#their point is that you can call them a radfem off of your own observation.

[swaggedup247]

under a cut as to not spam (hopefully this shortens the post in notifications bars. if it doesn't... sorry...)

what makes one definition more valid than the other (out of the two shown in this thread)? why is the identity definition more valid than the biological one? is it because its more inclusive? if so, WHY is being more inclusive better for what is, by design, an exclusive word? WHY should be go by feeling and identity?

is it because the sex-based definition is "impossible to define"? if so, how do you know whos a cis woman and whos a trans woman? whats the difference? how do you know if someone has a DSD ("intersex")?how do we tell the difference between a hen and a rooster? in strictly biological terms. even though some women cannot bear children (and childrearing shouldn't be a female person's only purpose), they are still cis women, not trans. how do we know this? some hens cant lay eggs, but that doesn't make them roosters.

if a definition is defined exclusively by opting in, it's going to be nonsensical since there's no MEAT there. i could say "a canadian is anyone who identifies as one", but then would a russian whos only ever lived in russia their enitire life be able to call themselves canadian? can they get canadian citizenship on that metric alone? were they born with a canadian birth certificate? what if they never got a russian birth certificate despite being born in moscow. can they then say they were born in canada, since you can't prove they were born elsewhere? what if the political border changes and suddenly moscow is technically in finland? are they canadian now? (i understand that immigration is a thing, but i'm talking about someone who was born in one place and only ever lived there. the comparison is imperfect, but it doesn't have to be perfect since i'm just trying to make you understand my point. i can identify as being 6 feet tall, but that doesn't change the fact that i am 5'5". even if i wear platform shoes to be taller that is still my height. i don't have any "woman feeling", but i think that even you would agree that i am a cis woman by your own definition, since i do not identify as trans).

furthermore, i disagree with the definition you posted. what if i dont identify with the "cultural roles and expectations" of woman, but i also dont identify as a man or agender? in fact, i find the cultural roles of both sexes to be regressive and misogynistic. you could argue that the identity is opt-in (which is probably what you're thinking right now after reading this paragraph, because that is what *I* would have also thought a few years ago), but i've already explained why i don't like opt-in definitions. hopefully my comparison was understandable to you but i can try rewording if it was not.

i don't understand why someone would support a definition that involves people identifying INTO sexist, regressive gender roles by necessity of being born in a sexed body. i would much rather say "i am a woman not because society has decided that i must be nurturing, rear children and be meek and submissive, but because i am a female human being. i am a woman as much as a female horse is a mare, or a female chicken is a hen." I too used to see gender the exact same way you do (I have read your posts. we were the exact same) but I simply found the sex-based definition to make more sense, and frankly it's more progressive to me than insisting upon defining gender by sexism (which is what that definition you gave does, at its core). And I understand I’m using the same arguments you are- opinion based rather than factual! But again, this is why I think one definition is superior over the other, which is something that i haven’t seen you demonrate. I would rather reject that dichotomy entirely, but still acknowledge what i go through in a female body in a sexist society. Other definitions are either nonsensical, cannot actually define a term accurately, or are based in regressive stereotypes that i cannot support identifying into (or out of, since that's pretty much impossible to truly do in our current society even if you "pass" perfectly). This is why I cannot support them.

I understand that language exists to communicate (which is what i assume you meant by the "imagery" comment?), which is actually the main reason why i can't be 100% on this myself (arguing under your terms, at least). However... again, what makes up that imagery? And why does that necessitate identity-based (opt-in) definition? is it right to say that someone who looks like a female person is a woman? what about a very feminine male who looks like a woman, but who doesn't identify as a trans woman or nonbinary? can we call him a woman since words are used for the imagery they invite? i hope i understood your point correctly here lol.

