gender is heterosexism

not a feminist. shame penis proselytizers and their apologists

[nakimushiga-ru]

Ive seen a couple of radfems saying that the primary goal of the trans movement is stopping/destroying feminism as it recieved a big boost in the mainstream after women started organizing more in ~2016, which contradicts your view. How would you react to that?

yeah i said the primary goal of STRAIGHT trans activism in recent years is to eliminate homosexuality. lesbian sexuality is the female-only space straight men want to get to first and foremost, and in order to do this better they are fighting for access to all female-only spaces like bathrooms, sports, prisons, and schools.  feminism is associated with lesbianism in the public consciousness (at least where i live), and that’s no coincidence, since feminism is about women liberating themselves from men, and living without men. many lesbians gravitate to feminism because of this. which is why straight men try to destroy feminism or demand (illogically) that they be included.

so i don’t think it contradicts my view. any attempt to destroy feminism (and backlash always occurs whenever feminist progress is made) is an attempt to prevent women living without men. trans activism targets feminists because the clear logic that “woman = adult human female” is an obstacle to their journey to the cotton ceiling.  transsexualism and transgenderism originally came about in response to gender (which feminists uses to criticise, but most online “radfems” don’t) rather than in response to feminists. they definitely are trying to destroy and delegitimise it, as the majority of straight people have done throughout history. but the primary goal still seems to be stopping ‘exclusive’ homosexuality.

[nakimushiga-ru]

the fact that these straight people latched on to the T in LGBT (which was same-sex attracted transsexuals) is clue enough that their motive is to eliminate homosexuality. that and the cotton ceiling referring to lesbian’s underwear. 

[she-volution-deactivated2022052]

i know i shouldn’t throw the word trauma around easily, but i think that girls fearing rape and forced pregnancy before they even turn into a teenager is actually traumatic, but society doesn’t discuss it much because 50% of the population experiences it. like we don’t really know how our minds have been affected by living in such a misogynistic world surrounded by people that we consider potential rapists, it must be bad, but it’s just so normalised, we act like it’s just another aspect of socialisation similar to girls being expected to like pink.

[elitisthomosexual]

Society doesn’t discuss it because it would undermine the narrative of the superiority of heterosexuality and the inherent natural goodness of hetero intercource.

You can’t put something on a pedestal, organize social life around it, and then admit the very reason you put it up there causes so much fear and misery in reality. Too much cognitive dissonance.

Discussing it would also acknowledge the kind of danger we put girls under when we allow males that can rape/impregnate them to live with them and even have authority over them. There goes the hetero family model, if you want to minize the risk of hetero sexual abuse of girls.

[buzzfeed]

[seraphic-sapphic-safehaven]

Do Not Interact + Before You Follow

DNI:

Exclusionists/REGs

Transphobes, enbyphobes, and exorsexists

Aphobes, lesbophobes, homophobes, biphobes, panphobes, queerphobes, etc.

Intersexists and dyadists

Anti-MOGAI

Anti sex work/SWERFs

Anti-mspec lesbians (i.e. bi/pan/ply/omni lesbians)

T(W)ERFs, radfems, febfems, and “gender critical” people

Transmisogynists, misogynists, and people who participate in misogynoir and/or transmisogynoir

Truscum/transmeds (trumeds) and trendermeds (Read about trendermeds here: x)

Anti-antis/pro-shippers

Xenophobes and racists (This includes people with racial “preferences,” unless you’re BIPOC who date within their race for safety and/or comfort reasons)

Colorists (Meaning if you participate in colorism and/or think that BIPOC who are light-skinned are affected by colorism)

Ableists

Fascists and White supremacists/neo-Nazis

Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters, etc.

“Meninists” and people who participate in/support MGTOW

Blue Lives Matter/police supporters/apologists

Anti-BLM

People who are anti-immigration

(NO)MAPs/pedophiles or supporters of them

Necrophiliacs and zoophiles (This also includes anyone who writes about, draws, reads about, or watches these things for pleasure)

Serial killer cultists/apologists

Pro-birthers/pro-life/anti-choice people

NSFW/18+/porn/kink blogs (including “SFW” kink/18+ blogs)

Fatphobes

Islamophobes and anti-Semites

DDLG/CGL(re) blogs, ABDL blogs, and people who are into ageplay

Non-system littles and “””SFW””” littles (Basically anyone who has appropriated the term “little” from the DID/OSDD community and pretends to be a child) 

Feederism/gainer blogs

Thinspo/pro-ana/pro-mia blogs

Anti-SJWs, anti-feminists, and White feminists

People who are “neutral” on discourse

If you follow and/or are friends with isappho

If you follow and/or are friends with transapphic (Read why here: x)

Onision fans/supporters

Cryaotic (Cry/ChaoticMonki) fans/supporters (Read why here: x)

