#separatism comes from 'lesbian feminism'

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

Another day, another fruitless attempt to inform 'rad'blr that it's conflating radical feminism, one branch of feminism, with 'lesbian feminism,' a separate branch of feminism (ironically, 'lesbian feminists' split from radical feminism over radical feminisms failure to condemn opposite sex relationships).

[gatheringbones]

[“Coming out was very lonely. I had very few friends. Most of the adult lesbians I knew were alcoholics, chronically unemployed, prone to violence, self-hating, apolitical, closeted, cliquish. Lesbians hated each other. If you found a lover you stopped going to the bar because you could not trust other lesbians; they would try to break up your relationship. My first woman lover went into the military, where she turned in other lesbians so she would not be exposed. One of my dyke friends got a job as a supervisor in a cabinet-making company and refused to hire lesbians because, she said, they were unreliable employees who were disliked by the other workers. The only thing that seemed worse to me than the apolitical lesbian community I came out in was the strangulation of pretending to be straight. I came out only because I could not go back; there was no place for me to stand in the het world. I was driven out.

Moving to San Francisco improved things somewhat. There was more public lesbian space there—six bars instead of one. But it did not alleviate the loathing with which my family viewed me. Nor was San Francisco in the early seventies any sort of gay utopia. We had no gay-rights law, queer bashing was a frequent event, and everyone had lost at least one job or been denied a place to live. It was a relief to be surrounded by other lesbian feminists, but only to a point. Bar dykes and feminists still had contempt for one another. Feminism rapidly became a way to reconstitute sexual prudery, to the point that it seemed to me that bar dykes were actually more accepting of and knowledgeable about the range of behavior that constituted lesbianism. In the bars or in the women’s movement, separatism was pretty much mandatory, if you didn’t want to get your ass kicked or be shunned. Separatism deteriorated into a rationalization for witch hunts in the lesbian community rather than a way for women to bond with one another and become more powerful activists. The lesbian community of that decade did terrible things to bi women, transgender people, butch/femme lesbians, bar dykes, dykes who were not antiporn, bisexual and lesbian sex workers, fag hags, and dykes who were perceived as being perverts rather than über-feminists. We were so guilty about being queer that only a rigid adherence to a puritanical party line could redeem us from the hateful stereotypes of mental illness and sexual debauchery.

What did I gain? I came a little closer to making my insides match my outsides, and that was no small blessing. The first time I met other dykes I recognized a part of myself in them, and knew I would have to let it out so I could see who I was. For a time, being a lesbian quieted my gender dysphoria because it made it possible for me to be a different kind of woman. That was an enormous relief.

For a long time, I hoped that by being strong, sexually adventurous, and sharpening my feminist consciousness, I could achieve a better fit between my body and the rest of me. Lesbianism was a platform from which I could develop a different sort of feminism, one that included a demand for sexual freedom and had room for women of all different erotic proclivities. I had a little good sex and discovered that I was not a cold person, I could love other people. It was as a lesbian that I began to find my voice as a writer, because in the early days of the women’s movement, we valued every woman’s experience. There was a powerful ethic around making it possible for every woman to speak out, to testify, to have her say. But there were always these other big pieces of my internal reality that lesbianism left no room for.

The first big piece of cognitive dissonance I had to deal with, in my second coming out, was S/M. I date my coming out as a leather dyke from two different decisions. One was a decision to write down one of my sexual fantasies, the short story that eventually became “Jessie.” At the time I wrote the rough draft of that story, I had never tied anybody up or done anything else kinky. I was terribly blocked as a writer. I kept beginning stories and poems that I would destroy. I have no idea if they were any good or not. My self-loathing was so intense, my inner critic so strong, that I could not evaluate my own work.

So I decided to write this one piece, under the condition that I never had to publish it or show it to another person. I just wanted to tell the truth about one thing. And I was badly in need of connecting with my own sexuality since I was in the middle of what would be a five-year relationship with a woman who insisted we be monogamous, but refused to have sex with me. So I wrote about dominance and submission, the things I fantasized about when I masturbated that upset me so much I became nauseated. Lightning did not strike. As I read and reread my own words, I thought some of them were beautiful. I dared show this story to a few other people. Some of them hated it. Some of them were titillated. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before. The story began to circulate in Xerox form, lesbian samizdat. I found the strength to defend my story when I was told it was unspeakable or wildly improbable.

In October of 1976, I attended a lesbian health conference in Los Angeles and went to a workshop there about S/M. In order to go to a workshop, you had to sign a registration sheet. I was harassed by dykes who were monitoring this space to see who dared sign up for that filthy workshop. On my way, I had to walk through a gauntlet of women who were booing and hissing, calling names, demanding that the workshop be canceled, threatening to storm the room and kick us all out of the conference. The body language and self-calming techniques I had learned when I had to deal with antigay harassment on the street came in very handy, but how odd it was to be using those defenses against the antagonism of other dykes. Their hatred felt like my mother’s hatred. I am so glad I did not let it stop me.

When I got home from that workshop, I knew that I was not the only one. Not only were there other lesbians who fantasized about sadomasochism, there were women who had done these things with each other. I decided to come out again. If there were other leather dykes in San Francisco, they had to be able to find me, so I had to make myself visible. This meant that I often did not get service at lesbian bars, or I was asked to leave women-only clubs and restaurants. I was called names, threatened, spit at. I got hate mail and crank calls. But I also found my tribe. And because I had already experienced my first coming out, I knew we were not going to be an ideal, happy family. I could be more patient with our dysfunctions, and see them as the result of being scared, marginalized, kicked around. Being a leather dyke took me another step closer to dealing with my gender issues. I could experiment with extreme femme and extreme butch drag; take on a male persona during sex play. I gave up separatism because I needed to take support from any place where it was available. Gay men already had a thriving leather culture, and I wanted to learn from them. I also wanted to have sex with them. It still wasn’t okay as far as lesbian feminism was concerned to be bisexual, to be transgendered, but I could bring those folks into my life and make alliances with them. I could defend them in print. There was even more good sex, and people who loved me and received my love despite the fact that it was dangerous for us to show ourselves to one another. I faced my sexual shadow, and she bowed to me and then danced beautifully in profile against the white walls of my consciousness. My writer’s voice was unlocked.”]

pat califa, from layers of the onion, spokes of the wheel, from a woman like that: lesbian and bisexual writers tell their coming out stories, 2000

[f1minist]

Feminist Youtube Videos for Every Topic

A collection of feminist content, organized topically for ease.

