ā - 30s - USA - 4th wave feminist
queued sideblog ft. rants
āTAGSā
- asks -
- my posts -
- radicalization juice -
- best of radblr - memes -
- gender theory - gendie receipts -
- intersectionality - the industry of sex -
- rad resources! - detrans stuff - DSD/intersex-
- women in history - she who must not be named -
- women's health - feminist art - LGB - sex culture - AI -
Leigh: What about the doctrine of ālive and let liveā and civil liberties issues?
Audre: I donāt see that as the point. Iām not questioning anyoneās right to live. Iām saying we must observe the courses and implications of our lives. If we are talking about feminism then the personal is political and we can subject everything in our lives to scrutiny. We have been nurtured in a sick, abnormal society, and we should be in the process of reclaiming ourselves, not the terms of that society. This is complex. I speak not about condemnation but about recognizing what is happening and questioning what it means. Iām not willing to regiment anyoneās life. If we are to scrutinize our human relationships, we must be willing to scrutinize all aspects of those relationships. The subject of revolution is ourselves, is our lives.
Sadomasochism is an institutionalized celebration of dominant/subordinate relationships. And, it prepares us either to accept subordination or to enforce dominance. Even in play, to affirm that the exertion of power over powerlessness is erotic, is empowering, is to set the emotional and social stage for the continuation of that relationship, politically, socially and economically.
Sadomasochism feeds the belief that domination is inevitable. It can be compared to the phenomenon of worshipping a godhead with two faces, and worshipping only the white part on the full moon and the black part on the dark of the moon, as if totally separate. But you cannot corral any aspect within your life, divorce its implications, whether itās what you eat for breakfast or how you say goodbye. This is what integrity means.
I really like the way you write your responses to questions, you donāt express this never-touched-grass malice to others from what Iāve seen, and ur one of the few gender critical* bloggers that doesnāt strike me as likeā¦ frothing at the mouth in hatred for transness. So I had a question if thatās ok
When it comes to believing trans women r biologically men and therefore should not be referred to as women etc, likeā¦ what about the instances in which these trans women experience violence we usually see against women? Theyre attacked for being queer, theyāre attacked for presenting feminine, theyāre attacked for simply calling themselves women. Attacked all in very awful ways. By many conservative cis men, most of all.
Of course womanhood should not be defined by violence and thatās not what Iām trying to say, but I meanā¦ when weāre talking about the trans community at large, arenāt there bigger problems surrounding it? Like the horrific conduct they have suffer from others? Why must one, in many TERFsā cases, focus so much on their personal beliefs on how these people should interpret gender? Why canāt we set that aside, see these people r suffering on account of their claimed womanhood, and try and support them as we would other women? All in all in the larger world they suffer very similar things to women suffering under patriarchy in terms of violence, rights being stripped away in legislation, etc.
Thatās the thing thatās always gotten me about TERFs. I appreciate radfem content overall, but when they start talking about trans people, Iām just likeā¦ for one, the concept of gnc stuff has existed for as long as humans have, and two, all it really does is further what in my opinion is a rlly vapid culture war that takes away from larger more in-life concerns.
*I donāt really know what you call yourself stance-wise, Iāve only taken a cursory glance at your profile, so I donāt know if youād take the āgender criticalā moniker, itās just from what my limited knowledge suits what youāve seemed to be advocating for so Iām using it as shorthand. Apologies if jumped the gun on any assumptions. I just wanna understand the āTERFā ideology more from someone who seems willing to discuss it without resorting to likeā¦ name-calling. Thanks so much for reading.
I appreciate the sentiments in your first paragraph, but I do want to stand up for a lot of women on here. I think women who speak directly, and speak towards uncomfortable truths, are seen as "frothing at the mouth" when really, if taken the time to read their words in a reasonable tone, many will see that they're being completely reasonable. That being said, I do try to be diplomatic and even keel in good faith questions, so that you for recognizing that. I love questions! I love to chat with women and make good efforts at fostering well-meaning discourse.