you express that you care about defining cis vs trans differently, showing that you DO actually care about accuracy, which is why i'm using accuracy-based arguments for the most part. i just don't think it is concise or helpful for any reason other than to be inclusive, which it doesn't HAVE to be. i just do not find it helpful even if people are pushing for one definition over the other (which is what i'd say that cultural definition is). I understand that you think that a trans woman is a woman who is trans. I agree that they are trans by their own definition (since it’s relevant to their identity), but i just don’t think that calling them a woman like a cis woman is is helpful. If a man took hormones, looked identical to a trans woman in every way, but still identified as a cis man, i don’t think you would argue that he must be a trans woman, would you (and if we can't accurately identify this gender feeling, what makes it bad to question someones trans status? if someone says "im fine" but are actually angry, does that suddenly mean they truly ARE fine because emotions cant *really* be defined and their identity matters more?)? It’s impossible to clearly define this outside of feelings and identity, and i hope my very long winded post has at least explained why i don’t like those definitions, even if you personally disagree.

I'm not interesting in arguing the specifics of the definitions (like you said yourself, language is complicated, im sure you could pick apart literally any word and i've already gone into way more detail than i probably should have for easy readability), but presenting one definition without explaining why it's superior to the other isn't really helpful when the entire point of the original post was "you call us terfs when we don't identify as one, but you object to calling someone a man/woman when they don't identify as one. this is hypocritical" if you disagree that it's hypocritical, *why*? why does your definition matter more? why is it more helpful to society? WHY does it matter more? you seem to believe that the definition of woman is special somehow, and different from other definitions since it's a cultural role. i technically agree that it is a cultural role, however... i just do not think it can exist as an opt-in definition. why does someone identify as a woman, something that used to refer to female humans? why have that feeling to begin with? i know you argue that you can't explain a feeling, but i honestly think this is a cop-out that doesn't really address the point you're responding to. how can *I* know it even exists, since as i've previously stated i do NOT experience this feeling? i do not believe in souls, or that someone can have a gendered essence in a body of the opposite sex. and furthermore, why does feeling like a woman make you one? if someone feels like a woman but still has a male body, why is it wrong to call them a man? what gives someone the right to control other people's perceptions of them? where does that woman feeling come from? if it's cultural, then i'd say that gender roles are stupid and i choose to not acknowledge them. if it's innate, then it must be related to sex. if it's sex dysphoria, then again, why does that MAKE somebody a different gender?

i understand it's nice to not make someone feel bad by misgendering them (i typically try to use the pronouns people ask me to even if i think it's silly) but that feeling isn't an argument in itself. and again, it doesn't address the original point about hypocrisy unless your argument is "well that definition is different from this definition because i said so".

furthermore, even if you (hypothetically, general "you") agree that it's not helpful to society but still think it's objectively correct because we aren't "above language", WHY? that definition you posted was made up at some point. it was at one point understood that "woman" meant "adult human female" (even if people may not have used that exact wording, we as a species that reproduces knows how to identify males vs females. it's not our only purpose but it IS where those words came from), but it was changed to an identity definition. so i fail to see why that can't come into question (perhaps i'm getting ahead of myself, but i've seen a lot of these arguments that go nowhere so i'm just trying to explain my entire point right off the bat). if the sex-based definition can come into question, then the identity-based definition can too. language can evolve, but what if that evolution is harmful? i would argue that it is, as i've previously explained. i know you must agree with me that this is something that CAN be questioned and contested, since you wouldn't be arguing about definition at all if you weren't (since again, the identity definition hasn't existed for all of time). so- when can one definition override an another? what makes one superior? i think that exclusivity at the cost of murky definitions and supporting regressive gender roles is not worth it.

I say this mainly because I do not think anybody replying to you is actually making their point clear. I don’t even like arguing, it’s just frustrating. I agree with the people arguing with you at their core, to be clear, but they're not actually making a point based off of what was actually said (only implied community "truths"). I doubt I will change your mind and we will probably continue to disagree but I hope I explained the point a little better, since I want everyone to actually understand each "side" no matter where they stand, even if they choose to reject it (which is your right). If I didn't actually explain it well, sorry for making you read this. Even if nobody actually reads this since it's a wall of text, lol. I just want to be clear as to not drag on an endless, unproductive thread (which is basically what this is).