Separatism:

on separatism and heterosexuality

why separatism is good

we're gonna die sometime. might as well be separatists.

stop choosing patriarchy

separatism is a choice

biggest impact, but most won't do it

on vetting men

the benefits of separatism are endless

men cannot be rehabbed

of course the slave is full of rage for her slave master

Lesbian Stuff:

who can use the word 'lesbian'?

on defending gay rights and spaces

what are lesbians supposed to do about het women?

gender critical lesbophobia

the constant rage for gold star lesbians

Political Lesbian Critique:

a simple breakdown of political lesbians

political lesbians... are you ok?

political 'lesbians' are not actually lesbians

i didn't 'come to lesbianism'. i was always here.

homosexuality is not a choice

for those who confuse polilez vs febfem

Comp Het Critique:

comp het isn't a thing

lesbihonest-art (RIP) on comp het

on lesbian experience, by @sunlight-beauty

on comp het, by @rakastiikeri

sespursongles (RIP) on comp het

Preferred Pronouns:

on 'cis' and other language

pronouns are rohypnol

preferred pronouns? no.

what are your pronouns?

Anti Make-Up / Beauty / Femininity:

3 years without makeup: 5 benefits i've experienced

sephora girls: why are ten year olds wearing make-up?

marked women

makeup isn't empowerment

why i stopped wearing makeup

bimbofication: a dangerously idiotic trend

empowerment? no.

give the middle finger to patiarchy

radfems in eyeliner

makeup infinity

on makeup and radical feminism

maintaining the status quo hurts all women

the audacity of the bare-faced woman

critiquing is not shaming

why do women do beauty?

choice feminism is a lie

actually gender critical

Anti Surogacy / Natalism / Procretion:

about mothers

forced pregnancy is involuntary servitude

egg "donation" is exploitation

on sperm giveaways

motherhood is not untouchable

homosexuality does not include reproduction

why i don't want kids

why i'm childfree

on procreation and patriarchy

Porn / Sex Work Commentary:

instagram vs porn

'sex-positive feminism' benefits men (and hurts women)

the influence of porn on the trans trend

on 'sex work'

speaking out on prostitution

'sex work is work'? no, not really.

let's stop acting like 'sex work' is empowering

is porn 'for women' okay?

porn is apocalyptical

'ethical porn' cannot exist

stop glamourizing 'sex work'

porn is the pinnacle of evil

is r/antiwork pro exploitation?

Trans Critical:

mainstream, revisionist, queer nonsense

why transwomen don't have 'female brains', from @ilistened2transwomen

why the hate?

why i decided to stop using the term 'transwoman'

on trans rights activists

TRAs loooove white men

the untouchable male creep - AGPs on parade, from @ilistened2transwomen

'intersectional' does not mean 'trans inclusive'

non-binary is deeply rooted in misogyny

25 questions for trans activists

women's sports are not a dumping ground for mediocre men

on "identifying as" women

stacia samaya on 'non-binary'

why sex is binary

trans rights, or trans privileges?

always chasing the dragon

27 ways in which trans activism is harmful

the actual human rights law

on 'trans women are women'

is transitioning ever 'the best' option?

autogynephilia - a brief overview

the rise of the heterosexual queer

phobia indoctrination

transing away the gay

5 tips for talking gender critical, by @runawaysiren940

the transing of language

autogynephilia, not dysphoria

rainbow-washed progressivism

transwomen are not women

how i became gender critical

autogynephilia explained

[genderkoolaid]

can you explain bi lesbians/bi gays to me? I feel like I get the concept of the label but like, in a general sense, what does it mean? what draws people to these labels?

A lot of people have a lot of different reasons for using these terms. I think the biggest and oldest reason is that it allows people to both identify with broader gay movements + culture while also recognizing their bisexuality. Some people use these terms to explain their sexuality as a multigender person, or as a system where different headmates have different sexualities.

One of the oldest references to bi lesbianism is from Trish Miller's essay on bisexuality, published in Lavender Women's August 1973 edition. In that, Miller talks about lesbian identity as being about being a "woman-oriented woman." Lesbian is a term with a lot of cultural and political weight, especially as it relates to the visibility of queer women & perceived-as-women people. Many bisexuals live as visibly queer women, are affected by homophobia targeting queer women (which are all grouped as lesbians), and are involved in lesbian culture and activism. At the same time, they are bisexual and consider it an important part of their identity, especially when they have also been affected by biphobia in both queer and straight spaces.

The idea that "bi lesbian" or "bi gay" are oxymorons comes from a very rigid understanding of sexuality which insists that it is vital that monosexual/exclusive gays and lesbians separate themselves from bisexuals/non-exclusive gays and lesbians. With lesbians specifically, this cannot be separated from radical feminist ideas of female separatism and political lesbianism, that true feminism must involve a total disconnection of women from men on every level. This also, as you can imagine, requires that you are able to fully distinguish women from men in every situation. This is what I mean when I talk about lesbians feeling threatened by being grouped in with bi women; the idea that this distinction is vital to lesbian identity is born out of the idea that bi women are tainted by their connection to men, and threaten the sanctity of lesbianism as the mechanism for female separatism.

[f1ghtsoftly]

Look as a lesbian it sucks to see women cap so hard for men who treat them….so badly but some of the leading lights in the history of feminism in the US/UK were in heterosexual partnerships with men they genuinely loved and went on to accomplish truly important things for women. I can’t say I fully endorse all het women going out and getting themselves a man, because it’s a tricky business and tough to get right.

