Henlo

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

I did say before in the old blog, but given the current political climate I think it bears repeating:

Terfs, radfems, gender critical folks, if you are fine allying yourself and agreeing with alt-right weirdos about trans issues when you think the same way, but you're NOT alright allying and agreeing with trans people about other issues you say you care about when you think the same way: then you hate trans people more than you care about women.

If you can say "I don't like fascists because they want to take away reproductive access (or any number of other obvious dogwater values they have), but at least they're right about trans people" but you CAN'T say "I think trans people are wrong about gender, but at least they're right about defending reproductive rights" then you're just a fascist

[avoidingthehaters]

Putting out feelers again for this question, cause I genuinely want to hear y'all's perspectives.

What, exactly, does gender abolition mean to you? Like, if you're of the mind that we should abolish gender, what does that look like for you? I wanna hear most details about your ideas of a world without gender.

[lorynna]

is it ok if i interact with/follow? im a trans-inclusionary radfem but i agree with most of your beliefs unrelated to trans stuff, but idk if im welcome here

That is fine. As long as people are respectful when it comes to disagreements I don't mind. Exposing yourself to people who think differently is good and healthy, as long as both sides are able to interact in good faith. 🩷

edit: I don't believe in terms like trans-inclusionary or trans-exclusionary radfem as radical feminist theory always includes females regardless of how they identify. radical feminist theory is gender critical at its core and that is why the mindset of trans and gender ideology is being rejected. not the people, but the values of the ideology.

[avoidingthehaters]

No asker, but I'm fairly certain trans-inclusionary radfems (tirfs) tend to mean that they're also including trans women in their feminism. I haven't seen any that argue trans men ought to be EXcluded, as they usually agree the current system still targets them in the ways they're caring about, but the inclusive part is usually in reference to the trans women, since they're usually explicitly the ones being rejected in exclusionary frameworks.

[bushpropaganda]

i genuinely cannot understand the TRA thought process of "gender is a social construct so let's just uhhhh create more!!!! an infinite amount!!!!! and then let's use these arbitrary imaginary labels to uhmmmm to determine how laws protect people!!!! and let's change ALL our language to revolve around a social construct instead of material reality!!!"

while also claiming that radfems are nazis for.... wanting to abolish gender???? why does it matter so much if gender is a social construct???? is it because straight white men can't opt into an imaginary system of oppression if gender is abolished perhaps????

like once you put it on paper and actually spell it out you realize how predatory it sounds. which was the ultimate goal LMAO.

[avoidingthehaters]

This does seem like a bit of blurring between different perspectives, like I don't think people arguing for more nuanced labels, or for thinking of gender as a spectrum, are then also going on to advocate that each specific label be treated differently, for instance

[self-loving-vampire]

"If we abolish gender we will all be forced to look equally androgynous!"

"If we abolish gender I will be banned from wearing the clothes I like!"

You have been misled about the actual goals and policies of gender abolition by radfems who misuse the term to legitimize their transphobia while undermining actual gender abolition in practice and demanding increased gender segregation and stereotyping if anything.

[avoidingthehaters]

I'm interested to see a more specific explanation of what radfems mean when they say "gender abolition", because it does not seem to be the same as what many queer people mean, and in fact just seems like "gender with extra steps"

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

So a woman can have the ability to bear children but she's "technically" not female because of some testicular tissues?

And they say we have a narrow view on what a woman is.

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

Not the OP in comments, but the "intersex folks aren't male or female" is specifically in reference to overly reductive descriptions or sex. If you're fine with sex being a combination of lots of different traits (being bimodal instead of binary), then that issue isn't really there. It's just that many are against that framing because it means you could change (at least parts of) your sex, so it wouldn't be immutable.

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

Sex is define by gametes which there's only 2 of, small gametes (sperm) and large gametes (ova/eggs), and not only are humans either female OR male even if they have a disorder of sex development, but there's no way for a human to change one's reproductive anatomy to be organized around a different gamete.