I'm going to answer this from my perspective only and what I think. I'm not going to argue for what I think other people should think wrt feminist theory or anything of that nature.
"When it comes to believing trans women r biologically men and therefore should not be referred to as women etc" I don't think I've ever said this or agreed with this. My sticking point is that biological sex is immutable in humans. I must stand up for scientific facts. When people argue that trans women are female, I will always say no. No, they are not. This is not only obscuring basic scientific facts, it's also putting people at risk for all sort of medical mumbo jumbo and grifters and bad agents. Removing your breasts or penis does not change your sex. Your sex is in every chromosome in your body. This is significant because while male and female human bodies have most things in common, they have very significant differences that impact health. Woman is a word that functions both for its literal meaning, and it's social meaning. "Trans women are women" is divisive because it lacks clarity, and can be used to silence and harm female people dealing with female problems. Personally, I have no interest in arguing with an individual in their normal everyday life about how they personal identify. That's not my jam. If I meet a trans woman and they say "I'm a woman" I think in my mind that in some ways, yeah arguably that can be true. She's adopted the artifice of womanhood (or at least some of them have), and so she lives in a manufactured liminal space of sorts between man and woman, as a lot of regular people are going to perceive it. Here are a couple of asks I've gotten that might help you understand better how I approach this topic: "why can't there be room for trans women in feminism?" [x] "What influences you to use she/her for Jazz?" [x]
This is all to just inform the rest of my answer. Trans women experiencing violence because they're trans women is different than women experiencing violence because they're women, specifically because these two groups do not share the same sex. That doesn't mean the act of violence can't be the same. Beating someone up is beating someone up. Murdering someone is murdering someone. Sexual assault is sexual assault. "Cis" men can sexually assault other "cis" men, and do. This is wrong, and they should experience repercussions under the law. It doesn't make the victim a woman. The victim is a man who experienced sexual assault from a man.
Trans women are at risk for reasons that are similar and different than "cis" women. Trans women, and other gender non-compliant people, are seen as a danger to the status quo, and threaten the identities of heterosexual men who depend on their homophobia to embolden their self-perceived position of power in the world. This goes for both actual straight men, and men who are determined to present straight when they might not be (the reasons which are incredibly varied). This comes into play when trans women experience violence. They are experiencing homophobic violence. I will agree, it is intersected with misogyny, but it is indirect misogyny. Homophobia and misogyny are symbiotic systems, because they exist (in large part) to uphold Heterosexism, which is a necessary component of Patriarchy. Gayness is a threat to the patriarchal rule, because Patriarchy demands that women are essentially sexless, exist to breed for men's purposes, and that men must continue their lineage by having children. If gay men exist, that's a big threat to the entire idea, and if gay women exist, that a really really big threat to the entire idea. These things intersect and relate to each other, but it doesn't mean they're equivocal. It's important to define what's the same, what's different, and why they're different. Again, this is my personal perception, and while informed by things I've read over the years, I do not have specific sources to quote right now.
"Of course womanhood should not be defined by violence" this is always interesting to me because I've heard this exact phrase before in other anons. I think this is a talking point in gender circles, because frankly I don't think anything defines womanhood except being a woman and I have no anxiety over defining womanhood by violence or not. Everything women do, think, and experience is part of womanhood, and it includes everything humans are capable of. The only commonality between women is that they are women, and specifically female. That's womanhood: you are specifically female and you experience misogyny. I just find this a thought ending cliche because...I don't know, if women experience violence because they're women, then yeah womanhood is defined by violence in some part. But who's fault is that? Men. Okay, so I'll be angry at men. That is the oppression, isn't it? How dare they make violence a part of our existence. I won't feel shame, I'll feel anger...and righteously so! So, I agree it shouldn't, but I also think it is because men make it so.
I think there's a lot more I could say about some of the things you wrote, but I really have to get back to work. I do appreciate the question, and I'm sure people will say things in the notes (maybe even to yell at me...we'll see!!) Good questions, feel free to come back to get any more clarity. :)
āI wonder if Mother Nature resents that sheās been made to bear fruit. I know I would. I know if she ever goes barrenā¦ weāll deserve it. I wonāt be barren for a while. So I keep my gun under my bed. I keep my eyes to the sky.ā
Read āThe Earth Is Always A Womanā by Darya Foroohar in Total Woman Victory: Our Earth, Ourselves at totalwomanvictory.com!