So all I can say in regard to het women is this:

1.) You should be single for a while and put yourself in separatist environments regularly, because the social pressure to put up with bad behavior from men is *high* and it’s important you surround yourself with people who prioritize you for you if you’re going to withstand it. If those people are lesbians, please don’t talk about your relationship to us constantly, if you find yourself unable to think of anything else that you care about…consider if your partner has other hobbies or interests. Consider the gendered dynamics of you having only him and him having a life.

2.) Any male you end up with is going to be socialized to take advantage of you or other women around you, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. Men can be human and have lovable qualities and still be misogynistic. Being able to love someone very much-but also refuse to sacrifice yourself to their subconscious (or conscious) beliefs is going to save you. Learn how to do it.

3.) Sometimes….none of it is going to be enough and celibacy is ok. It’s ok to feel so disgusted by patriarchy and men’s treatment of women you’re turned off from men on the whole and it’s definitely ok to feel this way and not be attracted to women. I know a few women actually who are just not interested in men after being treated particularly poorly by them. Women have found platonic companionship with one another for a very long time, just because you don’t want men-doesn’t mean that you’ll be alone.

Ultimately, lesbian feminists shouldn’t be the authority on the happiness of women interested in men but I do think because we prefer the company of women we can sometimes have fresh eyes when women get lost in the patriarchal sauce. And I think lesbian feminists who advocate for separatism come from a good place, I know a lot of wonderful women with good qualities who got lost in relationships with men who don’t value them and it’s very easy to get lost on that road, many people will encourage you and your socialization will work against you. At the same time, I never want to dissuade women from happiness or love or partnership or misrepresent the political project of feminism as being something dependent on one’s relationship status. Ultimately, women do not have to be defined by their relationships, they can be, but it doesn’t have to be so. As a sister who isn’t affected by this challenge, all I can offer is my solidarity, my support and perspective.

[frigid666]

re: why is radblr ‘like that’?

so recently i’ve been seeing some discourse among bisexual users in/orbiting the radblr space regarding its profoundly biphobic (and homophobic) culture. why is radblr hostile to bisexual women? why are lesbians and bisexual women constantly at odds? is this feud manufactured by outside influence? or is it inherent to the space? @watermelinoe wrote a great nuanced response to an anon who attempted to antagonize lesbian users. i agree with everything that was said, but i don’t think placing the fault on black-pill infiltrators and politically unserious edgy teenagers is the full story. this post is mostly in addition to that reply, but i figured i should create a separate post for my lengthy thoughts. 

for context: i’ve been working on a detailed post about the history and politics of the lesbian feminist movement (i.e. the political lesbian branch of feminism), as it is apparent to me that most of radblr is uninitiated due to how frequently its users conflate radical feminist principles and lesbian feminist principles. i still might finish that post at some point in the future, but i thought i should put some of the information i’ve come across while researching for that post out there now since it's become relevant.

one of the readings i found to be crucial in understanding how the culture of radblr enables biphobia (and lesbophobia) is sharon dale stone’s “bisexual women and the ‘threat’ to lesbian spaces: or what if all the lesbians leave?” (x) the title is inflammatory, but i highly recommend giving her paper a read. stone authored it in 1996 as a reflection on the culture of the canadian lesbian/cultural feminist spaces she was an active member of in the 1970s-1980s and provides a truly fascinating look into a niche community that i consider to be a spiritual predecessor of radblr.

the paper is quite dated in many regards. the most obvious being stone’s use of ‘lesbian’ to mean both ‘homosexual female’ (which is the only and rightly so accepted meaning of the word today in radblr) and the political ‘lesbian’ identity, of which the philosophy for is outlined as follows:

it was entirely possible to be a true female homosexual, or female bisexual, or even female heterosexual and be a ‘political lesbian’ and active member of communities like stone’s house on jarvis street. stone says that those voicing opposition to lesbianism as a choice were the minority, but i think this was largely the case because ‘lesbianism’ meant different things to different groups and organizations of cultural/lesbian feminists at that time. the reason i am reluctant to dismiss lesbian involvement in these spaces is because they were mostly born of lesbian (and bisexual) exclusion from other more mainstream feminist spaces and organizations by homophobic heterosexual feminists, as well as the marginalization lesbian (and bisexual) women in the gay liberation movement experienced due to lack support against misogyny by male counterparts. i am also reluctant to dismiss straight women’s involvement in these spaces because even into the late 1980s, lesbianism was conceptualized by many cultural/lesbian feminists as not needing a sexual component at all; all that was required from women to live a ‘lesbian’ lifestyle was prioritizing closeness and connections with other women and eschewing relationships with men (akin to radblr's idea of practicing 'micro-separatism' in one's day-to-day life in lieu of not being able to move to a women's land full-time). from my understanding, 'lesbianism' and 'female homosexuality' were not thought of as synonymous, which is why 'lesbianism' was considered a voluntary political philosophy, even by many female homosexual feminists.

all that said, stone’s descriptions of the jarvis house culture are very reminiscent of radblr culture (down to the usage of slang terminology like ‘gomer’ for men, the radblr equivalent being ‘nigel’ and ‘jakey’). this is because radblr culture is heavily inspired by cultural/lesbian feminist values, not radical feminist values. while both schools of feminism share similarities, lesbian/cultural feminism deviates significantly in its emphasis of separatism as the solution to the male supremacy and patriarchy present in all levels of society. meanwhile, radical feminism calls for a fundamental restructuring of society to eliminate women's oppression. radical feminism was never about female separatism. radblr culture is biphobic because female separatism 'as the solution to female oppression' will always require a politicization and objectification of female sexuality.

i normally wouldn't cite wikipedia articles as sources, but this distinction is outlined on the very top of the entries for radical feminism and lesbian/cultural feminism:

as an aside, this is why i find it very funny when radblr users try to 'kick out' other radblr users from the radical feminist club, because the beliefs these users are being kicked out for not holding (i.e. separatism as the means to female liberation), are conclusively NOT radical feminist beliefs. they are lesbian/cultural feminist beliefs!

