PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Peter Solarz
NASA
blake kathryn
No title available
art blog(derogatory)
šŖ¼
Origami Around
titsay
Cosmic Funnies
No title available
PR's Tumblrdome
Today's Document
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Janaina Medeiros
Sweet Seals For You, Always
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
No title available
Product Placement
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Hungary
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Kazakhstan
@evilrosamundpike
"Transandrophobia exists" is a TERF belief. Make no fucking mistake. Sex based oppression at the core of your ideology? You're a TERF.
It took about 12 years of gradual erosion of feminist language to get to the āsaying it out loudā point, but Iām glad weāre here.
"sabrina carpenter's intention-" sabrina carpenter is a marketing technique. her schtick was invented by a label (men) for mass consumption. they had a vision for a pop star to fill a market niche and hired sabrina for it. she has professional male songwriters on all of her songs, she's styled by men, produced by men, marketed by men. i guarantee that album cover was a man's idea. she's not some solo indie artist she's a product that men made to sell to women
A play in three acts
Nowhere did she say there was a biological requirement. You saw the word "transitioned" and assumed it was a "biological" requirement because YOU see gender as biological (spoiler: you're incorrect).
So someone who was born female and never transitioned can be a trans woman?
No one is "born female," newborn babies have gender imposed on them. If someone had the gender "female" imposed on her as a baby and has never disagreed with the imposition of that gender, then she's not Trans, no. Cisgender people, generally speaking, are those who agree with the gender imposed on them in infancy, while transgender people are those who, in some way, disagree with the gender imposed on them in infancy. Some people may have had more than one gender imposed on them in infancy or childhood, or be part of a multigendered system, and may not fit neatly into the binary of "cisgender" or transgender." But the difference isn't biological, it's the relationship the individual has to the gender imposed on them in infancy.
So first of all, āfemaleā and āmaleā are not genders, theyāre biological sexes. You keep accusing us of conflating sex and gender, when YOU are the ones doing that.
Secondly, a female child being observed to be biologically female at birth isnāt āimposing genderā on her. What is imposing gender on her are the misogynistic stereotypes and roles that will be conditioned into her from birth. That she will be taught that she has to take responsibility for boys misbehavior, when the teacher sits boys who act up next to her. That she will be taught to put up with boysā disrespect towards her by being told, āheās mean to you because he likes you!ā That she will be taught that she has to wear makeup, shave her legs, look āfeminineā and attractive to men in order to be a āgoodā woman.
Of course many women and girls reject the gender norms imposed onto them; these norms are based on misogyny and upholding patriarchy. A woman rejecting these roles is a completely normal and natural reaction to the realization of her own oppression, and how poorly women are treated in society. Her rejection of gender roles does not make her ālessā of a woman, and to even imply this is misogyny of the highest order. Gender nonconforming women are still women. But a man who chooses to conform to the gender norms stereotypically assigned to women does not, and will never make him a woman.
""Biological sex"" is also a social construct, actually. That some babies are born with different external genitals than other babies is no more relevant than the fact that some babies are born with attached earlobes and some are not. But we don't give children different names, pronouns, clothing, birth certificates, or categories based on whether they were born with attached earlobes. We don't have separate bathrooms for people with attached and detached earlobes. Your obsession with putting babies into categories based on what's under their diapers is just as unhinged, actually.
Funny how all the the babies murdered in the name of the Ā«Ā One Child PolicyĀ Ā» in China were RANDOMLY and completely BY CHANCE on the same Ā«Ā sideĀ Ā» of that Ā«Ā social constructĀ Ā».
Thereās MUST BE something Ā«Ā no more relevantĀ Ā» about FgM, rape, child marriage, domestic violences, forced childbirth and nursing and so so that ties all of the victims together but WHAT CAN IT BEEEEEE š¤
... yeah... that's how social constructs work... they're used to oppress people... you got it...
Just like race, and class, and nationality, and every other category that humans have invented to create a structure justifying the oppression of other humans.
Except that everything Iāve cited have happened to a Ā«Ā special category of peopleĀ Ā» regardless of race, class, nationality, and even time. So, what ties the victims together ? Do we randomly pick them ? How come all those things always happens to the same category of people if thereās Ā«Ā nothing more relevant about them than having attached earlobes or notĀ Ā» ?
Is it a kind of roulette ? Ā«Ā This one will be forced to give birth, be the victim of domestic violence,raped, have no rightās whatsoever since the dawn of timesĀ and this one wonāt. Donāt ask me why. Nothing relevant.Ā Ā»
Yeah, the category we're talking about is assigned gender, which is an oppressive social construct just like race, class, and nationality.
So... the solution... is to stop... assigning... gender... to babies...
Again, if thereās no Ā«Ā relevant differenceĀ Ā» out of the Ā«Ā social constructĀ Ā», how did we knew who to oppress ? How come itās been the SAME PEOPLE, regardless of time period, culture, religion, race and so on ?