Shane Dawson fans/supporters

Jeffree Star fans/supporters

People who support Emily Gwen AKA the creator of the orange and pink lesbian flag (Read why here: x, xx, xxx)

Biggest-gaudiest-patronuses (Gaud) followers/supporters (Read why here: x)

I-am-a-fish (Fish/Goldie Gurston) followers/supporters (Read why here: x)

If you wanna get into syscourse with me

If you use the term “cishet” to refer to anyone who isn’t a cisgender, heteroromantic, heterosexual person

If you think bi is an umbrella and that pan, ply, and omni are subsets of bi and/or think they’re microlabels

If you tag queer as ‘q slur,’ think it’s not an umbrella term and/or say people can’t/shouldn’t call themselves queer (If you tag it as “q word” or “queer,” that’s fine)

If you use the TERF slogan “_____ not queer” (Ex. “Lesbian not queer”)

If you call other LGBTQ+/queer people “kw*ers”

If you think it’s not transphobic to refuse to date trans and nonbinary people because of their genitals and/or their being trans/nonbinary (Genital preferences due to trauma are okay, though)

If you believe pansexuality is biphobic and transphobic/enbyphobic and if you believe bisexuality is transphobic/enbyphobic

If you think bi and pan are the same thing or that one is better than the other

If you think nonbinary people aren’t trans/can’t call themselves trans

If you’re against he/him lesbians and she/her gays

If you believe you need any kind of dysphoria to be trans/nonbinary, believe being trans/nonbinary is a mental illness, believe you have to medically transition/transition at all to be trans/nonbinary, and/or believe “transtrenders” are a thing

If you think butch, femme, dyke, and corrective r*pe are lesbian-exclusive terms and think that all queer people can’t use butch and femme

If you think cis heterosexual aros, cis heteroromantic aces, and cis aroaces aren’t LGBTQ+/queer

If you criticize the split attraction model, believe it’s harmful to the LGBTQ+ community, and/or believe it’s only for aspec people

If you believe that fiction doesn’t affect reality and believe that shipping pedophilia, incest, and/or abusive relationships is okay to do

If you think that pedophiles belong in the LGBTQ+ community

If you police trans and nonbinary people’s bodies, pronouns, names, presentations, etc.

If you call bi, pan, ace, aro, and queer people straight and/or say they have “straight-passing privilege”

If you call bi people bihets and pan people “pannies”

If you’re White and think your queerness absolves your racism

If you don’t support self diagnosis

If you use autism as a insult, support Autism Speaks, and/or think autism is a disease/think it needs to be cured

If you use the r slur when it’s not yours to reclaim

If you use other ableist language (Ex. Using the words “psycho” or “psychotic” to mean “bad/evil”)

If you demonize people with addictions and call them (or anyone really) things like “crackhead”

If you believe White people can experience racism/believe in “reverse racism”

If you refuse to learn the difference between prejudice and racism

If you demonize those with personality disorders like Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder by calling them abusive/manipulative/mean/etc. and/or criticizing them for lacking empathy

If you suicide bait people, send anon hate, and/or send death threats to people

If you’re an “Anyone can interact” type of blog

Ask to Interact:

Men, especially cishet men

Cishet women 

***Please note that if you belong to any of the groups under “Ask to Follow”, I’m only okay with you interacting (i.e. liking or reblogging) and/or following if you’re reblogging my posts for your sapphic friends or if you have your own LGBTQ+ positivity-type blog or tag. If you’re not here for any of those reasons, don’t bother asking; instead, please just leave my blog be. Thanks!***

♡♡ If you are a multigender (bigender, trigender, polygender, pangender, genderfluid, genderflux, etc.) sapphic and/or a sapphic alter in a traumagenic system (provided that you don’t have alters who break my DNI), you are 100% allowed to follow/interact!! ♡♡

BYF

[shatgender]

me tryna reach that 1000 word mark on my english essay

[elitisthomosexual]

This is what lesbians have to deal with because of bi women’s homophobia and very obsessive, creepy penis-pushing lesbophobia. This is what happens when we pretend there is such a thing as a coherent lesbian+bi group of “wlws“ and “sapphics“. We pretend this constant homophobia (including homophobic conversion activism) from bi women does not harm young and old lesbians and doesn’t destroy any attempt at building a lesbian community or even just a lesbian space.

If you use sapphic to refer to male attracted women btw, you aren’t better than those who use lesbian for male attracted women. You are in the same category as this OP.