the script of political lesbianism that radblr holds is "non-lesbian who believes inaccurately adopting the lesbian label is feminist action, therefore giving credence to the homophobic notion that lesbianism is an active, politicized identification choice, or born out of experiencing trauma from men, instead of a politically neutral, natural sexuality that some women experience." and yes, that is a large and significant aspect of why political lesbianism is harmful (and uniquely so to lesbians). but it also goes deeper than that. in truth, this definition is only surface-level. all women in feminist spaces can be guilty of holding and perpetuating polilez beliefs, and this rhetoric dehumanizes ALL women. through the political lesbian perspective, women's capacity for feminist action is made and broken by her sexual behavior - namely, her exclusion or inclusion of males from her sexual behavior - and by extension, her reproductive decisions (i.e. remaining childfree or birthing children 'for a man.') this is where the core harm of radblr's covert political lesbian rhetoric lies.

saying or implying that:

motherhood is compliance to patriarchy

engaging in relations with men is compliance to patriarchy

bisexual women have a moral imperative to only date women in order to defy patriarchy, and if they reject this, they are in kahoots with the patriarchy

patriarchy is defined by "sexual access" to women

lesbians are intrinsically 'better' feminists than non-lesbians

lesbians are inherently feminist, and choosing to not be living aspirational figures is a betrayal to womankind

patriarchy can be ended through female separatism

female sexual behavior can never be predatory or result in meaningful harm to others

men are fundamentally incapable of changing

and any other type of rhetoric that posits women's physical bodies as the territory for a gender war that can be "preserved" or "ceded" to the "enemy" in accordance to her sexual behavior (including reproductive choices, irrespective of her individual sexuality) ✅️ is political lesbian rhetoric. put radblr posts to the test; a good amount of them will contain or imply at least 1 of the above assertions. during a cursory search through recent/popular radblr posts, i came across several examples of this rhetoric:

i cropped out the usernames from these posts because my intention isn’t to single out any particular users for this behavior; these posts (and similar) have many notes consisting mostly of positive feedback and support, so its safe to say that these beliefs are widely held in the radblr space. the op’s are just the ones to put pen to paper so to speak. i don’t believe some of these sentiments are harmful or bad on their own either. i actually agree with some of them, especially the first one; although note its rhetorical similarity with this section of stone's paper:

however, in aggregate (and especially in addition to commonly held stereotypes about bisexual women and lesbian women that predate radblr), they create a harmful culture that covertly encourages women to objectify their and others' sexualities for political ends, which is never going to be a good or productive thing.

choice feminists and neo-liberals have run the phrase "don't rob women of their agency" into the ground to cheaply deny the power of gendered socialization and gendered consumerism, as they are quite allegiant to these systems for a variety of reasons. so i understand the instinct from radblr to not give it any credence, but handwaving women's (including feminist-minded women's) desire for children and/or romantic relationships with men as products of solely or even primarily patriarchal brainwashing that can be undone through enough cultural/lesbian feminist re-education, which is what many radblr users espouse, is just as cheap. 

for this reason, radblr is hostile to bisexual women, many of whom reject female separatism as the only means to female liberation and don't want to objectify their sexuality in service to this political goal. for this reason, bisexual women will be known as "traitors" and "fairweather." however, just as many bisexual female users believe the opposite and participate in disseminating political lesbian rhetoric (as do heterosexual and gay users). similarly, this is why radblr is toxic to lesbians who have deep friendships with men, who want to be mothers, who practice religion or don't believe in female separatism; their 'legitimacy' as lesbians is questioned, as there is the 'positive' stereotype (and key insinuation of lesbian feminism) that lesbians are naturally inclined towards feminism; and they are often accused of secretly being bisexual because these lifestyle preferences are viewed as in alignment with the patriarchy and therefore oppositional to the cultural/lesbian feminist perspective that reigns supreme in the space. radblr will not stop being biphobic (and lesbophobic) until it is free of cultural/lesbian feminist influence.

[dykeulous]

about me.

hello! i am apollo and i am aspiring to be an author and an activist someday. i come from a small, underdeveloped “post-socialist” country. i hope my blog will be helpful to everyone, and i try to be as open-minded on most topics as i can be. this is how i would describe myself:

i am a butch lesbian with heavy sex (& social) dysphoria. i would refer to myself as transmasc, and i am still very much trans-identified, as dysphoria has caused me much trouble over my formative years, and it has been making my life a true agonizing hell :)). i approach trans issues with sensitivity and criticism. i try my best not to be black-and-white about things; and i always try to be well-informed before speaking on anything. i love gender acceleration, and i would describe my views as gender critical. i am explicitly anti-racist, anti-capitalist & anti-imperialist. my views align with marxist feminism/proletarian feminism & radical feminism– which is why i would describe myself as a dual system feminist. my analysis & beliefs come from dialectical materialism, rather than idealism, which is why i’ve found myself in opposition with most trans rights activists. i am for abolishing the prison system, and i believe rehabilitation should be the goal, rather than punishment. drug addicts & recovering addicts have a special place in my heart ❤️‍🩹. i’m not vegan, but i appreciate & love all my ecofeminist sisters: i try my best to be vocal about animal liberation & climate activism. i believe the bpd diagnosis is being hyper-sold to female people, and this is because of medical misogyny & institutional sexism– it is being used as new age female hysteria. oh, and i’m also autistic. i love autistic women, and i wholeheartedly want to smash medical misogyny whenever i see how my neurodivergent sisters are being treated. 🇵🇸 FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA PALESTINE WILL BE FREE!!!

my special interest is gender abolition (i’m very very passionate about this!!!) and marxist politics. my current hyperfixations are harry potter (i’m a slytherin 🐍), greek mythology & mlp. i unironically use the word kinnie; my highest kins are severus snape, twilight sparkle and diane nguyen. i love punk rock music, and i love riot grrrl. ask me about ww2, i used to be very hyperfixated on it last year– i reviewed a lot of ww2-themed movies critically & pointed their historical revisionism out. i am a slavic patriot by heart, and will punch a westerner who chooses to ignore our beautiful history. tito, lenin, che guevara, rosa luxemburg apologist. also i’m very interested in soviet history (the night witches are so fascinating!!), north korean culture & cuban cuisine.

if you wish to block me, go ahead. if you don’t, cool. i don’t block people, i allow a wide range of people to interact, and quite frankly, i think dni lists are useless. won’t hold back if you’re going to attack me. will engage in respectful arguments, and also will engage in disrespectful arguments, with the same energy you give me.

check out @pokegyns! it’s a group blog modded by nuancefem discord server members, owned by our precious pikalay @tirfpikachu.

links to some of the posts of mine i find quite useful for people who are going to hate-scroll through my blog, and also for people who are interested in radical feminism, but are scared we’re a hate group.

