U.S. since the election.) I support boycotting misogynistic industries and cutting off toxic people, especially when they vote against your rights, but if your response to this is to start talking about the inherent evil of men and cutting off all men in every circumstance when about 53% of white women (the vast majority I see making 4B content recently) also voted trump. I think your focus is in the wrong place. The call is coming from inside the house. Divorce that shitty husband who's been exploiting your labor, break up with that boyfriend who doesn't respect you, stop talking to that relative that's celebrating your loss of reproductive rights, stop supporting that business with a trump sign on their property, absolutely. I will always encourage you to find people who support and care about you and to build community and safety for eachother. But don't turn around and hang out with women who advocate for the exact same right wing bullshit with a coat of pink paint and call it "4B". Don't rely on terfs who think you're inherently weaker and dumber and will always remain less powerful than men. They do not actually care about advocating for your rights, they only care about hurting the right people and keeping you afraid. They'd vote against you in a heartbeat if it meant hurting a trans woman, they probably already have. They shout about girl power, sisterhood, womens' solidarity, but they do not believe we can overcome misogyny in any meaningful way. There's a lack of faith that we can ever prevent the root causes of misogyny, that men will always be inherently predatory and unable to control themselves around women and have power over us and there's nothing we can do to stop it or change it, so they believe in bandaid solutions like segregation to "protect" us, (inadvertently placing the responsibility on women to make up for mens' actions, which is my primary issue with 4B, not everyone has the choice to just "avoid all men" or "avoid toxic men" or "not have sex/children/etc.";) instead of advocating for meaningful activism and change so that no one needs protecting. They're not feminists, they're defeatists. It's a belief in mysogynist dystopia, and you should know by now how I feel about dystopia. (It's a tactic to drain your motivation, keep you from imagining a better world, and keep you complacent. Always resist dystopia.) They will not be there for you when it matters. Remembering the intersectionality of these issues is so important right now. You cannot advocate against trans rights, gay rights, poc rights, disability rights, or fat liberation and then say you advocate for womens' rights. Racism and misogyny are historically intertwined. Fatphobia and racism and misogyny are historically intertwined. homophobia and transphobia and misogyny are historically intertwined. ableism and any form of eugenics are DIRECTLY linked. Half the shit we hear about any of these minority groups is just a recycled antisemitic talking point. To the bigots in charge we're all the same. If you're not a white, cishet, financially powerful able-bodied man, they want you to be subservient and fall in line. We share the same fight; for our dignity and for a better future. It's equal rights for all or none, you can't separate them from eachother. If they're coming for one of us they're coming for all of us sooner or later.