[imanwithoutbowie-deactivated202]

[listening2lesbians]

France: Two lesbians attacked at an anti-LGBT demonstration

France: Two lesbians attacked at an anti-LGBT demonstration

The two lesbian activists told Ouest-France that they attended a LMPT rally on January 9 in Angers, western France. The two decided to counter-demonstrate with banners that read “Lesbians can be mothers without a father” and “It takes more than heterosexuality to be a good father.” They said that two men, who appeared to be with PMTCT, blocked them on the street. The men asked where the women…

View On WordPress

[elitisthomosexual]

“Lesbians can be mothers without a father”

“It takes more than heterosexuality to be a good father.”

Besides a few lesbians and a few gay men, apparently not even all or most,  most people disagree with these 2 phrases and plenty would turn violent if you expressed them. Heterosexism runs deep.

So deep that radfems who want to “liberate women and girls from patriarchy” ideologically stand with the violently homophobic hetero men in this case and not with the lesbians holding the banners.

[vladscastle-deactivated20231022]

almost this entire list is daughters being imprisoned and sexually tortured by their fathers but we cannot talk about the patriarchal family and women are as bad as men

[elitisthomosexual]

Patriarchal family? You mean the family headed by hetero couples right? We also must not excuse heterosexual and bisexual mothers that enable these situations or participate in them.

These men are not homosexual. At the same time the women who make it possible for them to do these atrocities are not homosexual either. So the common theme here is the non homosexuality of these daughter abusers, not their maleness.

If we hide the heterosexual part, we end up with radfems advocating for an idealized world of anti-gay eugenics with no bio kids born to homosexual people, but still imagining there can be a future with reformed heterosexual couples as heads of families.

[iameverysparklywoman]

one thing i do want to say though is i think as h*mosexual women but also just as women in general is that we need to recognize that “i’m not performing for men” is only one half of the picture. maybe you don’t want men’s approval but how much do you need women’s acceptance? how much are you smoking and drinking and doing coke and running and dieting and posting about forgetting to eat and performing other kinds of violence for the approval of other women? how much pressure do women put on you to negate the features of your body or your race or your sexuality or anything else…can you get away with stimming around other women? can you get away with not shaving? can you be around your female friends and feel fat without saying “i feel fat” so no one would mistake you for not punishing yourself for what is (erroneously) assumed to be a “transgression” of the body? can you look ugly and know that the female store clerk or the barista or the girl at the sink next to you or the girl on the bus with you or the girl with you on the elevator on the girl you have to squeeze past in the lecture hall to get out of the aisle will be kind and respectful to you and not act disgusted. can you be around your female family members without them commenting on your body? so much masochism and violence remain normalized among women because we say “well I’m not doing it for men, so it’s my choice” but how much are you doing out of a fear of women? 

[iameverysparklywoman]

and thats how things like makeup and shaving get baked into “feminist” rhetoric because we forget the degree to which feminity is enforced by other women, not men. so even for people who have no stake at all in being appealing to men…there’s still the threat of being punished by women. and every post that’s critical of makeup or whatever that ends up with reblogs that say things like “learn to do eyeliner ugly” or whatever stupid shit just proves that. we’re out here doing the same things we’ve always done we’ve just replaced “attracting men” with “placating other women” 

[professorsparklepants]

This reminds of something I read about how in India (and I believe China?) the main mistreatment of women in the home comes not from their husbands, but from their mother-in-law.

So. Don’t hurt yourself for other women, and don’t let yourself hurt other women.

[oscarorozcoorejel]

I just learned this in my gender of sociology class, it’s called policing of gender. It’s when you or other people around you force you to act in acceptable gender roles through passive or direct actions, anywhere from asking why a person acts like thst to just looking at them funny. The mist mest up part is how we do this to ourselves too, by not just second guessing our choices but also how we criticize ourselves because we don’t or don’t want to be performing a strict gender role. Like how you feel bad about not putting on makeup even though you don’t want to. This is internalized.

[elitisthomosexual]

When men do it to men and boys and punish them for not conforming to masculine standards, we call it homophobia and heterosexual anxiety.

When women do it to women and girls and punish them for not conforming to feminine standards, we remember misogyny instead of homophobia and heterosexual anxiety.

Gender analysis that lacks insight about heterosexism and non-homo privilege is useless. Not only to lesbians, but especially to lesbians. Your female family members will be the first ones to try to shame your homosexuality out of you and shape you to a proper young lady, aka a feminine heterosexual.They don’t do it because they are misogynists. They do it because they are heterosexists. Like dads who try to “toughen up” their sons to not end up gay.

If it’s homophobia when men do it to men/boys, then it’s homophobia when women do it to women/girls.

[pronounpin-deactivated20200801]

Gay people get turned out of our own community because we refuse to fuck the opposite sex. Hm.

[elitisthomosexual]

it’s not our own community anymore. It’s the bi and weird hetero community and since they are numerous and powerful, only gays who kowtow to them are not targeted for punishment. We allowed heterosexism in when we said the B has as much say as the LG in the community and now we are seeing the extent of the damage done.