So... You do realize you are by definition a terf, right?

are you sure you want to start talking about definitions

[absolutepx]

So I've been playing Death Stranding lately. Wait, that's not what this post is about. Well, it kind of is. Hang on. What is Death Stranding about?

A: Norman Reedus getting bare ass naked B. Sneaking around ghosts with the help of your sidekick, an actual baby C: Carrying 50 Amazon packages up a hill while trying to not topple over D: Waking up in the morning and drinking 5 Monster Energy™ for breakfast

For those following along at home, the answer is actually none of the above. Despite the set dressing being bizarre to the point of near absurdity, what the game is actually about, like thematically, is actually really simple.

See, the development of Death Stranding was actually quite a trip. Hideo Kojima is the video game world's equivalent of an auteur director. He has a very recognizable personal style. It's thoroughly horny – he caught a bunch of shit for the design of Quiet in MGSV, but like, a lot of Kojima characters are just -like that-, including the dudes. Also, this is going to possibly be important later.

Anyway, so Kojima was going to do a rebootmakequel of Silent Hill, and the demo actually made it to the PS store and I could actually write a whole side essay about why P.T. (it was called P.T. for some reason btw) was brilliant game design for how it used the same hallway over and over and it was somehow beneficial to the overall feeling of horror. So Konami it turns out kinda sucks nowadays and they like, fired Kojima (they were huge dicks about it behind closed doors, too) and scrapped the project and kicked him out on the street and kept the Metal Gear series which was his baby (literally the baby in the sink in P.T., he snuck a bunch of messaging about the Konami situation into the demo like a breakup album) and Kojima would go on to form his own studio and poach some of the people who worked with him to boot. So the thing about Kojima is this: he's got a reputation for already putting some wild shit in his games, like a ladder that takes like 10 real time minutes to climb in MGS3 for dramatic effect, and a boss in MGS3 that summons the ghosts of all the people you were too lazy to stealth past and killed, or a sniper battle with a really old guy that he wanted to have last two weeks or some shit until he died of old age but he was "told that "this was impossible and not recommended." That is a real quote I just looked up. So he's coming off the heels of making this hugely successful game with MGSV and the hype of the P.T. Demo and he fucking, he like took all the people that were going to be working on P.T. Along like Guillermo Del Toro was going to co-write it and Norman Reedus was going to star in it, and he's like, I'm going to make this game called Death Stranding. And the first trailer comes out for it and it's completely nuts. Norman Reedus wakes up naked on a beach crying with a baby and there are floating people in the sky? So we're all like hooooooly shit, there's no one to tell him "this is impossible and not recommended" anymore. What's he going to make now!?

So the whole time the game is in development I keep seeing these tweets where it'll be like, Kojima and one of his homies smiling with some saccharine message about being spiritual warriors and changing the world. And not just Del Toro and Reedus, there was Mads Mikkelsen (another guy Kojima puts in the game just because he apparently loves him), and the band Chvches, and also like, Keanu Reeves at one point? You know how everyone has just kind of accepted that Keanu is a being of light? Here he was endorsing Kojima. The hype was pretty confused and frantic.

The game eventually comes out. A lot of game journos hate it because I think there was this expectation it was going to be, you know, less weird and have more of the conventional structure of a video game. That's not to say the average gamer wasn't also dismissive of it, but I think on the ground level there was more of an understanding that like, yeah, Kojima just be like that sometimes.

Because the game was a timed console exclusive and your homie don't play like that, I spent the first year or so cautiously viewing Death Stranding from a distance. I wasn't sure I was going to like it – except for being really impressed with P.T., I wasn't actually a big fan of Kojima's games as games – but I -was- sure that I was going to buy it, because of the way Konami fucked him over, just out of support. And the shit I was hearing was really out there. The primary mode of gameplay is just delivery packages. You collect Norman Reedus' bathwater and pee and use it as grenades. You get a motorcycle that looks like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus, and when you sit on it, his character in the game says "Wow, this thing is like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus!"