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

See the problem here is that "organized around" is neither specific nor rigorous, and this is kind of the point i was getting at.

Like, sure, if the definition you're using is producing a gametes, then yeah that's can give two options, but it means that people who produce neither have no sex. I think that'd be silly, which is why I accept a more thorough description for sex altogether.

Cause like... even with this super vague and restrictive definition, there's nothing IN PRINCIPLE preventing one's sex from being changed, you've just deliberately decided to focus on a part that's not currently doable with medical science. At best that's just kicking the can down the road, and backing yourself into a corner when someone in the future gets a gonad transplant or something

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

The reasons why I didn't specify what "organized around" means is because...

1. bio-sex isn't exclusive to humans and 2. I am not your mommy or teacher, it's not my job to teach you about the biology of the human sex, go watch Paradox Institute if you wanna learn about it.

there's nothing IN PRINCIPLE preventing one's sex from being changed, you've just deliberately decided to focus on a part that's not currently doable with medical science. At best that's just kicking the can down the road, and backing yourself into a corner when someone in the future gets a gonad transplant or something

Yeah, how dare I define bio-sex via what been so far scientifically proven and not consider your "gonad transplant" fantasy. /s

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

If you're including other organisms' "bio-sex" specifications, it's even less specifically a binary, and even more specifically changeable (some species are more than one sex, no sex, or can change sex).

Like, we've already had uterine transplants, testicular transplants, and penile transplants for cis recipients; I really don't think calling the topic a fantasy is founded. This sounds more like an ideological unwillingness to think about how it's more complicated than you laid out.

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

There are no species that have been observed to have more than two sexes, what you're referring to are mating types.

Considering that and everything else you have said… You clearly don't know what you're talking about in regards to biology and like I said before it's not my job to be your biology teacher that you will then dismiss cuz like anti-vaxxers, you won't listen to anything that contradicts your personal beliefs.

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

I didn't actually say that species have more than two sexes? I said that for some species individuals can have more than one (hermaphroditic species). This feels more like a canned, scripted response.

But again, that's just because you specified sex in general, then defaulted to other organisms when pressed for details. Either we're talking about sex as it exists across the whole tree of life, for which an individual's sex is neither strictly binary nor immutable; or we're talking about some specific clade (like humans as a species, which is really what this whole discourse is about) in which case your appeals to definitions requires you to be specific (like describing exactly what "organized around" means for humans).

Asking for details and specificity (especially when your argument is about who to include in which groups) is not an unreasonable expectation. Immediately responding with "it's not my job to educate you" when asked about YOUR SPECIFIC understanding of a topic absolutely is unreasonable. The un-charitable assumption is that you just don't know that much and won't admit it, but I'd much rather believe that you're just frustrated so don't want to take the time. Either way, this is a response to YOUR point initially, and is pointing out that your perspective AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT probably doesn't actually convey what you actually mean, or lead to the conclusions that you think it does.

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

Ok so then how does "some species are more than one sex" contradict "Sex is define by gametes which there's only 2 of, small gametes (sperm) and large gametes (ova/eggs)"? I've only said HUMANS aren't able to be both male and female and HUMANS don't have the ability to change one's sex.

That's why I thought you might have been referring to "mating types", but I guess I should have known better and realize you were actually arguing with a strawman, not me.

Furthermore I've given you links to where you can educate yourself and your refusal to watch them and instead demand some random woman on the internet to hold your hand and educate you on bio-sex beyond what I already said is, in fact, unreasonable and again not my job just like how it's not my job to play teacher and educate strangers about my disability even if they ask me politely.

[avoidingthehaters-alt]

Some species being more than one sex doesn't necessarily conflict with "there are only two gametes"; it's just an observation that the scope that you provided when asked about what "organized around" means ("bio-sex isn't exclusive to humans"), that your broader scope doesn't fit and idea that bio-sex, as a classification, is binary or immutable for living individuals.