I thought that Ā«Ā a lot of cultures had different views on genderĀ Ā» yadayadayada, so why even in those cultures itās always the same people that are the one being raped and forced to birth and deemed disgusting and impure a certain time of the month ?
Also, before that social construct, when Ā«Ā we installed itĀ Ā», if thereās NO RELEVANT DIFFERENCE, how did we know WHO would be the opress or and WHO would be the oppressed ? Heads or tails ?
Why does a baby born on land on one side of a line someone drew on a map have fewer rights than a baby born on land on another side of a line someone drew on a map? Is that because of an Intrinsic Biological Difference?
Human-Made society decided to put baby humans in categories based on vaguely guessing what reproductive role they would play as adults. That's bizarre. You want to perpetuate that arbitrary system of categorization whose sole function is to oppress people, and somehow call it "feminist." That's more bizarre.
so when europeans came to africa and conquered african nations only to completely fuck with the nation lines, they did all this randomly? they just did it because they're cartoon villains who love committing evil for the sake of it? there's no reason, perhaps one backed by a combination of calculated greed and a lack of empathy, they went in and grouped different african peoples who didn't even share a language nor a culture to create totally new nations? hmmm. i see. so if we simply got rid of borders in the first place, then the exploitation of regions by world powers would stop happening. because there's no other reason the world powers are exploiting those areas, of course. there's no other reason why these world powers moved these nation lines around in the first place, right?
likewise, your understanding of sexist oppression is that it only happens because humans like to categorize things based off of...apparently arbitrary...traits. so your suggestion is, if we stop categorizing babies, then the oppression of specifically one type of baby will suddenly stop.
because there's no other reason that one type of baby is oppressed. it's just because of the categorization, right? so if you get rid of the categorization (and keep the gender roles because some people are affirmed by them for some reason, kind of odd for a system of categorization that's based on such arbitrary, unpredictable traits but whatever) the oppression will disappear. is this genuinely your understanding of how misogynistic oppression works?
totally unrelated and arbitrary additional question: do you happen to be five years old?
"Yeah, the category we're talking about is assigned gender, which is an oppressive social construct just like race, class, and nationality" @hyperlexichypatia
Explain to me how race is a social construct just like gender and consequentially why you advocate for the possibility of transgender but not transracial.
Race is absolutely a social construct. People aren't "biologically" a "race" any more than they're "biologically" a nationality or a social class or a gender.
You didn't answer me.
I did. Race is a social construct. Gender is a social construct. Neither is an objective biological category, even if they frequently correlate with (not "are defined by") certain physical traits like skin color or genitals.
The social construct of race functions differently than the social construct of gender, but they are both categories invented by hierarchical (patriarchal, racist) societies in order to oppress people.
You still didn't answer me.
A trans woman is murdered and the framing is still about his sexuality instead of her life.
this is what people mean when they talk about violence being minimized.
she gets reduced to a "secret,"
he gets centered as someone with a "motive."
no.
this is transmisogyny, plain and simple.
a woman was killed because someone was more afraid of being perceived than of taking her life.
say her name with the same weight you give his charges.
A man killed another man in a context of homophobia and selfish self-preservation in male power structures.
Absolutely no women were involved.
This man did not die due to 'transmisogyny'. He died because another man was ashamed of having sex with men and was a sociopathic fuck.
Obscuring the victim and causes does nobody service and minimises the scope of male violence and the specific violence suffered by women.
You're not a radical feminist you fuckass troll.
āHow dare you call suicide selfish youāve obviously never been suicidalā no so Iāve been suicidal and definitely still think that a man killing himself in the family room of his wifeās dream house leaving her so traumatized she has to move is selfish.
A man commits suicide and it must be the womanās fault
It bothers me when communication suffers because I'm speaking from a purely biological, medical, literal standpoint when others are coming from a more metaphysical place.
There was a thing on Reddit (my first mistake, I know) with someone saying they dislike "women create life" ideas because it places our value on our reproductive capacity rather than our own lives. I agree with the core of that. However, I also noted that I can see the value in "women create life" points when it is not used to devalue us otherwise but rather to discuss male womb envy, male entitlement to that reproduction, co-opting of biological history by patriarchal religions with male creator gods, acting like women don't contribute to humanity when women literally do contribute humanity itself (in addition to our other achievements).
I spoke on how women do put in 100% of the nutrients and biological material that goes into making a fetus, literally creating it. People in the comments said that was not "creation" any more than a 3D printer "creates" a product. They said that because there isn't conscious input/thought or intentional design on the mother's part, she wasn't really "creating." They spoke of wombs like passive incubators perfect for containing a fetus and said the maternal system doesn't create anything, even the placenta. They said that's why ectopic pregnancies are dangerous, as if the problem is that, unlike normal pregancies, they drain maternal nutrients, not just the mechanical disruptions.
