This post is 2 years old and it's still accurate. You still don't see woke people arguing for foster kids and former foster youth. You only see them using us as pawns in the abortion debate. Why is that?
I've seen feminists advocate for sex trafficking victims. Radfems in particular are excellent at bringing awareness to the harms of the sex industry. I realize that feminism has division however and that liberal feminists argue in favour of the sex industry (such as porn, Only Fans, prostitution which they call "sex work"). It's two completely different ideologues that are at odds with each other. Liberal feminists criticize radfems for being what they call "whorephobic" (I wish I were joking) or SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminist). Liberal feminists lack concern about sex trafficking victims and many sex trafficking victims have history in foster care (foster care is often considered the "pipeline" to sex trafficking).
However, liberal feminists are not ignorant of the foster care to sex trafficking pipeline. In fact that's one of the main reasons they bring up foster kids in the abortion debate. They argue that abortion is the merciful option. This argument suggests that death is the better alternative to becoming a sex trafficking victim and treats sexual abuse as an inevitable outcome for girls in foster care. So...following that logic, why aren't girls in foster care advocated for within the "inclusive feminist" framework?
I see feminists called out for racism, homophobia, or transphobia but diddly squat discourse for how feminists exclude girls from foster care. How curious.
Do former foster kids belong in feminism? It's hard to believe we do when the only time you mention us is to argue we are better off dead. Or arguing that we are "unloved" and "unwanted". It's interesting how much that contrasts with how Libs treat the topic of "trans kids". It's almost like "trans kids" are a sacred cow. Their slogans are "protect trans kids" - how funny how that contrasts with foster kids ("better off dead" or "unloved and unwanted").
I don't believe in the concept of a "trans kid" but it's interesting to hear that Libs think it's "abuse" for parents to not trans their child. If that is considered "abuse" then why don't libs argue that trans kids are "unloved and unwanted" and "better off aborted"? Seems like there's double standards. Isn't it odd how they cherry pick which sort of abused child to advocate for?
But no, I completely disagree with their backwards ideology. I think transing a child is in fact abuse and so is advocating for sex work. It's just interesting to me how they put so much energy behind pretending to advocate for certain groups like "trans kids" and demand "inclusion" but are completely malicious towards other groups. They are downright nasty to former foster kids. Every single time I confront libs/pro-choicers on the topic of foster care, they unleash so much abuse at me. Foster kids are not a sacred cow to libs that's for sure.