But I didn't really want to know that much about it. Something has that much fucking crazy person energy, you want to go in mostly blind, right? So maybe people just weren't talking about this, or maybe I wasn't seeing it, but then I watched Girlfriend Reviews' video about it and they came right out and said it (link provided if you want to hear Shelby say it more articulately than me):

Death Stranding is basically about the exact opposite of Twitter. It's about remembering how to be kind to each other, how to reconnect in a world where people are so often hostile to each other by default. Prophetically, it's about a world where people are afraid to go outside or touch other people and how damaging that is. It's not a game about carrying packages, it's a game about helping people by being brave enough to walk through a wasteland carrying their burdens because they can't. It's about rebuilding the lost connections between people, about restoring roads and giving people hope. I bet, for Kojima and the people close to him, it's about how to answer hostility with compassion. You can't kill people in Death Stranding. You can and are absolutely encouraged to fucking throw hands with people sometimes, but all the tools and weapons are nonlethal. So I think Kojima took all the Twitter heat he got over the Quiet nontroversy, and all the feelings of isolation he had from Konami separating him from his team during the end of the development of MGSV, and all the support and encouragement he got from his bros Del Toro and Mads and the rest, and decided to channel that into making a game that was a statement about all of it. And sure, it's a little heavy handed, and sure, it's a little saccharine, and sure, the gameplay sometimes borders on miserable in service of creating emotional payoffs. For me, especially in 2020, this message is a huge success. Social media should be an opportunity for all of us to feel more connected to each other, yet primarily it feels like one of the main forces driving people apart. Why is that? Why is the internet of today such a hostile place? I'm old enough to remember web 1.0: I can haz cheezburger memes; YTMND; the early wild west days of Youtube... What happened to us? I've thrown the blame at Twitter in the past, and I think the architecture of the user experience on Twitter is absolutely a big piece of the puzzle, because it fosters negative interactions. But in terms of the behavior, people have observed that 2018 Twitter was actually almost exactly like 2014 Tumblr. (For the record, Tumblr is now one of the chillest places left on the internet, because so few fucks are left to give.)

I think part of it is the anonymity. The dehumanizing disconnection of the separation of screens and miles. Louis CK, before he was cancelled, had a great point about cyberbullying, and why it's so much more savage than kids are IRL. When you pick on someone in person and you are confronted with seeing the pain you caused them, for most sane people it causes negative feedback and you become disgusted with your actions and eventually learn to stop being a shithead. Online, at best you can "break the wrist, walk away".

At worst, you can become addicted to "clout chasing" and the psychological thrill of being cheered on by your social ingroup. It's even worse if you feel like it's not bullying and your actions are justified because whoever you've targeted is a bad person so you don't have to feel bad about what you do to them. This is where reductive, unhelpful catchphrases like "punch a nazi" come in. For every argument, one or both sides have convinced themselves that the other side is subhuman because their beliefs are so disgusting. And sometimes it's even true! A lot of times, especially these days, people really are acting like animals or worse online. Entire disinformation engines are roaring day and night, churning out garbage and cluttering the social consciousness. (Kojima talked about this bit, too, way back in MGS2. As if I wasn't already in danger of losing my thread through this.)

The human brain was not built to live like this. You can't wake up every morning, roll over and open your phone, and be immediately faced with a tidal wave of anger and indignity. It wasn't built to be aware of fully how horrible the world is at any moment ALL AT ONCE, ALL THE TIME. And you will be. Because of another way that our brain works – the way we are more likely to share negative opinions. And because of the cottage industry built on farming outrage clicks, and because of constant performative activism.

It's not that I don't agree that being informed is important.