[yooterus-deactivated20220126]

Honestly if you’re a straight/bi woman and you have the audacity to look a lesbian in the eyes and say “at least you don’t have to deal with men,” fuck you.

I’ve heard this from so many straight and even bi women and it never fails to absolutely astound me.

Lesbians have to deal with men fetishizing our relationships. Lesbians have to deal with men getting off to extremely inaccurate porn of us and then believing that that’s how we actually function. Lesbians have to deal with men correctively r*ping us. Lesbians have to deal with men invading our spaces. Lesbians have to deal with men making unwanted advances because they can’t get a straight girl and think our sexuality is up for challenge. Lesbians have to deal with men because we’re women and even we’re under their radar for physical, mental, and sexual abuse. 

Just because we don’t partner with men, doesn’t mean we don’t experience sexism or objectification or what-have-you. If anything, not partnering with men is the reason we face it. 

Please take your lesbophobia and eat it.

[elitisthomosexual]

Ah yes, a classic reversal that bihet women do. First they say the most dangerous thing a woman can do is reject a man and then they turn to lesbians and say that we have it easy and safe because we reject all men.

Heterosexual male violence doesn’t affect homosexual females’ lives somehow and hetero privilege is actually hetero oppression if you are a woman. When are they going to start calling misogyny actually heterophobia I wonder? The analysis is already there. They just don’t say it outloud yet.

[a-room-of-my-own]

Hey, what do you think of the idea that women are oppressed because of their biology? I have a friend and he supports feminism and equality for women, but thinks men are naturally advantaged over women because of their lack of periods, physical strength and characteristics and lack of pregnancy etc. which holds women back in the real world. What would you say?

I would tell him to imagine a world built around women and them to reconsider his own body if the female body was considered to be the ideal one.

Let's imagine a matriarchal society that would be a reverse patriarchy. If the inequality between men and women is sex based like in our world, then women would be considered better, the literal image of Goddess, because they can procreate. For centuries, men would have been taught that they're half human. They all come from a woman, they can't even create their own sons. All that translates in every aspect of life. At work everything is organized around women's comfort. They have days off when they have their periods, which is not at all a taboo subject but yet another proof of women's superiority over men. Men's strength is seen as a lack of subtlety, as a proof that men are made for physical work, not anything intellectual or complex or creative. After all, women being creators of life, they're naturally better artists, better scientists, better writers etc... When your body reflects the very Universe's creative force you can only understand it better than a mere man, right? It's just the laws of nature, nothing ideological to see here.

Men's bodies are also heavily criticized and judged, and only valued for their fertility. Men's sex organs are used as jokes or insults. It's widely accepted that penises are ugly, smelly, weird-looking and many beauty brands sell products to make them tolerable to women. Men must be muscular and strong to be considered handsome, but when they are they're considered vapid and stupid. Streets are covered with advertisements featuring half naked young men.

Men's specific health issues are not researched. For years scientists have been focusing on women, more important, more complex and men are only starting to raise awareness about their own problems. Most young men don't know the precise words to qualify their genitals. In fact, their whole genital area is called "penis" and that's it. Many don't know they have a prostate, what it's for and that it can get cancerous. It's generally accepted that everything linked to make genitalia is dirty and shameful and should not be discussed.

Men's sexual desire is also not discussed. People believed for a long time that men didn't enjoy sex. After all, they don't have a clitoris, and they're only there to give one cell. It's normal that the woman is the one to be rewarded with pleasure when she's the life giver. Young men are told sex will at best tingle a bit and sometimes hurt, and they accept it as a fact of life.

I could keep on building this alternate reality but I suppose you see my point. Our world is made for men. And not only is it made for men, it is misogynistic. So obviously, it's going to present our bodies as weak and unfit.

[bitterbadfem-harpy]

Imagine if we spent tens of thousands of years participating in an amateur eugenics project where we focused on breeding males that are small, weak, and suppliant. And what if we then starved them in their childhood and adolescence while reserving the largest portions and finest cuts for women and girl children, since they need to grow up big and strong to survive pregnancy and childbirth? And what if we didn't challenge this mindset, globally, for maybe fifty thousand years?

[elitisthomosexual]

I just love how this thought exercise creates a world that would be just as homophobic as our real world. Homosexual people would have no respite in this imagined world. What more proof do you need that homophobia doesn’t come from misogyny?

[elitisthomosexual]

Imagine thinking a man coming inside a woman’s vagina is such a complicated process that you need the technology of in vitro fertilization to replicate its results.

