#sex abolitionist

[osokasstuff]

sex is a social construct.

there is no such thing as a single biological sex(tm), which includes all the sex traits (and social stuff associated with having these sex traits). there are a lot of sex traits that often happen to co-occur, but there are no inevitable necessity in it.

sex is a social construct. no single sex trait guarantees the presentation of another. XX chromosomes don't guarantee having a vagina, or not having a penis, or having ovaries, or not having testes, etc. sex traits are connected by long chains of factors, and change in every factor can impact anything. it's very, very complicated, and i'm done with the useless and harmful simplification of it.

hot take, but "sex" is bullshit. "sex" as a singular is fucking bullshit. people who try to appeal to "sex" as some kind of biological reality are misinformed as fuck. chromosomes are biological reality. organs and body parts are biological reality. hormones and hormonal receptors are biological reality. but sex? no. sex is completely made up.

i'm so done with chromosome investigation. like, you have a really long and complicated chain of consequences that leads to body look and functions, and you randomly pick the very first link of it and proclaim it as the most true proof of someone sex(tm)? "but chromosomes—" FUCK YOU chromosomes there are genes which encode having a tail in your chromosomes, should we treat you like a basically walking tail? and oh, you DON'T KNOW your chromosomes if you weren't cariotyped, so suck your shit in and sit still. no, your [insert genitals] doesn't prove you have [insert chromosomes] even if you were born with them. live in fear like we do.

single "sex" is so rude round-up that it should be considered a math nonsense. it's disappointing to see advocation for the usage of "sex" in the medical/scientific field because it literally creates false expectations and wrong conclusions.

examples:

(1) "males are more at risk of being color blind"

(2) "females are more at risk of developing osteoporosis"

these statements are medical concerns. they're seen as "scientifical truth." but what do they actually refer to? and how doctors (who were taught these ideas) will treat them?

(1) actually refers to genes. having two X chromosomes passed from two parents makes it less likely to be color blind because accotiated proteins are encoded in X chromosome. more variety (2X chromosomes from different parents) -> more opportunities to have working genes. does it have something with having a vagina or gender mark in legal papers? NO. but what will doctors do when they see a patient and assess the likelihood of them being color blind? cariotype them or look at their papers/appearance? it's not so important with color blindness because it gets evaluated by special images, but there are tons of other conditions associated with having or not having 2X chromosomes passed from different parents, and doctors may not assume/less likely assume them because of your fucking single "sex".

(2) actually refers to hormone levels. estrogen increases the risk of calcium loss from bones. does it have anything to do with genitalia or gender mark or appearance or whatever? NO. and the field for mistake is huge.

and there are more. every time when actual medical guides refer to "sex," they actually mean tons of different traits (and sometimes tons of prejudices, too). but people shove all of them under the single "sex" label, and it erases all real factors underlying these correlations. it misinformes people who need to be properly informed.

and advocating for this shitty awful idea as for a "biological reality" even from trans* people? it's so disheartening.

sex is no more biological than gender. sex is no more real than gender. sex is a social construct, and it's awful, oppressive, violent, and misinforming one.

i can see some positive things in gender. not gender roles, or pressure, or expectations, or oppressive systems, just gender. because it's identity & performance. it's a way for people to express and explain themselves. but sex? sex is awful, useless, and give us literally less than nothing.

abolish the sex.

[lorynna]

the blog this person commented on was a quick rant of mine where I talked about being so done with men's unnecessary opinions about abortion and it's just so funny how TRAs even have to insert themselves into topics that didn't even mention them.

also this is just a silly comment on top. I am a woman, one of the 2 sexes that makes up about 50% of the world's human population. Being a woman does not make me special and the abortion rights I want aren't special either and they for sure shouldn't be a privilege that only some women can access and others cannot - based on poverty, the country they live in - the list goes on.

And this includes anyone who could someday need or want to get one: Which are women. Does not matter how that woman might identify. Abortion rights are female rights, they are sex specific.

Abortion rights are healthcare.

[hard--headed--woman]

my dear companions, I'm here to warn you about the rise of blasphemy transphobia. many of our siblings still doubt the existence of the soul gender identity, this innate entity, locked inside our carnal envelope, which represents who we really are. many of our siblings prefer to listen to the great lie that is science, biology, which is nothing but a manipulation aimed at discrediting the word of the lord the experiences of trans and non binary people ! they dare to discuss the fact that every man and woman must follow social rules, and that if these are not respected, then these people are straying from the path laid out by god probably trans or non binary. you can recognize them for example because they do not carry the cross of jesus write their pronouns in their bio. every word they say criticizing our community is a sin pure bigotry. you must not listen to them ! avoid them, ignore them ! it is for your protection and safety. if you want to fight them, you must not be afraid to break all the rules we usually follow about what is good and what is bad. when it comes to people who do not believe in god gender, we must not have any mercy ! they do not deserve it ! it is a holy war, a fight against the devil, a fight to spread the truth to those who have not yet accepted Jesus, and during a holy war, there are no rules, you can use violence, it is a good cause a fight for justice, a fight against the horrible terfs, a fight to spread the truth to those who have not yet accepted your identity and their own, and for a fight like this one, there are no rules, you can use violence, it is a good cause. make sure you do not fall for the atheists/devils terfs propaganda. ah and of course, the evil comes from women terfs !