āWomen are described in animal terms as pets, cows, sows, foxes, chicks, serpents, bitches, beavers, old bats, old hens, mother hens, pussycats, cats, cheetahs, bird-brains, and hare-brainsā¦āMother Natureā is raped, mastered, conquered, mined; her secrets are āpenetrated,ā her āwombā is to be put into the service of the āman of science.ā Virgin timber is felled, cut down; fertile soil is tilled, and land that lies āfallowā is ābarren,ā useless. The exploitation of nature and animals is justified by feminizing them; the exploitation of women is justified by naturalizing them.ā
ā Karen J. WarrenĀ Ecological FeminismĀ (via quoilecanard)
an excerpt |Ā read the full thread by eliza mondegreen
Phobia indoctrinationĀ instills irrational fears in members of a high-control group and uses those fears to manipulate members so they wonāt question the groupās beliefs or try to leave. Hereās what phobia indoctrination looks like in the trans community:
Telling community members that anyone who questions gender identity or transition (even if from a place of genuine care and concern) hates them, ādenies their existence,ā or even wants them dead.Ā
Pushing community members, especially naive children/young people, to cut themselves off from friends & loved ones who may question or contradict the trans community, or may simply fail to follow elaborate and bizarre protocols trans communities lead young members to expect.Ā
Creating the false impression of a trans murder epidemic, which binds members to the trans community & increases their fear of the outside world out of all proportion to actual risk.
Inflating suicide risk & presenting transition as the only alternative to suicide when it comes to dealing with gender dysphoria. This increases desperation to transition, suppresses questions or doubts a person may have, & pushes patients to conceal other issues from doctors.
Vilifying and attacking detransitioners as traitors and existential threats to the community, thus demonstrating to current members of the trans community *exactly what will happen to them* if they step out of line orāgod forbidāleave.
Teaching community members to bury their own questions and doubts by labeling any uncertainty about gender identity, transition, or community dynamics as manifestations of āinternalized transphobiaā that cause harm not just to the individual but to ALL TRANS PEOPLE.
This was probably my favorite thing I read yesterday thanks to the serendipity of what my friends share.
It is infuriating in so many ways, showing the misogyny in medicine, but it's also written in a delightful, funny way. Plus, it was truly educational, which I love. And I've studied these things pretty deeply.
Renee Stonebraker
Jul 02, 2026
"Adult women should not still be debating on what orgasms do or do not exist in the year 2026. In a time where science is trying to create artificial wombs, the fact that the bodies of over half the population are still considered medical mysteries has continued to disappoint me.
Unfortunately, I have to start with a horrific fact I stumbled upon.
If Youāve Had an Episiotomy, I Regret to Inform You
Theyāve been cutting blind. I hate to go in dry, but there is no other way to break this news. The first complete 3D map of the nerves inside the clitoral glans, which, yes, extends down and around to where they like to slice women open during childbirth, was not completed until March of 2026. As in, about four months ago at the time of this publication. Yeah.