[hidetothink]

As women rightfully critique the misogyny surrounding male same-sex couples and surrogacy, I hope they will do so with a nuanced empathy and a recognition of deeply societal homophobia

Many gay men, myself included, have been beaten over the head about our inability to have children with our partners. I imagine bisexual men in same-sex relationships experience this as well. For millennia, the sin of homosexuality and all same-sex attraction was often the failure to produce offspring. Despite this, I rarely see such historic perspectives addressed when critiquing and analyzing suragacy

Simplifying this issue into just “men are obsessed with their genes and want bio kids because of it,” while conveniently ignoring the dynamics of homophobic oppression, is…lazy and unfairly inacurate

The abuse of women’s bodies, particularly disenfranchised women, is neither lessened nor erased by the history of homophobia. There exists no justification for treating women as objects, let alone medicine for gay and bi men and our experiences of homophobia

But untangling the mess of modern surrogacy and same-sex couples, without recognizing its complexity from every angle, feels deeply apathetic to same-sex couples and women, depending on which “side” is talking

But I will end on this: women are never a tool for soothing your internalized homophobia (regardless of whether you feel like it), and het-privilege always requires you to have intentional empathy and nuance (regardless of whether you feel like it)

[ms-hells-bells]

…..it’s not complex tho. no one has the right to use the female body as an object, especially not males. you feeling bad about that doesn’t change it, it adds zero to the discussion. males can’t have babies, that’s just life. 

of course, they shouldn’t be made to feel lesser for not having children, but the reality is that even if there was no homophobia, there’d be a lot of gay men that want to have a family, but can’t because biology. that is a fact that gay men have to come to terms with….for forever, basically. this is not het privilege, this is science. you’re not women, you can’t have kids.

your emotions that come with not being able to have kids are valid, just like that of infertile heterosexuals. it sucks, especially with the pressure, but these emotions do not shake the anti surrogacy stance in the slightest. of course anti surrogacy woman are angry at men that they think they have a right to the female body. surrogacy is on the same coin as prostitution, gay men who participate in surrogacy are the same as johns. they don’t think they’re bad people, they think that the women are consenting out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because of money, female socialisation, and/or family/friend group pressure, and they feel entitled to the female reproductive system.

tone policing and asking women who are fighting against their bodies being sold to have sympathy for the men buying their bodies because they have their own problems is absolutely male socialisation. no other group is asked to have this much consideration for the group exploiting them. and considering that a huge amount of radfems are lesbians and anti surrogacy, then “but the guilt since we can’t have kids” isn’t an excuse. homosexuality isn’t the common denominator for these expectations, being male is. many lesbian radfems even criticise and scrutinise the much less invasive and less ethically questionable sperm donation. 

in the ideal radfem world, not only would there be virtually no unwanted children born, but there’d be virtually no children up for adoption as a result. therefore, in the world that radfems are aiming for, unfortunately, most gay couples would have zero children at all, let alone biologically related ones. if this isn’t the world you want then maybe this isn’t the movement you should be orbiting. 

you can feel your feelings, but what matters most is not only the exploited women, but the resulting children. if there are straight women talking about how it’s disgusting that gay men are raising children, then that’s homophobia, but women saying “you men don’t get to feel entitled to women’s bodies just because you’re gay” is not homophobia. you  seem aware that straight women still oppress gay men, but the very thought of feeling upset that you can’t use the female body to get what you want is part of patriarchy and male privilege. you telling women we are required to be sympathetic to men because nature cock blocked them from biological parenthood is not it. whatever reason that men feel bad for not being able to produce offspring, that’s not our problem to deal with, we’re busy trying to stop a global human and infant trafficking and exploitation trade. 

homophobia is awful and obvious a point of intersection, but the homophobia intersection in feminism is meant for lesbians, not to deal with male specific issues. since you understand the nuance and complexity of emotions (i don’t mean this sarcastically, i genuinely mean it), why don’t you advocate as a sympathetic anti surrogacy advocate, and talk to gay men considering surrogacy from an empathetic but ethically opposed standpoint? gay men still have male socialisation, so they don’t listen to women, but you they might. maybe groups could be started where gay men (and possibly lesbians) talk about these issues and unfortunate things they may miss out on, but comfort each other and accept. that’s what infertile and sterile women do, there’s so many female infertility support groups. the vast majority don’t do surrogacy or even adopt, they just support each other and teach each other to find happiness elsewhere. males don’t seem to form this level of support or grouphood with each other. not to mention that infertile women face the exact same stigma surrounding offspring historically, and it used to even be one of the only reasons divorce could occur under religion, and there’s even a historical term for it (barren). maybe you guys could ask for advice and such from such women who are open about their experiences?

although i’m blunt and some of my words are harsh, i don’t mean this in an attacking or aggressive way, especially towards you specifically, just disagreement. i hope you understand what i’m trying to say. i tend to write a lot more than i mean to. i’m not mad at you, and i don’t want this to turn into a heated argument.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

Someone I once knew was a gay man, who coparented children with his partner and a lesbian couple. Both couples wanted children, they were good friends, so the men donated sperm and one of the women used it to get pregnant. The children grew up in the female couple’s home, but saw a great deal of their fathers, and they maintained a close relationship into adulthood. Not only did this mean that the children had four parents to support and raise them, it meant all four adults had the opportunity to raise children, without needing to separate the children from their biological mother, or rent her organs. In a future in which parenting is not a ‘nuclear family’ exclusive activity, it would presumably be wholly possible for gay men to care for children alongside their mother/s/other family, to the benefit of all involved.