1. Intersex People, Transitioned Trans Women & Transitioned Trans Men

Are Trans Women Privileged?; Gender Socialization & Transmisogyny

Intersectionality Is Key: Our Issues Intersect, but They Differ

2. Feminist Praxis & Tactics: Separatism VS Proletarian Feminism; My Personal Critique of Radical Feminism

3. Transmedicalists VS Queer Theorists; Transmedicalism: The Sexism, Racism, and Classism

4. Listen to Dysphoric Voices

5. What Is Gender?; Gender Acceleration

6. The Word “Cis”

#ftminism is a tag i use to talk & ramble about transmasc-specific [or transmasc-adjacent] struggles that i feel can be connected to feminism in one way or another. i also sometimes tag transmasc positivity with this.

*Thread: Transness and Radical Feminism Can Coexist*

[radfemsiren]

Wherever I go people tell me different. Can radfems have romantic/sexual relationships with men... like at all?

You get different answers because there isn’t an agreed upon, mainstream radical feminist stance on this yet.

Some say that second wave feminisms stance that the “personal is political”, and that the domestic relationship between bf/gf / husband/wife is the biggest crux of men’s subjugation of women, with the most murders, abuse, and labor exploitation coming directly from these relationships and not from strangers. So refusing to engage in these until men get their foot off our necks and stop oppressing us is a form of rebellion: and often an effective one, with Koreas birthrates declining with the 4b radical feminist movement (no dating, no marriage, no sex, and no children). Radical feminism must be radical in nature, and protesting male oppression while offering our bodies to the very men either actively taking part in oppressing us, or being complicit and silent about our oppression, is hypocrisy.

Others say this is too radical and will drive the average woman away from the movement. They say this is too close to “political lesbianism” which is a belief that women can choose “the lesbian lifestyle” as a feminist act, which critics say this promotes the idea that being homosexual is a choice. They say separatism is too great of a leap, and unrealistic, with reform to these relationships being promoted instead. They also say this leads way to victim blaming women who are in these relationships, which a majority of women on earth are and have been.

This is the unbiased breakdown of the debate: I don’t explicitly promote either side on my blog, I make comments here and there whenever a side proposes a good point, and leave it at that. It’s your choice to make, based off what will best serve you and other women.

That being said, it’s my belief that if a mainstream, global radical feminist revolution were to ever take place, then a collective and decisive strategy must include complete separatism from men and an active strike against sex, marriage, and birth for it to be effective and actually radical in nature. It is our greatest asset, our greatest political leverage, and their zealous mania and panic with the abortion debate is proof of this.

[velvetvexations]

I'm putting these asks in as text because my inbox is so packed rn lol. Love you Velvet Nation!

i swear to god cisfeminist spaces are the worst. a lesbian was asking why straight people have such bad sex (for the woman in the relationship, regarding the orgasm gap) and everyone jumped onto how testosterone is the reason for it (as in testosterone makes you want to orgasm in 3 minutes with no regard for extending sex outside of wanting to orgasm), even a trans woman saying the sex is so much better with oestrogen in her system. and me and a few other transmascs pointed out to this trans woman that it was probably because she was running on the wrong hormones, and any of us transmascs that dared to say we have extremely fulfilling sex that is infinitely better than the sex we had before we started T was absolutely shat on and berated for “speaking over women” even though we were just sharing our experiences, it’s just that those opinions went against the bioessentialism held deeply by the community

Yo, that's fucked? What the hell? Do people seriously earnestly not get how they come off here?

aside from OOP ignoring all of the black transmascs and other transmascs of colour in the discussion around transandrophobia (including a trans man of colour coining the term), i wonder if they believe we’re making up black transmascs because the transradfems i’ve seen so far have been overwhelmingly white. maybe because radfeminism is inherently racist or something… and their bible is written by a middle-class white woman with no perspective on transmisogynoir and this reflects upon a lot of the discussions of transmisogyny to this day…

Radical feminism is inherently Karenesque. They cross the street when they see the PoC transmascs they spend every waking hour slagging off approach on the sidewalk.

I just really want to chill and watch anime together with you some time, your taste is based as fuck

It sure is!

most bizarre thing i have seen today: a transradfem who clearly believes 100% closeted and non-passing transmascs have privilege over cis women but dancing around actually saying it because they know deep down it might get them backlash from the less radical transradfems

I don't even think it would.

I am still very "read another fucking author" at all the transfeminists who only ever quote Julia Serrano, but finding out she *also* hates the terms TMA/TME made my fucking week. Like, the transradfems' hero doesn't even agree with them!

A lot of them didn't even read Whipping Girl.

Can confirm male/female socialization is not actually a consistent thing because I was literally too autistic to internalize any gender roles, at least in relation to myself. Just. Never learned! Like water off a ducks back

High five!

Really if you take a character who presents as one gender and transition them some trans person is going to be mad about it cause they saw themselves in the original conception of the character. It's inevitable.

Yeah, that is the unfortunate truth of the matter.

That second paragraph is literally what terfs say about trans women. Turning that on trans men doesn't make you any more feminist it just makes you transphobic. (This is directed at the op of that post not you velvet)

Radical feminism is so fucking easy to recognize no matter how repackaged it is.