In March 2026, a team of researchers at Amsterdam University Medical Center published the first complete 3D map of the nerves inside the clitoral glans.[1] They used a synchrotron, a machine that generates X-rays ten trillion times stronger than a conventional CT scanner, to image donated female pelvises at a resolution of 0.001 millimeters.[2] The map corrected multiple errors in existing medical literature. It revealed that the main sensory nerve of the clitoris doesnāt taper as it reaches the glans as previously believed. Instead it branches like a tree throughout the glans and extends further into the clitoral hood than anyone had documented.[3] It confirmed that the clitoris contains over 10,000 nerve fibers, with a nerve density up to 15 times greater than the penis.[4]
That last figure had previously been estimated using data from a cow. From 1976.[4]
The lead researcher, neuroscientist Ju Young Lee, said she was drawn to the project by a specific clinical horror: there was no comprehensive nerve map to perform an episiotomy.[5] Episiotomy is a surgical incision of the vaginal opening and perineum made during childbirth to widen the passage. It is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on women worldwide. Episiotomy rates range from roughly 10% of vaginal births in Sweden to 100% in Taiwan. For first-time mothers globally, rates range from 63% in South Africa to 100% in Guatemala.[6] Worldwide there are approximately 100 million vaginal deliveries per year.[7]
Leeās words, about what her research revealed: āWomen suffer from long-term side effects due to nerve damage.ā[5]
The nerve network that makes this possible runs through the pudendal nerve, which divides into three branches serving the entire perineal region: clitoral, perineal, and inferior rectal.[8] An episiotomy cuts into perineal tissue served by branches of the same nerve trunk that runs to the clitoris. A 2021 anatomical study that performed 61 incisions on 47 female cadavers found that mediolateral episiotomy incisions posed direct risk of injury to ipsilateral nerve, muscle, erectile, and gland tissues.[9] Surgeons performing this procedure were doing so without a complete map of the nerve architecture in the tissue they were cutting.
In contrast, the penis nerve network was mapped in 1982.[10] Four decades of a head start, even though the technology capable of mapping the clitoris at this resolution existed years before 2026. The donated pelvises came from standard anatomical donation programs. As the research team stated plainly: what changed wasnāt technological capacity. What changed was priority.[11]
Chronic Bean Neglect
I bet you werenāt expecting a brief history on the magic jelly bean, but here we are. You can examine your life choices when you finish this article and decide to drink a glass of wine while in a dissociative state.
In 1559, an Italian anatomist named Realdo Colombo announced he had discovered the vibration addict. He called it the seat of womenās delight, the love or sweetness of Venus, and he meant it as praise. Within two years his own successor at Padua, Gabriele Falloppio, the man the fallopian tubes are named after, was publicly disputing the claim, insisting heād written it up first and just sat on it for a decade. Falloppioās own student later formally accused Colombo of plagiarism. Three men, one organ, a fifteen year priority fight over who got to put his name on it.
Here is the part where I have to acknowledge the insanity: Three men fighting over who ādiscoveredā a completely visible piece of anatomy that most women locate in their preteens? Imagine if any amount of women were demanding recognition for ādiscoveringā a ballsack. Be so for real.
Anyways, Colomboās teacher was Andreas Vesalius, the most influential anatomist in Europe, the man whose textbooks shaped medicine for the next two centuries. Vesaliusās response to his own former studentās discovery was to deny the organ existed in healthy women at all. He called it āthis new and useless partā and classified it as a pathological abnormality, something that showed up only in hermaphrodites, not in normal female anatomy.[70] This is my official petition to add āthe Ben Shapiro of 1500s Italyā to his Wikipedia page.
So: discovered, disputed, plagiarized, and declared a birth defect, in that order, all within about fifteen years, in the 1500s. This set the medical communityās treatment of the devilās doorbell on a track that prevails even today.
Here is what we knew about the schamzĆ¼engelchen (enjoy your google) before 2026: not much, and some of what we thought we knew was wrong. Helen OāConnell, an Australian urologist, published the first thorough anatomical study of the magic button in 1998, revealing that prior anatomical atlases had either omitted it entirely or depicted a fraction of its actual structure.[12] OāConnell has described what followed as the little man in the canoe being ādeleted intellectually by the medical and scientific community, presumably aligning attitude to a societal ignorance.ā[13]
A 2018 study in the journal Sexual Medicine found that physical examination of the love skittle is neither commonly practiced nor routinely taught in gynecology training programs.[14] This is a gynecology training program. The specialty that exists specifically to treat female reproductive anatomy doesnāt teach the gatekeeper of good.
There are, as of 2026, 20 times more scientific papers on the penile glans than on the clitoral glans. As a reminder the hooded lady exists in over half the worldās population...."
