Unfriendly fucking reminder that AI is a copyright violating machine, that the original AI projects were funded by Elon Fucking Musk because he does not see value in the work of artists, and that AIs have problems with constantly putting signatures and watermarks back into art
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRAINED ON SO MUCH STOLEN, COPYRIGHT-VIOLATING ART.
Implying that those of us who have moral objections to AI art (and writing) are "fearmongering" or that we just don't know what we're talking about ignores the very very blatant art theft occurring.
But no, AI art doesn't steal! That's why it's totally not reproducing watermarks here!
Or here!
Or signatures and copyright lines in all of these!
When you feed the AI which is BASED ON STOLEN ART, you are telling thieves that you're cool with art being stolen as long as you get something temporary, free and momentarily cool.
AI is like a child learning art who cannot learn whether something is right or wrong.
the AI will see watermarks, and instead of saying "hey, mom, why are these words in the corner of the picture?" it'll think "sometimes art just has random word-shaped text in the corner, and that's normal" and then replicate it.
The images beg the questions: why does little girls’ clothing “need” to be tighter, shorter and more constricting than boys’? Is it easier to move in such clothes? Play in them? Run in them? What is it grooming girls to wear later? How is it grooming them to perceive themselves? - Peggy Orenstein
I’ve seen this post before and it makes me angry every time, by the time these kids are adults they will think this is normal, that this is the norm. Finding comfortable clothes shouldn’t be as difficult as it is, and even more in the case of children.
Patriachy be like that. Girls aren’t supposed to be comfortable or to move around. They’re supposed to be “pretty”, constricted, to show themselves. Even if you try to find more confortable clothing in the female section it’ll have something that ties back to this horrible set of “rules” about gendered clothes. Even patterns are more scarce in the female section. I was tired of just seeing the same stamp from my fandom in 2 diferent colours (usually black and white), then you go into the male section and there are so much more options, more colours, more designs, and it just makes you go wtf??!!! Why???!!!
one time long ago I read a book by a comedian named Celia Rivenbank and one of the stories she told was abt how frustrated she was that she couldn’t find age appropriate attire for her young daughters. that book was published in 2011 and to this day it gets more and more relevant as time passes
My mother almost always bought my clothes in the boys section, (unless it was something like a skirt obviously) even school shirts. Because you know that school shirts/blouses for girls are more see-through than the identical ones for boys? And even when I hit puberty and got female curves, the female blouses would just gape horribly but the boys ones wouldn’t because they were looser in general. There’s literally no difference in the seams or how the clothes are cut other than smaller/thinner for girls over boys. Buy your child clothing from the boys section unless they specifically want a skirt or dress. They’ll thank you for it later, and they’ll get used to ignoring arseholes wondering why as young women they’re shopping in the male section.
Mila Kunis pens powerful op-ed on gender bias and wage gap in Hollywood
In a new op-ed, Mila Kunis tells the story of one producer who told her that, because she refused to pose semi-nude in a magazine promoting her film, she’d “never work in this town again.” Kunis rails against sexism, the wage gap and bias in the piece — and explains the initiative she’s taking to fight it.
This is why I can’t stand those stories about celebrities having kids through surrogates. They downplay the risks to the mother who goes through pregnancy and childbirth.
Fake or not, I mean I really hate to think of four kids dealing with an aunt/mom so oblivious to how those boys lost their mom so young and unwilling to modify plans but surrogacy does pose increased risks to the mothers and children they carry
By now many Americans have read a glowing news article about the latest celebrity to have a child via surrogacy or watched a human-interest
“At the recent United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Family and Human Rights drew attention to surrogacy and the dangers it poses to women at an event that highlighted several instances of women who had been trafficked, rendered infertile, or even died as a result of surrogacy. Michelle Reaves was one such surrogate mother from California. She lost her life last year while delivering a baby for someone else, leaving her own son and daughter motherless and her husband a widower.
By its very nature, surrogacy commodifies both a woman’s body as well as that of the child. The women targeted to become a surrogate by the multi-billion-dollar fertility industry are often wooed by the opportunity to make tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for renting their body. In some cases, a surrogate arrangement is altruistic—perhaps the surrogate mother may want to help a friend or family member who desperately wants a baby, and she does not profit financially from the exchange. Nevertheless, regardless of the circumstances or motivation, in a surrogacy arrangement a woman’s body is used as a conduit for a transaction that provides a baby for someone else—and the risks for both her, and the baby, are significant.
Whether a surrogate mother is compensated or not, serious concerns involving health risks to mothers and babies remain, and the rights of children must not be ignored.
Children who are born as the result of a surrogacy arrangement are more likely to have low birth weights and are at an increased risk for stillbirth. When a woman carries a child conceived from an egg that is not her own—a traditional gestational surrogate arrangement—she is at a three-fold risk of developing hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Egg donors have spoken up about experiencing conditions such as loss of fertility, blood clots, kidney disease, premature menopause, and cancer, and the lack of data and studies on both short and long term health outcomes for egg donors makes true informed consent unattainable. While scientists do not fully understand the scope of these health considerations, it is clear that for both short and long-term outcomes, surrogacy is a frontier of unknowns; children, egg donors, and surrogate mothers may pay a physical or psychological price nobody yet fully knows or understands.”