[august-beee]

“B-but clownfish change sexes 🥺”

That is a normal part of their reproduction (all clownfish are born male and when the alpha female in the community dies the next male in line becomes female) and they are fish. Not a single mammal does this. Plus, any non-mammal animals that do this also do not need hormones and surgery to become the other sex.

[strongcori]

Sweet 16

Acrylics on canvas, 50x70 cm

[butch-reidentified]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[butchrupertgiles]

if your gender abolition is not also sex abolitionist then you are actually reifying, not abolishing, gender.

[trans-axolotl]

so fucking frustrated with the US intersex advocacy community right except for like. five people (you know who u r and ily) like. cannot fucking believe some of the shit i'm seeing people say and the absolute like. disregard for what it means to say we are fighting for liberation. im going to lose my fucking mind i don't even want to participate in the intersex awareness day shit i had planned because what the fuck is the point

[tomboyfriends]

i'm claiming this one for the gender abolitionist women!!

[alsethwisson]

Funny, how grrm is able to understand the problematic nature of the sex trade - the inherent consent issues, the inherent power imbalance, the trauma etc - when it comes to MALE sex workers... but not female.

With women it’s always about happiest of the mythical “happy hookers”, including special (black, huh) nation of dedicated sex addicts who for some reason mistake prostitution for free love.

I mean, pretending to enjoy involuntary sex act for money is kinda furthest from what god of pleasure would like, but of course Summer Islanders are all into sex work and sell themselves into brothels for fun and profit. Otherwise grrm would have had to notice that women may’ve been far from happy to service his male characters.

[tarotofbadkitties]

If you think a platform having been proven in court to have knowingly hosted CP doesn't qualify as a good enough reason to you for a payment processor or other business to cut ties with them, I'm going to need you to unfollow me. If you have a problem with laws against sex trafficking actually being enforced, I'm going to need you to unfollow me. I think all people, but especially women and children, deserve to be protected from predation with the full force of the law.

If that's an inconvenience to you, it's because you're a predator of some stripe or enabler of them.

[lorynna]

I Saw you reblogged the post on chromosomes determining sex and added a note about a "non-functioning chromosome" still being there but not being active, and I'd like to recommend the book Material Girls by Kathleen Stock. She takes a deeper dive into sex characteristics and proposes (imo) a better way to classify sex that is what she calls The Cluster Account. Taking all the characters of a definition and recognizing that while errors sometimes occur, they don't necessarily disqualify something from being a part of the category it belongs to.

I find most answers in what makes a female a female to focus too much on one thing about females like having a uterus, xx chromosomes, larger gametes, having a period. And people always want to pull a gotcha with intersex conditions or bringing up women that do not fix every single condition. But since when does something have to fit EVERY single detail of a definition to still be a part of that group?

If you define tiger as "large feline with orange fur and black stripes" is a white tiger not a tiger? Is a tiger without fur not a tiger? Of course not, they're still tigers because they fit the cluster model and check of most of the conditions to be considered part of their category, just with an error. Infertile women, women without periods, women with intersex conditions are still women. And under Stock's cluster account, lions are still not tigers and men are still not women, because they don't fit most (actually fit very few) characteristics of the category and already belong to another category which they do fit very well.

I'd love to see more radfems using this account because I think the discussion on "define woman" to "okay then, define female" is mostly being met with TRAs trying to make a hyper specific rule list all females have to fit every check on and if they don't, they go "see? If not every female fits the perfect definition, that must mean a non-intersex fully male person can be a female too!" And radfems are trying to argue that the female does fit the definition instead of targeting the absurd claim that a category becomes open and all inclusive if anything even slightly challenges it's definition.

Thank you for your kind message and also your recommendation regarding the book. 🌻

This is a very good take you just shared, very interesting to read and I 100% agree.

The never ending discussion between radfems and TRAs about what a woman is, is indeed exhausting and repetitive.

The blog I reposted, was about chromosomes, especially chromosomal abnormalities and why intersex conditions still don't make you less of a female or male.

From my personal experience I have seen TRAs use the "All you do is reducing women down to their body parts! all women are to you are baby making machines!" (and similar arguments) pretty much all the time and also constantly arguing about "but what if a woman has a hysterectomy? is she not a woman anymore since having a uterus is a requirement according to you?"