Racist feminism anon here: see this is the reason I feel like shit for having any critiques of feminism whatsoever. Like hashtag Not All Women obviously but literally these specific women aren't listening to marginalized men. We're not talking about whatever cis white able-bodied Elon Musk fan they think stands in for "men" in this situation. They put "valid concerns" in scare asterisks as though the very idea we have any is laughable. And no actually racism is not a "secondary manifestation" of misogyny and while transphobia stems from misogyny it shouldn't be treated as secondary for any trans person. How the fuck are we supposed to point out that white woman separatism leaves behind men who actually do suffer under patriarchy when it gets telephoned into "you stupid fucking bitch shut up I'll fucking kill you"

The point is making it so you can't.

BTW, I didn't get to edit it into the post before they blocked me, but they were reblogging Actual Nazi shit, like, the OP of the post was progressive but our dumbass here didn't notice that "if there was no hope their propaganda would be unnecessary" is (a) a popular Nazi thing and (b) added to the post by a literal Nazi.

It never does, they're fully removed from this plane of existence.

Note: At this point I kinna forgot I wasn't screenshotting these

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3

I can't believe someone who's BFFs with a tankie is a hypocrite.

You're the second person to apologize for using that format and it always makes me think of the clown-names drama every time.

[radioactivewisdom]

“Weird that there's women out there who would rather I be homeless while disabled and pregnant in order to perform feminism better

Rather than live in a stable home and perform "domestic and emotional labour" for a male who will "eventually snap" and kill me (and apparently this is an event to be relished)

Because we should all be assuming that our relationships will end catastrophically (that's a fair and normal thing to expect of any partner)

And if we dare think our partners won't abuse us we're "victim blaming" women who have ended up in abusive relationships because we think we're "smarter"

Do y'all have this energy for lesbian relationships that go wrong? I know the stats are different, but we still would have the occasional lesbian come into the shelter due to DV reasons, would you advise they also live in critical fear for the rest of their lives because of their emotional or sexual attachment to a sex where a member could cause them harm? If your lesbian partner makes you feel safe and secure and you don't feel threatened - are you "smarter" or "better at recognising the signs" than a lesbian who has been subject to abuse?

Because honestly the stats don't matter a damn if you're the one the dice fall on.

(And I might add, it's an extremely shallow version of DV, that narrative that it only changes in an instant, one day they just "snap". Sometimes it does, but sometimes there's a history of abuses other than violence, sometimes it's violence from the beginning, sometimes it's little things that you don't even notice until you've spent many years apart. No matter how or when it started, how long it has been going on, or who the perpetrator is, these women deserve all the support they need.)

I live in a right wing country where the cost of housing is immense I would *literally* be homeless. My therapist once told me “There’s taking reasonable precautions and then there’s outright paranoia and I think you know which this is”. I think the issue is many people seem to think men are born evil and not raised to be sexist or misogynistic. “The outcome is the same” but the mechanism also means the outcome can change depending on family and society. If they are evil and always have been and the only option is separatism then logically we would not have made our previous gains. “

I hope you change your perspective

Yes, it is weird that women continue to willingly engage in relationships that are likely to harm them. They know the risks, as do you, since you’ve just spent time explaining them thoroughly. You’ve decided that the potential harm is worth it though, as do many others. There’s nothing anyone can do for autonomous adults who engage in dangerous behaviors. People make bad decisions on the daily, dating men is one of them. Try and train your dogs, but don’t expect me to care when they bite. You seem to believe that this wide scale and persistent behavior is a mistake and can be fixed. Go ahead and good luck. I can’t help you, and my approval is unnecessary. Live the life you chose confidently, the collective is already backing you up.

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

I don't really get the discourse about radical feminism ending with separatism? Sorry I'm a lurker, but I read Female Chuavanist Pigs recently and one idea that really stuck out to me is that we should be looking at helping women have a true "sexual revolution" where they are no longer groomed by the media and men to think that their sexuality is defined by the male sexuality. Shouldn't we be trying to tackle the imbalance between men and women when it comes to sex and pleasure? I just feel like there is a difference between separatist feminism and radical feminism. I thought separatist feminism was a sub-branch of radical feminism? I don't mean to bring the discourse onto your blog I am just new to this and trying to learn and saw how well read you are. Please ignore if you don't want to get involved. Have a nice day!

Separatism technically comes from 'lesbian' feminism, a branch of feminism that split from the broader movement because they thought radical feminists weren't doing enough to combat the 'actual' source of misogyny: heterosexual relationships. In summary, though I'd always recommend people do their own research, 'lesbian' feminists claimed that heterosexual relationships reinforce misogyny, and that an actual feminist movement required women to re-route the effort they put into romantic relationships with men into 'prioritising women' (sounds like radblr, no?).

(It's technically called 'lesbian' feminism, but it doesn't use 'lesbian' in the way we'd use it today - when they used 'lesbian,' they meant 'a woman who prioritised other women,' so the 'lesbian' feminists were a collection of actual lesbians, bisexuals, and straight women.)

Radical feminism has its origins in bringing women together and the discussing the various ways that misogyny manifested, and the various options available to women to counteract that misogyny. I think the most productive direction that radical feminism could take would be to re-engage with consciousness-raising and discuss the various options available to women - the pleasure disparity (and how to advocate for their own pleasure - and I do love that you're bringing that up, it's such an important thing, because how many women would remain in their current relationships if they looked at whether their sex lives are satisfying), the housework disparity (and how to advocate for their time), separatism, healthy self-esteem, and so on. Because the moment you have to argue a group into doing something is the moment you've lost touched with the beneficiaries of that group

How did you find Female Chuavanist Pigs and would you recommend it? It's been on my reading list for a while but I've been distracted with other things.

[anti-terf-posts]

I read the last ask luneemeritus sent you and she put it so well and succinctly exactly how radical feminists oppose bodily autonomy despite what they claim, not just for trans people but for other people (mostly women).