If you're specifically only referring to humans, then AGAIN, I'm asking you what you mean when you say "organized around", because it's very vague, and not rigorous. The only real description is have yet to hear boils down to "you know what I mean", which is not sufficient if you're trying to define who is and isn't not within a certain group, or whether someone can or cannot change that classification.

Like: if being organized around the production of a gamete is a biological things, then what are the biological traits that are included in it? The reason I ask is not for you to educate me on biology ("organized around" isn't biological terminology), it's to ask you what your SPECIFIC understanding is, because I think you either do not know/have good answers; or that the answers you have conflict with the conclusion you've arrived at.

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

Asking me "what are the biological traits that are included in it?" is, in fact, asking me to educate you on biology.

Here's the video that talks about defining and determining sex that apparently your lazyass couldn't bother to find.

Now, fuck off and stop asking women on here to be your biology teacher.

[avoidingthehaters]

This video honestly is just making the same conflations that you've been.

Tell you what, I'll make this a simple distinction: if someone in the hypothetical near-future received a transplant for all the organs and tissues listed in the video, would that, or would that NOT change their sex with your framework? I know you won't think its a possibility (not the question, but I could get into later), I'm just asking how YOUR framework functions IN that scenario. It gives one of those two answers, even if the hypothetical never happens.

[avoidingthehaters]

Check out the alt for chatting/responses/asks: @avoidingthehaters-alt

[avoidingthehaters]

You reblogged something from me recently from your alt account. I looked through some of your posts on both accounts and got the impression that maybe hopefully you might be openminded to having some civil discussions with radfem-leaning people on feminist topics.

So I had started writing out a reply to you on one of your posts to try to share my perspective, but it got a little long, and I realized that perhaps everything I wrote would come off as overwhelming all at once and all of a sudden, so I wanted to check with you first before I reblog to see if you’re okay with discussing your perspectives further after hearing out my perspective from an intersectional feminist standpoint and why gender-critical feminism has been the only type of feminism that has actually felt inclusive towards me and other women of color.

From everything I’ve noticed, most “TERFs”, “radfems”, and “gender-critical feminists” have almost all started out as being very pro-trans, trans-inclusive, or have identified as trans themselves at some point, before they became “TERFs”.

I feel as if there’s so many nuances to many issues that trans-rights activists and liberal feminists in general have been avoiding acknowledging. And so as someone who’s struggled with lifelong dysphoria myself and probably always will, radical feminists are the only group of women who I have noticed will actually acknowledge and sympathize with my struggles and perspectives and all the nuances involved, rather than silencing or dismissing me. I became critical of the concepts of “gender”, “femininity”, and “masculinity” on my own as a child, before I even had internet access.

So that’s why after discovering the principles that radical feminists believe in in recent years, and after seeing all the misogyny & hatred play out online and IRL towards any women & girls who critique the concept of gender or who speak up for women’s rights, I’ve realized that I feel a kinship with most radical feminists much more than the mainstream version of “feminism” that often feels like feminism for privileged wealthy/middle-class white people.

I align with much of what radfems and “TERFs” believe and say, and I appreciate that the “TIRFs” seem to have found a balance between speaking up for women’s rights and also openly expressing empathy and kindness for trans-identifying and gender-dysphoric people, even if I think that the concept of telling dysphoric people that we can change our sex or gender is super harmful to us.

I’m really sorry about how long this message still turned out actually lol. Feel free to ignore this if you’re not interested in discussing further, but if you’re open to me reblogging one of your posts to elaborate my perspectives further, please let me know. ❤️