It's not that I don't agree that the causes people get riled up about are important.

They are. They absolutely are.

But we can't keep living like this. The constant, unending flood of tragedy, arguments, and hot takes. How much of the negativity we associate with online culture is the product of this feedback loop? What if the rise of doomer culture has been, if not entirely created by, has been nourished and exacerbated by our hostile attitudes toward each other?  Incels and TERFs, white supremacists, radfems, tankies and Trumpers – it seems like on every side of every issue, there are people simultaneously getting it wrong in multiple directions at once and there are more being radicalized every day. They are the toxic waste left behind by the state of discourse. And any hill is a hill worth dying on.

So what am I actually advocating? I don't know. There are a lot of fights going on right now that are important and we can't just climb into bunkers and ignore our problems hoping that Norman Reedus and his fine ass are going to leave the shit we need on our doorsteps. We need to find the strength to carry those hypothetical packages for ourselves sometimes - and hopefully, for others as well. Humans are social creatures. We need interaction and enrichment.

We need love.

So just try to remember the connections between humanity. Try to put more good stuff into the world when you can. Share more shitposts and memes. Tell your friends and family that you love them. Share good news when you hear it. Go on a weird fucking tangent about Death Stranding. Find a way to "be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes."

[sanzoumon]

I love my fellow pro-shippers but every time I see them go all “No True Scotsman” regarding ants and their political affiliation, insisting they’re not REALLY leftist authoritarians cuz authoritarianism is a right-wing thing, ants just use leftist terminology to try to make it look progressive (or something to this effect). With the point being no leftist could EVER be authoritarian, so obviously anyone that does isn’t a REAL leftist.

I want to reply to this shit yet all I can ever muster up as a response is:

Because no. Just fucking no.

Refusing to acknowledge they are leftists does no one any good. The regressive left (or shall we say “ctrl-left”??) is like our fucking alt-right, meaning both think they represent what it means to be Left or Right but both are fucking stupid. The only major difference is that even the alt-right can acknowledge their label, while the left is too busy going “you don’t speak for us, you’re obviously a right-winger!” - as in both of the groups do that, when the both of you are leftists.

Not that any of you would know this as I seriously doubt most of you haven’t spent any time with a right-winger who wasn’t some kinda caricature of what the right is like.

I have spent time with left-wingers and can tell the difference from simply being on the left and then being a ctrl-left.

God, it’s like saying “SHES NOT A REAL FEMINIST” to a fucking radfem. No, they are. They’re just extremists.

All groups in the history of ever have them. It’s not something exclusive to one or a few groups, you have your nutburgers EVERYWHERE.

Get a fucking clue, cuz when you say ignorant shit like this ants just make fun of it cuz it is fucking stupid and they should make fun of it. Own up to your dumbasses, admit they’re a problem, try to show you’re better than that and don’t be an asshole.

Ants are products of SJW culture, that’s a leftist product. You can find one or two right-wing ants but they are about as fucking common as right-wing pro-shippers... which would be, well, I only know of one (me) and one ant. The rest of ya are either left leaning while ants tend to be way more left leaning and you know all “eat the rich” “yay socialism”. Also way fucking less tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Shippers tend to be slightly more tolerant but good fucking Holy Mother of Sweet Baby Jesus I have seen some real pieces of work with y’all. Acting all intellectual and bullshit when fucking clearly your political ideology is influencing everything you talk about.

See I have the fucking benefit of being a Conservative in fandom, which is often Liberal. Most people I talk to are Liberal. Wanna know what I learned? That most Liberals were nothing like the stereotypes I had heard about, many were chill. Yet most Liberals really don’t have that same benefit since fandom is a political echo chamber.