It makes me think about lesbian separatism which seems to be somewhat popular among terfs – perhaps I have misunderstood this term because it’s something I learned about relatively recently and I admittedly don’t know much about it yet – but the idea that an ideology demands all women to renounce all their relationships with men regardless of whether that relationship is a positive one or not and to become lesbians regardless of their own attraction or sexuality rubs me the wrong way. Why is it the place of these people to decide who a woman can talk to, form bonds with, and be attracted to? Why is she not permitted the autonomy to make that choice herself? I can sort of understand if a woman wants to sequester herself from men and focus on her relationships with other women because of her experiences with sexism or because she simply has little interest in men, it isn’t something I can personally relate to, but I can see and accept that some might find that it the best for themselves. but to try to dictate that that is the best course for every woman is absurd. What makes them think that taking away the autonomy of straight and bisexual women to make them only able to date other women would be a better societal system than one that takes away the autonomy of lesbian and bisexual women and tries to make them only able to date men? Just because there is only women in the hypothetical lesbian separatist commune?

Bodily autonomy is only good when they personally approve of it yet again. Otherwise you have to do exactly as they want lest you not be “feminist enough.”

This is one of my biggest issues with radical feminism. They never consider what other women may need, they simply think that all women should follow what they think is right.

"female separatism" isn't something that should be pushed onto every woman/afab person. However, if you want to separate yourself from men/amab people, that's completely up to you, and I will never judge someone for choosing that, unless it's coming from a place of "everyone should do this".

With that being said, I have a whole other post about how ridiculous and hypocritical radical feminism is, so stay tuned for that

[genderkoolaid]

hi! i was wondering if you'd be willing to do an analysis of the aromantic manifesto thats been going around? most of the ppl ive seen so far have been from either non-aro queer ppl or non-loveless aros and i cant find any loveless aros talking about it, and ik thats something youve talked abt b4 (loveless aros i mean) id love to also see your thoughts on it.

So funny enough I saw this manifesto a while ago, but didn't really have any thoughts on it because I had too much trouble reading it for brain reasons, because its just. A lot.

So @spacelazarwolf compared this to lesbian separatism/radical feminism and I think that is pretty apt. Radical feminism takes accurate criticisms of the patriarchy (such as gender as a tool of oppression and misogyny) and comes to the conclusion that gender is, in all forms, inherently oppressive, men are inherently oppressors, and that to personally identify with gender roles or men in any way contributes to oppression, so we must take on political lesbianism to reject this.

This manifesto seems to do the same with amatonormativity. There are real criticisms of amatonormativity in queer spaces here; aromantics have talked a bit about how focusing queer liberation on romantic love as a reason why we shouldn't be oppressed is alienating, and how queer spaces often reinforce amatonormativity. But it then comes to the polarized conclusion that romance is itself oppressive, identification with romance contributes to oppression, and that we must take on (essentially) political aromanticism to reject this.

Which, like political lesbianism, is just... unnecessary? This is not the only conclusion we can come to as a result of these criticisms. And these conclusions prioritize abstract political theory over people's real lives and autonomy. Which is a big reason (although not the only one) why radical feminism fell apart, because eventually women got tired of having to structure their entire lives and identities around acting out Good Political Theory instead of being able to. y'know. Be themselves? But also, these kinds of conclusions are so absolute and polarized. They assume that nothing about gender or romance can grow and be improved.

There are parts of this manifesto I like. The line "The first big ruse of romance is that it is ubiquitous because it is natural, and it is natural because it is ubiquitous" I think is actually pretty cool and can be adapted to all kinds of things; for example, capitalism does the same thing, taking over as much of the world as possible & erasing other ways of life, and then using its dominance as evidence thats its just how humans naturally are. It brings up criticisms of love that are big parts of lovelessness, like the idea that love is inherently a good thing when it can be harmful and still be "love."

But then it takes the... strange path of saying that if people can't help how who they love, then neither can racists and transphobes and fatphobes, which is why romance is inherently oppressive. But like. Even within relationship anarchy, where all hierarchies are rejected, this problem won't disappear. Its a problem of attraction & how social systems shape how we think.

I also disagree with how it frames private vs public life:

Public life concerns the interests of people as citizens and is regarded as a legitimate sphere of social intervention. Private life concerns the interests of people as consumers/individuals and is nobody’s business but those privately involved. While the domestic sphere fashioned by heterosexual kinship relations has been historically designated as private life, queer intimacies have instead been regarded as a matter of public concern due to moral panics associating them with predation and perversion throughout history.

I disagree with this framing of private life as something which is seen as "nobody's business." Maybe that's true on the small scale of social politeness and ideals. But on a systematic level, to me, this is absolutely untrue, and its something I've been doing some thinking about with regards to modeling the patriarchy.

The patriarchy is greatly concerned with the private lives of individuals. In order to keep its control over society in general via gender-sex-sexuality, its important to control how people interact with others. Even heterosexual, cisgender relationships haven't been free from patriarchal scrutiny; the wife must submit to the husband, the children must submit to the parents, and the queers must be kept outside the home. Again, on the level of neighborly politeness, people are going to say "what happens in the home is none of my business." But a relationship where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband stays at home is easily subject to scrutiny because it threatens the patriarchal norms, which causes unease.

Romance, as a construct, is a tool of oppression in multiple ways. But the physical reality the construct is built on top of is not inherently evil. The feeling of romantic love is not inherently corrupt, the same way the feeling of gender isn't.

Their advice for abolishing romance also feels kinda... vague and unhelpful and messy. I'm still not really clear on what "abolishing romance" even entails because most of the things they list can be done while romantic relationships occur. It just reads like they took the ideas of relationship anarchy and made it political lesbianism 2

I, as an aromantic, find the idea of political aromanticism to be pretty gross. I know how it feels to be pushed towards a certain relationship with romance and I don't want to seen it done in reverse, and tbh I don't like the idea of making my identity into a political stance. Being aromantic absolutely influences my politics, but its also my experience as a person. Again, similarly to why it would be uncomfortable to have lesbian spaces be full of women who are not in any way attracted to women but are making a political statement.