It'd be nice if the "sex positivity" was about like...women demanding orgasms and pleasurable sex with their partners with the threat of kicking them to the curb if the don't deliver. Instead it shames women to accept whatever kink their partner has in the name of being "open-minded" and that they shouldn't prioritize having an orgasm anyway because "sex isn't all about orgasms". A woman wanting to have "vanilla" sex with her partner and still climax is viewed as boring. Like, if your male partner consistently gets off each time and you never do, why would you stay with that person if you're "sex positive"? Sure seems unfair to the woman in that situation, almost like it's just another way to get women to do only what men want in bed š¤.
This is specifically about that post that's been circulating radblr about the woman who broke her neck getting her hair pulled. She described their relationship sensually, called his penis a goddamn treasure, and then concluded the post saying he never made her cum once. So she was letting a man roughhouse her body for no pleasure in return and nobody seems to find that weird. Why was she with him at all? Why is her only comment on this situation to pull hair "safely"? He was hurting her and she admitted that she didn't even enjoy sex with him and nobody cares because they're "sex-positive". The sex positivity movement is fucking cancer.
I'm bringing this back because it still pisses me off and I feel it's relevant. This is how she starts out talking about sex with this guy:
One part that I didn't include was how she talked about greeting him at the door and he pretty much instantly initiated sex. The whole story makes her sound like a MRA's dream girl: she greets him in her own home wearing high heels and stylish clothes and makeup, has sex with him immediately without complaint, lets him do whatever he wants to get off, and barely even complains about the grievous injury she receives at his hands or the fact that she didn't orgasm once during her entire relationship with him. She mentions that he never thought of her pleasure like it was an afterthought to her, an additional strike against him but not enough on its own to be brought up. And despite that, despite her being a "cool girl" who he apparently said was "marriage material", he still drops her like she's nothing to him the moment she was injured because he obviously couldn't be bothered.
Even to the very end of her story, she doesn't think he did anything wrong by pulling her hair like that nor does she denounce "rough sex". All she talks about is how to pull hair "safely". Like....this is fucked up. How could you read this and not see that man as anything but a self-obsessed, misogynistic, abusive asshole despite all her attempts to paint him to the contrary? He literally fucked her when he felt like it, broke her neck, then left like it was none of his business.
This is what porn culture does to women: it makes them rationalize their own abuse because they and everyone around them continually justify it as normal and any serious incidents that occur because of "rough sex"/BDSM/etc are waved off as "dumb, badly-executed moves". This isn't healthy, you shouldn't wave off this kind of shit as just a mistake. I doubt this man was unaware of the amount of force he was pulling her hair with. Acting like it was completely unintentional is disingenuous. If it was really a mistake, if this dude had felt any remorse for what he did, he wouldn't have left her immediately after. This was a man who used a woman and then threw her away and he should be villified for that.
Male traditions of thievery are found among many peoples. In some South American tribes, the men describe suddenly raiding the women's part of a village and stealing "their things," including string and a flattened stick with which the men made a noisy instrument, a bull-roarer, which they then used to frighten the women. A global mythic tradition of men or boys stealing women's clothing, especially the clothing women leave on the river bank while they bathe, has been suggested by folklorist Martha Beckwith as the theft of menstrual garments. Unless the women gave some of theirs, menstrual blood for sorcery, healing, or magic could be acquired only by stealing. In the West, we might see a fragment of this tradition in college dormitory panty raids!
The male theft of fire, and the sun, is another theme common to myths across a variety of cultures. In a northern Asiatic tradition, Old Grandmother's grandson stole fire from her and burned down the world. Prometheus stole fire from the sun in Greeceāfrom the protomoon, men got the red fire, like blood. In one African myth, the culture hero Mokele "steals" the sun when he goes up a river and discovers the place where the sun lives in a cave. This act of differentiation of the sun surely means he "stole" it from the original protomoon of the female tradition. . . .