[ms-hells-bells]

@morbidcorvidradfem

i didn’t mention those things, but i did think them, but didn’t add them since i was on the topic of surrogacy, but yes, there are gay and lesbian couples that share custody, although IVF (and surrogacy) increases risk of childhood cancer by 2x and of course the burden and risk falls 100% on the woman, and there may end up being moral dilemmas that arise if it becomes common practice, like lesbians being expected to do this, like how often women who have infertile relatives get pressured or socialised into accepting doing compassionate surrogacy. but apart from that it could work, especially with, like you said, the nuclear family no longer existing and so that leads me to your and my next point, which is child rearing. multiple species have the “gay uncle”, where in the group, a lone or homosexual paired animal (whether male or female) will “babysit” and care for the children of their relatives or community. some birds do this if the parents die or are away, and one of the more famous examples are wolves, who will have the mateless uncles stick with the pack (which is actually a nuclear family) as long as they aid in childcare. there are even examples in humans, where fa’fafine (i know, misogynistic gender group, but ignoring that) will partake in childrearing with the women, to give them help and breaks. 

a child doesn’t have to be your child to love and care for it, which i think is the big point regarding surrogacy. surrogacy is people wanting biologically related children. but there are things that matter more than that, like already living kids, a society and family structure that needs complete reformation, etc. it’s not that i think that gay men don’t deserve to care for and love children, it just won’t be in the way they envision [in the world/society we aim for], which is as a biological, nuclear family (at the expense of women). i hope this makes sense.

[elitisthomosexual]

Another homophobic drivel from you, while pretending you care for lesbians.

You push for a heterosexist world where gay people are satellites of the main family, which to you of course are the hetero breeding couples, not simply the mothers and their kids (just love this ideal radfem world where lesbians are only aunts but bihet men can be full parents). You bring up animals (of course not the animals with no fatherhood because that would threaten hetero coupledom and its self important heterosexist myth) and homophobic gender constructs from other cultures (which you call misogynistic even though it affects men who don’t fit only masculine gender roles).

there are gay and lesbian couples that share custody, although IVF (and surrogacy) increases risk of childhood cancer by 2x and of course the burden and risk falls 100% on the woman, and there may end up being moral dilemmas that arise if it becomes common practice, like lesbians being expected to do this,

What does IVF have to do with gay and lesbian couples sharing custody or helping each other reproduce?? All we need is a cup and a syringe to make a pregnancy happen, not IVF. Worry about the burdens and risk hetero sex puts on women and lesbians being expected to marry and have sex with men if they want to have kids.

a child doesn’t have to be your child to love and care for it

No shit?? Really? Maybe tell that to homophobes who treat the non biological parent in a same sex couple with kids as not a real parent. Or who create laws to prevent the non bio parent to legally be able to cover and care for their own kids that they are raising. You rememebr of course that a non bio parent exists in most homo parenting couples right? It’s not the gays that are obsessed with blood lineage and spreading their genes. It’s heterosexists. Gays and lesbians may choose biological parenthood (from one parent) exaclty because they know in many places it’s the only way, for at least one of them if they are a couple, to be able to protect their kids from governments and homophobes interfering in their family.

a society and family structure that needs complete reformation

The hetero family and all its structures, nuclear or extended, is the source of most problems for kids. Weren’t you radfems circulating that mexican feminist searching why there was so much sexual abuse of girls in extended hetero-headed families living together and the result was that girls had no privacy and so many bihet male relatives had access to them? Weren’t you the ones talking about Amish culture and how a huge portion of girls are sexually abused by their entire male family members who cohabitate with them and it’s widely known? You know where that happens the least? In lesbian households. Because bihet adult males are not cohabitating. How are you going to reform anything while in your ideal world it seems you’ll be allowing multiple hetero males to live where girls live and sleep and get naked? So worry about reforming heterosexuality’s issues first and again don’t worry about what family structures lesbians and gay men envision for ourselves.

[bornlesbian]

"but we're not forcing you to date trans women!"

[illalwaysbehere]

They always admit it, yet when we point it out, we're "making it up to make transwomen look bad". Hons, they make themselves look bad.