For what it’s worth, I think that most “radfems” and “TERFs” are actually very much empathetic towards people who identify as trans. Even the “mean feminists” online who claim to hate all males. The harsher, abrasive-sounding feminists online and IRL just seem tired and exhausted from all the bad-faith arguments, death/rape/violent threats, doxxing, and the overall hatred towards them when initially sharing politely-worded concerns. It’s hard for me to blame them for not wanting to be polite anymore. As I often feel the same way as them when trying to have discussions with others on trans issues. But I recognize that most trans-right activists and some trans-identifying people are probably not intentionally trying to be malicious or misogynistic, and might not be aware of some of the other perspectives and nuances that are necessary to consider, especially considering that many of us who disagree with “gender ideology” may suffer from severe dysphoria ourselves. That’s a perspective that many radfems don’t openly talk about, as it gets very personal when trying to explain. I’m still grateful towards those more “abrasive” radfems for speaking up and holding the line while preserving their peace and not exhausting themselves with conversing politely with those who they perceived as upholding misogynistic beliefs, since those types of feminists are very necessary too. But if you’re wanting to try to debate with someone who is radfem-leaning to discuss controversial stances and if you’re genuinely openminded to hearing out a different viewpoint on some stuff, I’m open to discussing civilly with you.

First off: thanks for reminding me to enable asks and anons on the alt (it was initially a messages-only side blog, so I'd completely to re-activate a lot of things when I switched it over)

Second, no worries! The length is not at all an issue, so long as it's not from one of those spambots that I see everywhere about any of these topics.

I'd certainly be willing to get into the weeds of it with someone who wants to! (Though, again, I'm not sure if this main blog will have funky posting and notifications, etc so the alt would probably be best to start with)

Surprisingly enough I have seen quite a few radfems express similar perspectives (at the very least being open to empathy for trans folks, or expressing some aspect of dysphoria themselves), so that's not a very strange concept for me. That perspective is actually the one that I'm most interested in engaging with, frankly, as I'd bet it's the one I'd have the most common ground with.

(I mean, don't get me wrong, I've been on the internet long enough to have had discourse for discourse's sake - I've definitely had wild ones on other topics from just being bored, but having a discussion that's not, well, you know, Tumblr discourse, is also something I'd be very interested in)

Not sure what method would would best for you, but i should have messages turned on for the alt now, and obviously reblogs and such. I feel like chat is most conducive to, like, back and forths? But I certainly can appreciate wanting it to be publicly viewable as well.

Idk, let me know, I'm flexible.

[anaukeya3]

(can't reblog this)

Why aren't autistic men removing their body hair? Why don't they complain about these same sensory issues?

It's not that I don't believe you, I just need you to understand that it is the removal process (shaving/waxing) that is the source of the discomfort. It changes the tip of the hair, and makes it feel coarse on skin. Many women started removing their body hair when they were very young, so they don't know any different and believe that body hair is inherently uncomfortable.

It doesn't make sense for body hair to inherently be uncomfortable, and somehow only to women. Men AND WOMEN!!! have grown body hair since forever, and removing it is a recent phenomenon. There is no documentation of it bothering people before then.

[avoidingthehaters]

I do actually know a number of men who shave their hair for exactly this reason (sensory issues)

Not to say the course ends can't contribute! I just think "your body's natural can't be uncomfortable" is a bit unfounded.

[pussnbootz]

Of all the shit that never fucking happened, this never happened the most.

[avoidingthehaters]

This seems like the wildest take, tbh. "Some people, including cis men, shave their hair for sensory reasons" is not, like, a contentious statement. Seems silly that the idea of them doing so chafes with some people so much, tbh

[avoidingthehaters]

I’ve seen so many terfs & transmisics just flat out refuse to think about near-future medical procedures (like uterus implants for transwomen, or growing trans people functional organs from stem cells, etc), like a willful, desperate, bindspot. Presumably because the idea they could happen at all is just completely incompatible with their worldview. And honestly imagining them twisting themselves into pretzels over them when they happen is just *chef’s kiss* perfection.

[opabiniawillreturn-deactivated2]

it’s more the fact that it wouldn’t work

[sickofeverythingmale]

we have thought about it. i just read your post and was made to think about that. we just have enough knowledge of biology that we know it’s not gonna work. advocating for this is gonna kill the people you stan so much. 

[a-terf]

What kind of blood vessels does a male person have that will supply the uterus with blood for this implant? Where are they gonna put it, right in front of your prostate and bladder? There are not arteries or veins in a mans abdomen like a woman has when she gets a uterus implant. They use the ones that are already present in her body. What kind of damage do you think a fetus would do to a body that can’t rearrange its organs to fit a growing uterus? Men are gonna die from sepsis as their implants rot and nothing else will ever come of it.