Raiding and stealing, always under specific rules, have primarily been men's work, part of men's story. In myths from China to South America, some male characters are thieves who take, not only the paraphernalia of women, but women themselves, queens renowned for their beauty and slaves from other tribes. In addition, they make off with fire, the sun, livestock, treasures, technologies. One effect of this was the accumulation of materials and ideas from many different places, combining and recombining to form mechanical arts and complex trades. Another was the dispersal of "women's stuff" and tribal arts, scattered out from the sacred huts into the secular world. Men, more often than women, have widely dispersed and recombined knowledge, craft, trade, and story.
-Judy Grahn, Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World
I'm a teenager and AFAB, and have been identifying as non binary and going by a different name for a few years now. However, I've never considered medical transition of any sort, I feel pretty confident in my body and no desire to change the way I express myself. I feel little to no gender dysphoria. I also have been telling people I go by any pronouns, I don't feel the need to correct anyone if they call me she.
I feel pretty secure in my gender nonconformity, but I have been wondering if I'm unintentionally pedaling gender stereotypes by identifying as non binary? I don't want to do harm or imply that a woman must be non-binary to excuse her gender nonconformity. I don't want to consider myself detrans, since I never *really* transitioned in the first place? š
My struggle is in regards to my name, I really prefer the new name that I've picked for myself since I began to identify differently. I feel disconnected from my given name, though I think that is more related to childhood trauma because of my parents rather than my gender. Would it be wrong of me to continue to use my chosen name as opposed to my given one?
I also am worried since A few of my closest friends are FTM trans, they seem remarkably secure in their identities, and I don't want to offend them or anything. Does this mean I should cut these people off or view them differently? I am distressed since my views on being transgender have changed drastically, though I truly respect these friends of mine and don't believe their identities are causing any harm.
I apologize if this is random, but I am seeking advice on what to do from people who are more open minded on the subject. I appreciate any guidance, and want to thank you for amplifying detrans voices!
Hi! I think it's great you're questioning things around you and asking for input from various places. That's always a good place to be at, imo.
To my mind, the short answer is yes, a nonbinary identity identifies under gender roles, thus endorsing them.
It's an attempt to separate oneself from what women find foisted upon ourselves, which is understandable, but saying 'I am not feminine therefore not a woman' logically implies 'women are feminine'.
I could ramble plenty here, about identifying outside the binary, identities, language, etc, but I think searching my blog for things like "language pronoun" or "nonbinary identity" will serve you (and ye lurkers) even better. I've collected so many amazing posts from so many amazing women writing about this stuff. (ex: x, x, x, x)
That being said, you can always pick a new name for yourself. You definitely don't need a gender identity or any reason at all to do that. I have a few; my given name with my family, a nickname certain friends have for me, a chosen name some other friends use, my stage name that people in my music life call me... this has been done since time immemorial. It's not unusual!
Oh and before I forget, the word for people who never meant to transition (or who did but never started) is "desisted" and detrans spaces often welcome them into their discussions and spaces :) the detrans subreddit even has user flairs for it.
As for your friends, only you can decide whether someone is a person you want in your life or not. I still have friends with gender identities, just like I have friends who are theists and atheists while I am agnostic. Some of them I have had to spend less time with as they get more and more into identifying with gender, which I've written about on here before, and some of them I've become closer with as we both defy expected gender roles, just in different ways. Friends come and go in life and I've found that true friendships have more to do with temperament, humor, choices, what stage of life you are in... who puts in the effort. I'm going through a hard time right now, and the friends who checked in on me are not the ones I would have expected. Time just sort of hammers that out for you as you go. Be kind, be there for your loved ones, and set good boundaries... and the rest will work itself out.
It can be really stressful to abolish or change how you think of yourself, but as you keep thinking and living intentionally you will discern some clarity on everything. Then hopefully some peace comes with it, and you can make space to think of new things and grow in new ways.
I hope my ramblings prove helpful. Wishing you well on your journey!
hairy women that aren't marooned ,disabled or homeless show the world how little they respect the feelings of people around them and so are naturally treated with less respect which is what these goofballs want anyway it makes them feel unique
why would someone have feelings about my body hair š¤Ø control yourself?
izzy806
titsay
jimmyeatworldofficial
prguitarman
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