[rainbowsnviolets-deactivated202]

They are straight  people wanting to force gay people into conversion therapy... nothing new

[hidetothink]

As women rightfully critique the misogyny surrounding male same-sex couples and surrogacy, I hope they will do so with a nuanced empathy and a recognition of deeply societal homophobia

Many gay men, myself included, have been beaten over the head about our inability to have children with our partners. I imagine bisexual men in same-sex relationships experience this as well. For millennia, the sin of homosexuality and all same-sex attraction was often the failure to produce offspring. Despite this, I rarely see such historic perspectives addressed when critiquing and analyzing suragacy

Simplifying this issue into just "men are obsessed with their genes and want bio kids because of it," while conveniently ignoring the dynamics of homophobic oppression, is...lazy and unfairly inacurate

The abuse of women's bodies, particularly disenfranchised women, is neither lessened nor erased by the history of homophobia. There exists no justification for treating women as objects, let alone medicine for gay and bi men and our experiences of homophobia

But untangling the mess of modern surrogacy and same-sex couples, without recognizing its complexity from every angle, feels deeply apathetic to same-sex couples and women, depending on which "side" is talking

But I will end on this: women are never a tool for soothing your internalized homophobia (regardless of whether you feel like it), and het-privilege always requires you to have intentional empathy and nuance (regardless of whether you feel like it)

[ms-hells-bells]

.....it’s not complex tho. no one has the right to use the female body as an object, especially not males. you feeling bad about that doesn’t change it, it adds zero to the discussion. males can’t have babies, that’s just life. 

of course, they shouldn’t be made to feel lesser for not having children, but the reality is that even if there was no homophobia, there’d be a lot of gay men that want to have a family, but can’t because biology. that is a fact that gay men have to come to terms with....for forever, basically. this is not het privilege, this is science. you’re not women, you can’t have kids.

your emotions that come with not being able to have kids are valid, just like that of infertile heterosexuals. it sucks, especially with the pressure, but these emotions do not shake the anti surrogacy stance in the slightest. of course anti surrogacy woman are angry at men that they think they have a right to the female body. surrogacy is on the same coin as prostitution, gay men who participate in surrogacy are the same as johns. they don’t think they’re bad people, they think that the women are consenting out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because of money, female socialisation, and/or family/friend group pressure, and they feel entitled to the female reproductive system.

tone policing and asking women who are fighting against their bodies being sold to have sympathy for the men buying their bodies because they have their own problems is absolutely male socialisation. no other group is asked to have this much consideration for the group exploiting them. and considering that a huge amount of radfems are lesbians and anti surrogacy, then “but the guilt since we can’t have kids” isn’t an excuse. homosexuality isn’t the common denominator for these expectations, being male is. many lesbian radfems even criticise and scrutinise the much less invasive and less ethically questionable sperm donation. 

in the ideal radfem world, not only would there be virtually no unwanted children born, but there’d be virtually no children up for adoption as a result. therefore, in the world that radfems are aiming for, unfortunately, most gay couples would have zero children at all, let alone biologically related ones. if this isn’t the world you want then maybe this isn’t the movement you should be orbiting. 

you can feel your feelings, but what matters most is not only the exploited women, but the resulting children. if there are straight women talking about how it’s disgusting that gay men are raising children, then that’s homophobia, but women saying “you men don’t get to feel entitled to women’s bodies just because you’re gay” is not homophobia. you  seem aware that straight women still oppress gay men, but the very thought of feeling upset that you can’t use the female body to get what you want is part of patriarchy and male privilege. you telling women we are required to be sympathetic to men because nature cock blocked them from biological parenthood is not it. whatever reason that men feel bad for not being able to produce offspring, that’s not our problem to deal with, we’re busy trying to stop a global human and infant trafficking and exploitation trade. 

homophobia is awful and obvious a point of intersection, but the homophobia intersection in feminism is meant for lesbians, not to deal with male specific issues. since you understand the nuance and complexity of emotions (i don’t mean this sarcastically, i genuinely mean it), why don’t you advocate as a sympathetic anti surrogacy advocate, and talk to gay men considering surrogacy from an empathetic but ethically opposed standpoint? gay men still have male socialisation, so they don’t listen to women, but you they might. maybe groups could be started where gay men (and possibly lesbians) talk about these issues and unfortunate things they may miss out on, but comfort each other and accept. that’s what infertile and sterile women do, there’s so many female infertility support groups. the vast majority don’t do surrogacy or even adopt, they just support each other and teach each other to find happiness elsewhere. males don’t seem to form this level of support or grouphood with each other. not to mention that infertile women face the exact same stigma surrounding offspring historically, and it used to even be one of the only reasons divorce could occur under religion, and there’s even a historical term for it (barren). maybe you guys could ask for advice and such from such women who are open about their experiences?

although i’m blunt and some of my words are harsh, i don’t mean this in an attacking or aggressive way, especially towards you specifically, just disagreement. i hope you understand what i’m trying to say. i tend to write a lot more than i mean to. i’m not mad at you, and i don’t want this to turn into a heated argument.