At the same time radfems constantly preach that hysterectomies, mastectomies etc. don't change your sex, but that those body parts are what healthy women according to the norm are born with or develop during puberty.

I see those arguments you wish would be brought up more being made all the time by radfems (my personal experience) and because I can't believe that TRAs just cannot understand those patient and eloquently worded explanations by several radfems I more so believe that they don't WANT to admit it or gaslight themselves.

How many times have I seen TRAs being like "don't go look at this post, this TERF is actually making some points!"

I think another classical, but very easy to follow example I could add to yours with the tigers/lions would be: Humans are born with 5 fingers on each hand. Very rarely a human is born with 6 fingers. Are fingers now on a spectrum? Is this person suddenly not a human anymore?"

Of course the discourse with chromosomes is more difficult than this example but even intersex conditions don't technically "challenge" that sex is binary.

[selkie-on-land]

''J’ai trouvé un vieux poster soviet (qui date des années 1920 je crois)

«Renforçons le combat contre la prostitution - l’héritage honteux du capitalisme.

Nous aiderons les filles et les femmes à recevoir des qualifications.

Nous construirons des internats, des ateliers pour les personnes sans emploi, des maisons de soins et des dispensaires pour les maladies vénériennes

Faisons grève contre les agresseurs.» ''

[radlissa]

If you met an intersex person would you use their preferred pronouns?

how would i know they are intersex? i use pronouns based on appearance. i do not see how someone being intersex would make any difference.

[butch-reidentified]

nobody has ever been forced to stay in a menstrual hut because they had a cramp and got moody.

do you hear yourself when you threaten to violently torture and murder people (women, mainly feminists, let's be honest - those are often the people telling you "transfem periods" aren't a thing) in order to silence them about having a biological function they're violently oppressed for appropriated by the oppressor class? women and girls all over the world face horrors beyond your privileged imagination because the bleeding is seen as unclean.

women and girls who don't menstruate, such as my adoptive mother who was born without a uterus, don't pretend to have periods. so why do you? why is it that women and girls like my mother are able to comprehend that no uterus = no period, and able to recognize that those who DO have a uterus often face acts of violent oppression over the shedding of its lining, but you do not share that understanding? why is it only "transfems" who need to make this about themselves and silence women who object to the absurd audacity of appropriating sex-based oppression? if you are indeed a woman with no uterus, like my mother, where does this entitlement and violence come from?

you post depraved, graphically violent threats - the sort that have never crossed my mind even at my most furious - designed to silence an oppressed group (female human beings) about an aspect of their oppression, and then wonder why feminists are increasingly butting heads with your ideology? you can't show a modicum of understanding of the issues we face, but we are expected to cater to your feelings at every turn. and this is different from traditional sexism how?

I am asking genuinely and in good faith, despite the unsettling vitriol of your original post, why you think this is an acceptable and not wildly misogynistic thing to say. why does it warrant fantasies/threats of brutal homicide to state that a period requires a uterus from which to shed the lining? how is it hateful or bigoted to recognize the life-or-death consequences of ignoring this fact when it's still a massive aspect of female oppression globally?

hey, whoever tells you transfem periods aren't a thing is a dirty liar and i'll gut them and feed them their own intestines

[treasuresdocuseries]

Dear Abusers, Where Do You Go?

THERE.

You've done it.

You've scared me, belittled me, bruised me, confused me, crippled me, so I can stay with you, need you, love you, obey you...

You got what you wanted.

NOW WHAT?

I shouldn't ask. I shouldn't wonder. I was never a person to you; why extend that courtesy? To try and see you as you've never seen me? But I can't help but picture it, torturing myself, to ask where you go after you've left me like this. Because surely, you take me with you.

Do you talk about me to your friends? Do they laugh when you describe what you did? Do they laugh at me when I want to be treated kindly? Do they take notes for the next time they're alone with their dates, trying to talk at the bar, when they buy her a drink?

What do you tell your wife? Does she believe you, question you, leave it be? Do you kiss her, hold her? Do you think you love her? Is it funny when she's angry, is it important when she's hurt? Can she tell you no, not now, not tonight? Should she expect a fuss? A fist? A fight? Is she sorry for me, to know somewhere, somehow, I met you?

Are your daughters there? Are they afraid of you? Do your sons watch? Do they admire you? When you tuck her in, do you see my face? When he pulls her hair, do you make him stop? When you wipe her tears, do you think of mine? When he wants his way, do you think he right?

As you unweave your tie and unbutton your shirt, and look into his eyes...that man staring back: Who is that? Someone you know? Somewhat familiar from hours ago? Does he know what you did? What I'll never forget?

THAT MAN.

What does he say?

HOW DO YOU BELIEVE IT?