Point being, when I make observations I cannot in good conscience state or even imply that leftists are all the same and all to blame and such bullshit. I can’t demonize or vilify leftists because I know too many good ones. Ergo the problem is something else. But since many leftists don’t have what I had it’s SOOOOO much easier to grossly generalize, stereotype, and vilify. When I make observations I don’t blame any political party, but a lot of y’all just write off anything as “NO THEY AINT LEFTISTS ITS ALL THOSE FILTHY RIGHT WINGERS FAULTS!!” and surprise surprise, the ants say similar shit about you that you do about them.

I won’t deny political climate have impacts but enabling and entitlement are the big issues. Plus people preferring security over freedom (which I hate btw).

Ugh. Just ugh.

EDIT: I just learned that, ironically, “No True Scotsman” is also called “appeal to purity”. Golly gee willikers, imagine that!

[freedom-of-fanfic]

radfem diskhorse

Anonymous asked: 

i find it odd how you think radfems disbelieving in gender magically "invalidates" nonbinary people. if your identity hinges on whether or not other people believe in it, then it probably wasn't "valid" in the first place.

This argument is ridiculous. ‘your identity isn’t real’ is an invalidating statement That doesn’t make the victim’s experience any less real. it just makes them feel like shit, as intended.

Also this ask is cruel and invalidating of nb people as fuck. (Yet somehow, nonbinary people continue to exist despite your ignorance.)

Anonymous says:

I think it's easier to just call someone a radfem if you're going to make that assumption without knowing their position on trans issues. In my experience, all radfems are exclusionary of someone, it just varies from ideology to ideology which group they feel comfy hating on. That said, some of the people who express discomfort with women being heavily into slash fic are actually dudes. mlm specifically. I think they should be given room to speak on the subject, since it affects them.

I think that I don’t generally assume people are radfems, but also observing that people who don’t identify as radfems will still spout radfem ideology because it is insidious and extremely common on this hellsite is a legit thing.  (Agreed that radfems are generally exclusive in some way or form, though.)

lots of people from all genders and sexualities have expressed discomfort with slashfic. I think that in English-speaking fandom, the idea of fictional fantasy men being objectified in ways that men themselves didn’t validate is terrifying. After all, (white cis) men* hold the most power in places like America and most money-making media caters to or is run by them. What are these (primarily dfab/female/nb) transformative fandom spaces doing, going off-script by sharing fantasies about men that aren’t male-condoned? It’s horrible! Obviously this one small space that’s easily avoidable in the vastness of the English-speaking internet must be stamped out of existence!  No sexual fantasies for anybody that doesn’t match their personal gender/sexuality - it’s objectification! 

... okay, I’m being facetious. but the point is: nobody lets non-(cis-)men have a space to own their own sexual enjoyments. (straight cis) men have massive industries of porn featuring real people having on-camera sex aimed at titillating them - both straight and ‘lesbian’ porn. Gay men have their own large porn industries, and huge online archives of non-fandom written porn they’ve generated for one another as well. But women/dfab/nb people writing slashfic in a small corner of the internet? gotta take the hammer to that real quick! It’s definitely the most harmful thing mlm face!

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be self-aware about our fantasies. of course mlm should have a voice when it comes to slashfic, and maybe their voice should be given more weight b/c their identity is closer to the fictional ones being depicted. but wlw should also have a voice. and straight people. and queer people. and anyone else in fandom space! And creating thinkpieces about the prevalence of mlm amongst non-mlm writers and consumers isn’t a bad thing. But really: fandom is a small, small space in the vastness of the world. If anyone is uncomfortable with the high prevalence of fictional mlm created by non-mlm people, there are so many places they can go for fictional mlm created by mlm people! It’s okay to find the fantasies of others distasteful, but please be self-aware enough to recognize that enjoying fictional mlm isn’t identical to objectifying or ‘fetishizing’ real mlm. These things can be closely related, or have an inverted relationship (liking fictional mlm but despising real mlm), but either way one does not guarantee the other.

*white cis straight men hold the most power, but being gay doesn’t always excise the effects of having the other three intersections of privilege. like all things, privilege exists on a spectrum and is colored by many other things.