[avoidingthehaters]

All super interesting questions! Stem cell therapies sure are neat, huh?

Blood vessels are already being worked on for general purpose organ growth/transplants. And I’m not quite sure why you’d think a trans woman’s organs couldn’t shift as well. Are AMAB organs bolted into place? Who knew!

But hey, hey, let’s put aside whether it will work in principle. Let me ask you this: In a purely hypothetical sense, if these therapies were to be performed successfully, how would you react? Do you think you can answer that question? Or do you think you’ll just, you know… refuse to think about it?

[a-terf]

What are they gonna attach those blood vessels to? There are no arteries that could support the blood flow a uterus needs in the male abdomen in the right place. Men do not have the circulatory set up to sustain a pregnancy. They do not have the skin elasticity to not have their abdomen rupture/damage to expanding addominal muscles and the pelvic floor muscles to hold the uterus in place so they don’t prolapse. Womeb already do not have safe pregnancies after getting a uterus implant, you think it will work in a whole ass man? Mens bodies don’t work like that, sweetheart. Stop playing hypotheticals that will never happen.

[avoidingthehaters]

You know, I was kinda hoping someone would come along and do exactly the thing I mentioned in the original post, but I never expected it to be so, so fast.

*chef’s kiss* Perfection

(Still up to hear your hypothetical answer anytime! Hypotheticals don’t have to be real, after all! Though I totally get it if even that makes you wrestle with your worldview too much, sweetheart!)

[a-terf]

You’re delusional if you think a mans body will work the same way as a womans if you plop in a uterus and some horse piss estrogen. We don’t even have the technology to make sure all normal organ transplants take when theyre supposed to have a kidney or liver or heart let alone a foriegn organ that isn’t naturally present. Keep pretending that doctors attempting this aren’t commiting malpractice at best and murder at worst when these men die because their uterus implant rots.

[bitterbadfem-harpy]

Does OP not realize that male humans deposit fat around their organs? That female humans don’t because we need to be able to shift our organs around to facilitate a growing person?

Sure men’s insides aren’t bolted into place, but they’re still physically incapable of shifting in the manner necessary to accommodate a fetus.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

Up to half of maternal mortality cases in the US are preventable but yeah knocking up males is a medical priority

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States

Maternal mortality in the United States - Wikipedia

Maternal mortality in the United States - Wikipedia

[astronofeminist]

Lol they are so delusional. A womb transplant is very risky even in natural females and has a high risk of complications and infertility… never mind putting it in a male body not set up for it. People are so self centered and deluded. You know what, I HOPE they get their wish. Can’t wait to see them push a baby out without the natural female muscles meant to do so… guess it will be a long and hard labor, risking death upon the birther and fetus, just so they can finally overcome the womb envy. It will only take a few of these weak willed men (lower pain tolerance, science, look it up) to either bleed out or live through it to convince the rest they never wanted it, and aren’t prepared for it at all. Go for it guys! I can’t wait till its your turn and realize the grass ain’t greener.

[emeritusprofessorofnothing]

How come no one ever points out you can’t have a viable pregnancy without ovaries?

[our-side-of-history]

[niiwa-angel]

The male ribcage is also not built to accommodate a pregnancy. The male endocrine system is not built to accommodate a pregnancy. The male cardiovascular system isn’t built to accommodate a pregnancy. The male pelvis isn’t built to accommodate a pregnancy. It isn’t just a matter of not having a uterus, it’s literally every major system in the body not being able to take it.

[deadfish-inabarrel]

This is what happens when you view women as just “smaller men with a few extra parts”

[sichorean]

I nearly died while birthing. I lost nearly 3l of blood. If the female body didn’t spend all pregnancy desperately creating more blood products to keep everything going, I wouldn’t be here. 3l in a non-pregnant woman of my size is nearly *all* my blood. Thankfully when you are pregnant that amount grows - enough that I was able to survive with surgical intervention.