I was looking through some terf accounts on twitter after seeing that tweet about the artificial womb for lambs and the replies thereto. After a while I got the point: the reason it distrubs them so greatly is because, for them, the essense of a woman is the ability to bear children: if there is such a thing as an artificial womb, then what has happened to woman? — here she is outside, a plastic bag on desk.
Now it is no longer a natural, eternal truth that a woman is 'that thing which bears children', for we have a vat — a artificial, technological intrument — which can very well do just the same. Take this one thing away from them, and they lose everything. Their entire world is ruined. What is a woman anymore? What am I?
With all reactionaries it is always the same: they are in violent denial of something which is already the case. There never was such a thing as 'nature'; the womb has ever been a bag.
You can't. Males don't have the very complex muscles and organs necessary to build the fetus from the ground up. It's not JUST the uterus or ovaries. It's the entire body. Your organs literally move around to make room for the fetus to grow. This happens because your reproductive system and your brain communicate and tell the rest of your body to prepare. Males do not have these processes biologically. It's the same reason they cannot naturally breastfeed. Male breastfeeding requires lots of medications and unnatural methods in order to lactate and even then it's never enough to actually consistently feed a newborn.
Women aren't just their wombs, we are entire bodies. When we say that our biology is important to us as women we mean that we don't want to be seen as a bunch of separate parts. Even if they found a way to make natural pregnancy and labor obsolete, my experience as a woman isn't changed. Women are still oppressed for our biological sex. Our sex is the reason we are targeted by men. It's why we have always been oppressed. I'll always be a woman even if I never get pregnant or give birth. Males will never be able to experience this or mimic it and suggesting it's possible is an insult. The idea that women would cease to have purpose or feel useless if there was no longer a need for them to give birth is quite frankly silly. Not being pressured into being a mother by all of society would probably result in more women embracing their dreams and doing other things.
That a woman is reduciable to a womb (i.e., an instrument of child birth) is the position I am attacking in the original post — hope that clears things up.
The points you make about the 'complex' biological mechanisms that cannot be surgically recreated is naive. It also doesn't matter. The tweet I am referring to showed a live lamb inside of an artificial womb: it is not a question of possibility.
What I was a little intrested in originally was where my opponent would go after child birth cannot be affirmed as the mark of a woman (of course, you already thought this was the case): however, you only say something like 'it is the totality of the body', or otherwise vaguely refer to 'biology' or 'sex', but you don't say what any of this is. If a woman is not just a 'bunch of separate parts' (I agree) then what is she?
It is a question of possibility: the tweet you saw portrayed a baby that was still developed inside their mother, requiring all the biological processes pointed out to you necessary to make life, and was then placed in an artificial womb to keep developing because of premature birthing.
“It’s complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there.”
The points made to you aren’t naive - they’re informed, and you are not. The fact you think radical feminists place a woman’s value on baby-making tells me as much, but others have already tried to explain to you how this isn’t the case.
You don’t need to go on questioning what women are because you read about about a baby lamb inside an artificial womb. Women are adult human females, belonging to the sex that can bear offspring and produce gametes (ova). Not all women perform these functions, and it is not the sole reason why we exist, but we all belong to the only sex capable of it.
Once again TERFs' circular logic rears its ugly head. Here's a hint: you assume what you are trying to prove within your definition of the term "female." Your set of necessary conditions will always exclude women who don't produce large gametes either due to menopause, injury, or developmental differences, unless you expand it to include "sex" which you define in the same way as you do female (or resort to worthless teleology). Any recourse to physical possibility is only a naïve underestimation of potential medical technology and a regression into anti-feminist biological determinism. Your ideology is a mistake, morally, politically, and logically.
My definition always included sex. I’m gender-critical and don’t define women through the lens of gender, if that’s what you meant in your reply.
We are women because in utero and in birth, our biological sex was observed as female, first based on external genitalia then secondly on the basis of if we could produce ova; this is the same for men where their sex can be determined in utero and at birth which is based on genitalia and if they can produce sperm – because in the real world, sex is binary, and there are clear differences between the two that range from bone structures to outside appearances and hormonal differences.
Intersex is a condition so stop using people with DSDs to validate your argument. Women who are going through menopause are still going through a natural biological process unique to the female body. Not every woman is fertile. A woman is not defined by her fertility. A vagina's only purpose isn't to give birth. Not every woman can give birth, but only a woman can give birth. It's a female-exclusive trait. Despite what you’d like to envision for the future of medicine, pregnancy in male bodies is still very far from being possible. The OP here completely misunderstood the experiment he read about, because the mother was still crucial for the development of the baby, and the external uterus was used in the case of a premature birthing, none of which prove male pregnancy is nowhere near possible at this moment in time. It remains a female exclusive trait.