[elitisthomosexual]

@hidetothink​ I am completely against surrogacy, but I had to respond to this homophobic drivel here.

males can’t have babies, that’s just life

there’d be a lot of gay men that want to have a family, but can’t because biology

your emotions that come with not being able to have kids are valid, just like that of infertile heterosexuals

No male can have a baby, so why are you implying that non gay men can have families and gay men can’t? What is the biological difference in the sex of gay men vs non gay men? Their reproductive function is the same, they produce sperm and that’s about it. Either no male can have a family or all sperm producing males can. Infertile heterosexuals are not remotely the same as fertile homosexuals.

surrogacy is on the same coin as prostitution

The most common form of surrogacy is through forced hetero marriage contract. Hetero men buy a bride/live-in-servant, sometimes even a girl child, that they impregnate at will and have absolute rights over the progeny she produces while she can be discarded easily. One surrogacy is private and exclusive under punishment of death often if the exclusivity is violated, the other is a short term contract. Both are bad.

many lesbian radfems even criticise and scrutinise the much less invasive and less ethically questionable sperm donation

Many eh? Lesbians or “polilez“? What is invasive about sperm donation? What is ethically questionable? Is it what conservatives and traditionalist homophobes find ethically questionable too? That a child will be raised outside of the heterosexual couple unit (even though sperm donation doesn’t mean the sperm donor is anonymous or won’t be in the life of the kid necessarily)? Do hetero radfems criticize/scrutinize reproduction through sex with random men that you won’t meet again? Or is that considered natural and a personal reproductive choice?

therefore, in the world that radfems are aiming for, unfortunately, most gay couples would have zero children at all, let alone biologically related ones

Gay couples as in male gay couples or same sex couples in general? Would social fatherhood still be a thing in the world radfems aim for? Will it be exclusive to non gay men because they made a direct in vagina donation instead of a cup donation? How do you plan to stop lesbians (or other women) from having kids with the sperm of gay men and maybe even rasing the kids as a team with them or even giving them kids to raise on their own? Are you really against patriarchy because you seem to only be against gay fatherhood? 

what matters most is not only the exploited women, but the resulting children

What is best for children? The hetero couple parenting unit? When research after reasearch shows that lesbian couples make the best homes and gay men make far and beyond better parents than hetero men? You radfems talk about global issues all the time, but it’s like you don’t even listen to yourselves. Child brides, forced marriages, forced pregnancies, trafficked children and women, hetero domestic abuse so high for pregnant women that is high on the top causes of death, countless murdered babies because they were not sons, countless attempted murdered babies and seriously abused/malnurished/neglected kids because they are not sons or despite being sons, unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies, hetero sexual abuse of girls with the cover of the whole family, so much child exploitation etc and you still think that has nothing to do with the hetero couple unit being judged and found lacking?

Do not pretend you care for the kids when you say similar stuff as conservative homophobes, that all children need a father and mother (and of course they have to be in a hetero relationhsip too) to grow up healthy.

the homophobia intersection in feminism is meant for lesbians

LMAO feminism? The movement who supports that the most oppressed women are the ones who love men and want to be with them and the most privileged are the lesbians? When many feminists don’t even acknowledge that lesbians can experience homophobia (especially not from non lesbian women, it’s all horizontal aggression don’t you know?) and that it’s just all misogyny? That feminism? Or the other kind with the feminist-but-not-a-manhating-lezbo feminism? Or the other with the TWAW and if you say no to sex with all of them then you deserve to die you fascist?

maybe groups could be started where gay men (and possibly lesbians) talk about these issues and unfortunate things they may miss out on, but comfort each other and accept

What exactly we may miss out on again? Reproduction that we don’t need hetero or bi people to achieve or something else? What do we need to accept? Non gay people’s homophobia and thinking they have a monopoly on having children? You seem to be thinking that we are less than biology wise? Maybe even unnatural? Do you think homosexual people are unfortunate for being homosexual?

I say all the above as a woman who is against surrogacy and who will never act on her fertility nor plans to adopt kids.

[lesbian-top-memes]

youre... spewing terf rhetoric bro. your implications are not pure.

Apparently knowing what the word ‘homosexual’ means is terf rhetoric now okay lol

[elitisthomosexual]

It is all about the survival/generation/growth of the species, never about the quality of life of the species. And let’s be honest it is not about the species at all, it is about your hetero superiority delusions, because we see how you actually treat children worldwide.