The human body is not made of Lego bricks where a uterus can be slotted in. Wishes and hypotheticals and “what ifs” cannot change that. A man with a surgically implanted uterus is a male subject of unethical experimentation, not a woman - and according to medical history, he is also a dead man walking.

[terra-feminarum]

Even if this could somehow work and wouldn’t kill the pregnant person, I can’t even imagine how harmful this would be to the baby. A pregnant woman isn’t just a passive vessel where a child grows all by itself. Embryos and fetuses are developing human beings, and their healthy development depends on unfathomably complex biological system working just right at just the right time. A male taking artificial hormones isn’t it. You would end up with children with developmental problems, if they survived at all. It’s really, really easy to fuck up fetal development, and that’s the reason miscarriages are common. And even seemingly healthy babies can have serious (neuro)developmental problems if the pregnancy didn’t go just right.

We simply don’t understand pregnancy well enough to be able to dose just the right hormones at just the right time to ensure healthy development. I would consider it child abuse to experiment on human beings like this.

[thecoloredcanvas]

Men don’t get to hold the power of creating life because they DON’T DESERVE TO, and that’ll never change.

Sucks to suck!

Die mad, losers.

[avoidingthehaters]

I mean, you can certainly hold that position, but allowing/enabling men to take on the labour of pregnancy is a fairly old feminist idea. I know I certainly hold that view, even taking trans women out of the equation altogether.

[bakeonlyforyouself]

It's really interesting to me that trans-progressive people will say things like "gender isn't real" and "anyone can be anything", but they look at a cis woman who doesn't conform to beauty standards and assume she must be some sort of trans. She doesn't remove her body hair or wears clothing she finds comfortable, and for some reason, this challenges people.

I've had a discussion with my friend about this because I see this so much. I would rather claw off my skin than have someone call me "they" because they assume I'm something I'm not. There is quite literally nothing about me that would indicate that I identify as anything but a woman, I just happen to refuse to remove body hair or wear makeup and wear what I find most comfortable. It's kind of insane to me that for a group of people who claim to be progressive, an adult woman cannot look like an adult woman (not a male curated look to appeal to pedophilic beauty standards).

What's even worse is having people try to convince me that I'm anything but a woman. There's always a misogynistic reason for their way of thinking, too, but they think they're doing something by trying to convince me that my sex isn't good enough. Get a life.

[avoidingthehaters]

Yeah, that must be pretty frustrating. Always annoying when other people are insisting they know you better than yourself, doubly so from anyone simultaneously being wishy-washy AND strict, as it suits them. Not sure why the ideas of trans people and of gender non-conforming people are so hard for so many to reconcile; it's not like the cancel each other out.

[strawberrycakefem-deactivated20]

TIM: "Well people perceive me as a woman, therefore I am a woman."

If an able-bodied person decided they wanted to go about their life using a wheelchair like they had a mobility disability and as a result people perceive them as being disabled, would that make said person disabled or would the reality that they still have the ability to easily walk disqualify them as being disabled?

[avoidingthehaters]

I don't think the spontaneous voluntary use of a mobility aid is analogous to being socially perceived as a member of an (at least partially) sociological group.

Like, this context would be more analogous to a cis person who's presentation was wildly different from what others expect (femboys, maybe?) who correct people when they're mistaken. Trans people in this analogy feel more like people who do need mobility aids but for reasons other don't see as real or valid (CFS wheelchair users, for instance - ambulatory wheelchair users in general).

[tra-archive]

Straight up misogyny coming from a TRA. Are we even surprised?

The question was “what is a woman?”

This person claims a woman is someone who feels feminine or with the qualities “traditionally associated with females” (hmmm, what are those?)

This is exactly why you can’t define “woman” with any definition other than “adult female human.” Anything else is based on misogynistic stereotypes.

[avoidingthehaters]

I probably would have said that a woman is a member of the social class of the same name, whose criteria, boundaries, and members have varied with time and culture, but predominantly divided reproductively.