To the design point, I said there is no designer but evolution, and that was when I understood that we were just on totally different viewpoints of the issue. "Design" doesn't need to come into it unless you're getting religious about it. "Creating life," in this context, will never include design. I said all pregnancies, ectopic or not, pull from maternal nutrition and can cause health problems. The placenta isn't just chilling there in the uterus, totally fetal-derived and contained. Even more than some other animals, human placentation is a highly enmeshed weave of fetal and maternal interface. We're hemochorial for fucks sake!
Am I crazy? (No.) This was the childfree sub, where people are usually ok, so fuck me if I expected better than this dehumanizing way of speaking. The mother doesn't create the fetus? Just a printer and incubator? They fucking sound like men who claim the baby is the winning sperm, that they "put a baby in her." If "women create life" is disagreeable because it places life-creation as the only thing women should be valued for, say that, but the solution isn't to pretend life doesn't come from the female body.
Anyway, that's my rant. Other rad gyns have thoughts on this?
combat boots r so sexy it's so upsetting guys don't really wear them a lot anymore
Men should not wear shoes or go outside
you do not get to destroy other peoples bodies
Itās not that bad. Theyāll be fine without shoes.
my professor called andrea dworkin āanti-funā and i feel like that is an accurate depiction of where liberal feminism is at right now
>spent her life crusading against the sexual exploitation of women >āanti-funā
iām concerned about their idea of fun!
According to my grandmother, who met her in person, she in fact had a wicked sense of humour.
Reminds me of what @savingseeds23ās has written about. Queer theory is all about being playful. It evades any serious discourse, and criticizes any serious discourse. Itās not meant to be a tool to analyze oppression. It functions as a toy.
I saw this thing about MJ a few years back when Leaving Neverland first was released that has become my go to when people try to explain away having literal csam or sharing a bed with a kid as him being ājust childishā or āautistic and children just understood him more than adultsā is imagine if that was your neighbor.
Imagine if it was your stringy combover beer gut beady eyed handlebar mustached sweaty neighbor. Does it still feel okay to have a book of recline posed naked little boys in his porn cabinet? Does it still feel like heās just autistic that there were his fingerprints AND childrenās in his porn magazines? Does it still feel okay to sleep with a kid in the same bed for a month?
no joke i've seen plenty of lefties call aborting after a down syndrome test "genocide" and "eugenics" and post shit like "imagine if my mom aborted me just because i was autistic.....#SoSad" like there is definitely a wider discussion to be had about destigmatizing developmental disabilities and neurodivergence but truly shocking that the conclusion they come to is to force people to give birth. or at the very least guilt them into it
Because using the female body for the betterment of an underrepresented group is not alien to the left. Thats why the Tylenol fiasco was interpreted to be an attack against autistic people when instead it was a clearly targeted attack against women. Because the fact that the right wants to control the female body isnt wrong (really I only believe leftists are for abortion because it can benefit men and credits their group with morality) whats wrong is HOW they utilize the female body.
Like can you imagine if women had lesbian cruising, nude beaches, clubs, dark rooms, bath houses....I want to be sexually liberated and feel safe, but every avenue to do so had been completely infiltrated by males. It feels impossible.
Men create worker's unions because they know people have power in numbers. Then they trap their wives in the home and weigh them down with kids, refusing to pick up the household duties for a day so she can go out with friends.
Wonder why...
Don't forget about putting women against each other for male attention
You may think that all of this is an exaggeration but I literally was standing in the kitchen while my uncle gave this "advice" to my brother.
This is also why "transfeminists" are so heavily opposed to any and all female only spaces including spaces by and for transmascs.
For male supremacy to thrive (and make no mistake "transfeminism" is a branch of male supremacy) the female sex cannot under any circumstance be allowed to collect without male supervision.
the female sex, even when supportive of/participants in trans ideology have to be prevented from gaining any form of class consciousness. If we are allowed to speak to one another without a male there to shut us down if we start getting "TERFy" (i.e acknowledging sex based oppression in any capacity) then we might challenge male supremacy and undermine the patriarchal control trans identified males hold over the female sex
female class consciousness is so low and female separatism so unpopular and yet so important because women are constantly kept isolated from each other. the female can only exist in relation to the male (what De Beauvoir calls the Absolute/Subject and the Object). there is no female liberation without us reclaiming our place as Subjects, as individuals.
Insecure men will very often try to sound intelligent by using larger words, often incorrectly, and thatās why TIMs canāt go 30 seconds in a conversation without using the word āontologicallyā
twitter discoursing and calling the commenter evil and bitter everyone weigh in with their take im nosy
They definitely have the charismatic leader(s) thing, it's transwomen in general. Their voices are obeyed above all others, they are always exalted in "queer" group dynamics, they're excessively fawned over and doted on by the in-group, they have mantras proliferated and chanted for them, criticism of them is forbidden, they can virtually do no wrong, patterns of their abuse/harm are constantly covered up and excused, they have all the grandiosity, control of information, they're given credit for huge achievements they didn't actually achieve to the point of mythology (ie the Stonewall myth "we owe them our rights"), they're allowed to rewrite history, naysayers are threatened, dogpiled, attacked etc