It disappoints me that this manifesto's conclusion is that romance itself must be rejected, the same way radical feminism does. Because there are good points here, but all-or-nothing conclusion, to me, is more divisive than connective and that's a big problem. My feelings about gender abolition are that, if we achieve true liberation from the patriarchy, our construction of gender is naturally going to be very different. Perhaps those people will no longer use gender, or they'll just use it differently- but trying to force a specific outcome is unhelpful and clashes with individual autonomy and culture for the sake of political theory. Same goes for this. Maybe in a post-amatonormativity world, "romance" will lose meaning, or at least be very very different. But trying to force that outcome isn't helpful.

Anyways I hope these takes were interesting! Honestly given how much arophobia I've seen I'm worried people are going to see this manifesto and get hostile to a lot of aromantic ideas. So I wanna suggest that people check out I Am Not Voldemort by K.A Cook, which is where the concept of "loveless aros" came from, as well as The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy by Andie Nordgren, which created the concept of relationship anarchy. Both of these essays do a much better job at criticizing love & amatonormativity than this manifesto.

[notbadforacat]

The Reactionary Wing of the Women's Movement

Gender critical feminism or TERFism or whatever you want to call it is weird. Considering how buddy-buddy the GCs have gotten with some really scary people in the far right, TERFism has come to effectively serve as the reactionary wing of the women's movement. Reactionary feminism is a weird enough concept, but then you look at the history of the movement; starting in the realm of radical feminism and lesbian separatism, and then getting stuck on trans people existing, and eventually coming to rub elbows with Q cultists and other nazoids. Weird, right? Weird until I thought about it from this angle;

It's a dangerously short jump to from 'we cannot coexist with males because males are corrupted by patriarchy' to 'patriarchy is essential to males' and if that's what you believe, then it doesn't really matter anymore if you support women's liberation; you've already convinced yourself that patriarchy is the natural state of humanity.

In this mindset, feminism is no longer a collective movement against patriarchy, but an individual choice to abstain from patriarchy (as if it could be that easy). And if patriarchy is essential to men and by extension humanity, then fighting patriarchy becomes not only futile, but dangerous. If we lose patriarchy, then we lose patriarchy's little brother, chivalry. Blurring gender lines become madness, as those lines are all that protect the weaker sex from the stronger. It becomes best then to rise above the status quo rather than seek to change it.

What I'm saying is this; when feminism becomes essentialist and individualist, it loses its revolutionary fervor, and so falls back in line with everything keeping women down. And maybe, if we look closely, we can see the seeds of that counter revolutionary philosophy further back in the history of the gender critical movement than you might think.

[faggoatquixote]

Radfems do hate cis men. If you scroll through the radblr tag being venomous towards them as well. While they may direct their rage at trans people disproportionately, that's where it comes from, trying to lash out at people they can substitute for their oppressors, even allying with said oppressors when it helps them get their catharsis, although that's not actually without controversy among radfems, many of whom do protest teaming up with Christofascists. Radfems being married to men is actually a super controversial thing within their weird subculture as well, there's fights over lesbian separatism constantly and the concept of "political lesbians" exists.

see I get what you’re trying to say but I made that post to stop the conflation of radfeminism in general with terfism and your ask is unfortunately using the terms interchangeably.

I said TERFism as an ideology (and its members by extension) don’t hate men and you come in to say “actually radfems hate men”. that’s the crux of it. I don’t think 99% of TERFs are radfems as they subscribe to cultural feminism.

I have no problems with radfems hating men. Looking at statistics most radfems are from the global south and/or WOC with ample reasons to despise men’s guts. But as long as TERFs rally “real” men, “good” men, “righteous” men to enter female bathrooms with guns in order to kick out, harass and beat up trans women I will not concede the point of their supposed misandry. it’s purely performative. the way a straight woman will whine and sigh about how men are scum and then not break up with their fucking boyfriends.

although yeah I’m sure TERFs who are WOC are more likely to be wary of christofash team ups. but as much as it’s an ideology it is also a movement. and the movement is pedophilic, racist, lesbophobic, butchphobic and has members sacrificing common “female” causes such as abortion rights as a way to stop trans acceptance.

you won’t catch me defending political lesbianism bc god damn hets need to stop appropriating terms, but I never got the drama with separatism. if some of them want to live in a lesbian only commune then like ?? ok?

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

Like when it comes to radical feminism, there are generally two tenants to it that are important to the conversation

Sexism and the patriarchy (and usually by extension, men) are the primary and most important oppressor that impacts women, beyond all others.

The only meaningful liberating act for women is the removal of the patriarchy's presence from women's lives.

These do not inherently contain transmisogyny, but these are by themselves potentially dangerous ways of looking at the world. Radical feminism does not necessarily prescribe any specific way of dealing with the patriarchy, either through is dismantlement or replacement or by simply engaging in separatism.

This leaves a lot of room for extensions of feminist thought, and its part of why radical feminism inevitably splintered into different schools of feminist thought as well as schools in reaction to it. Radical feminism is where you get concepts such as the political lesbian, the crusade against kink and sex, the demonization of butch lesbians, amongst other things. It represents a potentially broad range of attributes a feminist could be, and this means that a lot of not so great people identified as one.

In the modern era, you tend to only find the most traditional radical feminists who still identify as one. They're almost always separatist, very vocal about their dislike and distrust of men, and generally do not find other vectors of social oppression (racism, classism etc) meaningful to engage in. They tend to be very vocal about the importance of the sanctity of women's spaces (see: separatism) as well as usually quite sex negative.

Where transmisogyny mixes in here is specifically in the idea that trans women are not women, but men who are trying to infiltrate women's spaces for nefarious purposes. We are saboteurs, thieves, and predators all in one. A lot of the older TERF literature is almost comically evil, like to the extent of calling us necrophiliacs, but its been tempered in the time since then. Transmisogyny fits extremely well in radical feminist ideology, because radical feminism does not see any other oppression as meaningful, including transphobia, and is overly concerned with the removal of patriarchal influence, making it often somewhat paranoid.

It stands in contrast with liberal feminism is that it generally does not think internal reform is even possible, but also lacks the general angle of equality and systematic justice that later schools of feminist thought have.