I do, unfortunately, think any thorough definition is going to be a bit too long for a qippy response to "WiaW?" but the long and short is that it's people who identify, are recognized, and live as our collective understanding of "woman". Digging into the weeds about how that collective understanding works is, like, a whole field of the social sciences, so I don't think we've got a good one-liner to whip out.

(Which isn't even touching on disagreements for how female is defined)

[anaukeya3]

(can't reblog this)

Why aren't autistic men removing their body hair? Why don't they complain about these same sensory issues?

It's not that I don't believe you, I just need you to understand that it is the removal process (shaving/waxing) that is the source of the discomfort. It changes the tip of the hair, and makes it feel coarse on skin. Many women started removing their body hair when they were very young, so they don't know any different and believe that body hair is inherently uncomfortable.

It doesn't make sense for body hair to inherently be uncomfortable, and somehow only to women. Men AND WOMEN!!! have grown body hair since forever, and removing it is a recent phenomenon. There is no documentation of it bothering people before then.

[avoidingthehaters]

I do actually know a number of men who shave their hair for exactly this reason (sensory issues)

Not to say the course ends can't contribute! I just think "your body's natural can't be uncomfortable" is a bit unfounded.

[thehairiestfeminist]

The woman who eschews femininity, who is content with her natural shape and size and smell, who is impatient with the lengthy rituals of femininity, is condemned by both sexes. To women, she is an uncomfortable reminder of the extent to which they have abandoned themselves to the demands of men. To men, she is a threatening warning that their domination is not total and that women still have the power to regain themselves. 

- Anne Summers, Damned Whores and God’s Police

[realist-fortheloveofwomen]

I love this quote, but it brings up a common sentiment I see from women who shave when they see female body hair positivity posts, or women who wear makeup seeing posts about women’s natural faces, etc etc. it’s a huge defensiveness and a feeling of discomfort/fear.

“Choosing to shave is also fine btw!” Why don’t men choose to shave? Why don’t men wear makeup? Why do only female celebrities wear skimpy outfits while the males are in suits? Why is every woman in movies, mass media, irl, shaven? Please be fr. It’s not a choice if it’s the only option you’re given.

Think critically about your actions, always.

[avoidingthehaters]

It's very important to be critical of your actions and choices, and of the the larger habit, biases, and systems that surround them.

You can also just enjoy the feeling of your legs being smooth (for example). Being critical doesn't mean "do the opposite out of principle" or "be overly negative", it means to think carefully, thoroughly and deliberately.

"There are very bad pressures that should not exist" and "You can enjoy things" can coexist.

[witwitch-deactivated20160508]

“trans women face all the same oppression females do AND MORE”

No.

No they don’t.

We are oppressed on the axis of biological sex. To pretend like they are affected by any of the sex based oppression we face is an erasure of the sex based oppression of women. You are ignoring or minimizing all the ways females are oppressed that trans women aren’t. Do you really think abortion and literally everything else related to our biology really aren’t that important, life changing issues which are unique to us females?

Trans women are affected by transphobia. This is different. Misogyny does not affect them the way it affects us. They are not “more oppressed” and dysphoria is not a get out of misogyny free card that allows trans women to be as sexist as they want.

[avoidingthehaters]

I chafe against the idea that trans women experience "more" than cis women (I don't think it's a competition, or that it really scales in that way), and there's certainly organ/tissue specific issues that trans women do not face by virtue of not having them, but I do think it's also pretty clear that there's a lot of misogyny that does affect trans women.

[avoidingthehaters]

I would say just keep doing what you're doing, engage in radfem spaces and ask questions. Some of them can be nasty, I won't lie. But keep asking questions and engaging

Look, I like a good internet argument as much as the next person, but I'm not in it for the "argue for arguing's sake" anymore. I'm genuinely very curious to pick people's brain's about the subject.

I suspect some of it boils down to simple, genuine differences in values, but I'm fascinated to see where the overlap is.