A fertility doctor says that in theory, men could attempt to become pregnant as soon as "tomorrow" thanks to advances in uterus transplant s
The arrival of uterus transplants in the US begs the question, could men get pregnant?
While infertile women might not be able to bear offspring or produce eggs, they are of the sex that can. Again, the ability to give birth or producing eggs is a female-exclusive trait. Moreover, these same women are unable to produce sperm and still possess other female sex characteristics, making it so we can’t say they belong to the male sex. Even archaeologists have found a new way to figure out how to determine sex of cremated individuals, because no matter how you want to play it, bodily sex differences are real and play into our definitions of female and male.
This definition for woman also includes the following and is the opposite of biological determinism: a human adult who possesses a female body can have any kind of personality, fashion sense, taste in music, can dress, look, and do whatever she wants, and none of that will take away from her womanhood, because being female simply relates to the body that belongs to her, and who she can be as a person isn’t tied to that. It is only in her oppression, which is sex-based, and in medical treatment, that these biological realities play a part. It is a liberating definition because it tells women that they can be anyone, regardless of being female (i.e don’t have to conform to any kind of femininity to remain women) and it also gives us a unifying, shared experience (that of being female, and thus oppressed because of it) that enables us to be defined as a class.
Defining women as a “feeling” is what really leads us to circular logic (at best) and to traditional gender roles being used to signify a female (at worse).
You’ve written this directionless screed for nothing. Once again your definition presupposes exactly what it’s meant to define. “We are women because our biological sex was observed as female” is just using female to define woman. Yet you still can’t define female without presupposing the natural existence of sex. All you can do is claim that various medical observations constitute your category.
We’re not talking about my definition here, we haven’t even moved past the complete inadequacy of yours. If you really have a proper definition which concretely defines the boundaries of the category, then it should be very easy for you to lay out the necessary conditions required of a person to be of the “female sex” without presupposing sex in the first place, or lapsing into teleological arguments about what “should be” rather than what is. Go ahead. It would be a first for you TERFS.
A woman is: an adult - human - female, the three being essential parts to what constitutes a woman. This definition isn’t exclusionary to anyone but males, nor is it confusing.
Why so unwilling to share your definition, in all it’s superiority? We’re all dying to hear it. Go ahead yourself.
"Yet you still can’t define female without presupposing the natural existence of sex."
You know how sex is perceived in other mammals? Will you call that pseudoscience? What’s the gender of your dog? Or are you deep into human exceptionalism, that only humans have a soul gender?
For us, female is a material condition, that describes certain potentials of our bodies, our likelihoods for diseases, the medical, societal, political discriminations we face from being perceived as female and also physically being of the female sex.
For you it’s what? Pronouns? Clothing? Body modifications? You all are literally trying to emulate the female sex as far as scientifically possible. Why would you all take estrogen and block testosterone? Why bother doing ffs or vaginoplasty when there’s no sexual dimorphism?
Every time I’ve ever complimented a man, trying to be kind after hearing men don’t get compliments, they always, ALWAYS took it as a sign I was interested in them romantically or sexually.
Most women veryyyy quickly learn to not be too nice to men.
We women can’t win. If we’re not nice enough, we’re frigid bitches and the reason men have mental health issues. If we’re too nice, we’re leading men on or being sluts.
This exactly. Can’t even bloody smile in public for fear it’s in the direction of a man who then interprets it as sexual interest, but men want us to fucking compliment them? No. It’s just another example of men making their own problems and expecting women to fix it, and to hell with our own needs.
Important addition: Maria Skłodowska-Curie was born during partitions, which means Poland didn’t exist, which means her insistence that she was Polish was a significant act of defiance against the occupation, which means that you should respect that instead of arguing that ‘well she had French citizenship’. She couldn’t have Polish citizenship despite being Polish, that’s kinda the point she was making by keeping her maiden name and naming a chemical element she discovered ‘Polonium’ .
As a child, I would watch my parent’s daily routines.
My mother would be up by 3 or 4. She didn’t leave for work until 7 or 8 depending on the season. She would get up, shower, do her hair, make breakfast, get my brother and I up and ready, brush her teeth, do her makeup, then drive us to school before heading to work. At night, she would make us dinner, get us ready for bed, lay with us to talk about how our days went, then go to bed once we were down.
My father never got up and around until about 30-45 minutes before he had to leave. He’d get up, shower, eat whatever mom fixed, then brush his teeth. At night, he simply went to bed when he felt like it.
My mom’s world revolved around everyone else but herself. My dad couldn’t have cared less.
I saw that. That made quite the impression on me as a child.
she used to write for Pinknews and currently for HuffPost. This woman just obliterated her entire career in order to combat misinformation and maintain journalistic integrity.
janainaart
theartofmadeline
gummygunk
pixelskylines
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
