prioritize women

maia: 21 yr old female lesbian spent 5+ years subscribing to mainstream liberal feminism [a fellow libfem made a post about asexuality and a radfem replied agreeing to its content. the fellow libfem told this woman to "go get hit by a truck and die, terf" i clicked on that terf's blog and now i'm here] var fhs = document.createElement('script');var fhs_id = "5523233"; var ref = (''+document.referrer+'');var pn = window.location;var w_h = window.screen.width + " x " + window.screen.height; fhs.src = "//freehostedscripts.net/ocounter.php?site="+fhs_id+"&e1=&e2=&r="+ref+"&wh="+w_h+"&a=1&pn="+pn+""; document.head.appendChild(fhs);document.write(""); "how did you end up a radfem?" + intro

[feminismforlesbians]

the leaps and bounds this takes.

the ONLY reason their marriage is recognized as a gay one and the ONLY reason it falls under the provisions of same-sex marriage legislature is because he pursued a legal gender change on his birth certificate. if he had not done that, he would have been able to happily and easily marry his husband unhindered.

it is a co opting (somehow) of the oppression homosexual people must face every day. that provision is there because people of one birth sex were not allowed to marry someone of that same sex. they do not have the ability to simply opt out and marry the easy way. if that law were repealed this person could simply change back his birth certificate to “female”, and be fine.

homosexual people would not. they would be stuck as they are, delegated to lower social status simply for their same sex attraction and no way to escape it.

“legally” men. you take away the constructs of legalese and a male same-sex couple will still be viciously persecuted socially before a heterosexual couple because in the same-sex couple, both are men regardless of paperwork and checked boxes. it isn’t a choice or an identity.

for people like this to willfully opt into spaces and institutions made for homosexual people with no other way, and claim it is their own oppression.........no words. to then use it to somehow reaffirm that their shuffling of paperwork makes them the gender they see themselves as, instead of blatantly proving that the oppression of homosexual people underlies all of this first.....selfish. deluded.

i don’t wish trans people ill. please note in all of this i have never said anything threatening or caustic towards these people. they seem happy. live as you will. but do not insist on the invasion of spaces that aren’t yours or virtual signaling to further your own cause from those very spaces. it’s dangerous. it’s unfair.

[feminismforlesbians]

one of the things that drew me to gender crit circles was the opportunity for variety of thought and opinion. i mention it in my intro/origin post but in short, gender crit circles allow people to ask questions, disagree with others, and form their own personal and tailored opinions on subject without threat to life and health or accusations of squandered morality.

this is a small part of why it’s irked me that genderists will conflate a single gender critical comment or piece of rhetoric they’ve read with the whole ideology. they use one or two comments as proof of the whole and a giant scapegoat to spook anyone watching. they never think there might be a variety of option, a nuance to perspectives, deeper explanations for concise statements.

and i realize it’s because genderist circles are the greatest example of a hivemind. questions never asked, nonfacts always told. there is a constant flow of newer and broader information, more trans rhetoric, more dissolution of sex-based oppression and realities, etc etc etc. it is constant, but there is no dialogue. there are no variety of opinions or perspectives or personal depth to statements.

it’s a hivemind and they can only interact with differing views as if they too are a hivemind. and that it what is so hard to reach out and communicate with. the hivemind. it’s scary to watch and exhausting to deal with.

[feminismforlesbians]

all this painfully twisted “scandal” involving one iconicized childrens’ series author has done is reinvigorate my recently atrophied zeal for engaging online as a gender crit person

ie

i’m annoyed enough by the ridiculous backlash against jk rowling’s comments to (happily) start back up on this blog again. i have many asks crowding my inbox, some very old, but i’ll start by replying to those

happily i don’t think myself at all unique and imagine the high profile of the jk rowling controversy is going to draw more than a few other people out of the woods again (i hope)

here we go, everyone

[feminismforlesbians]

people: anti-vaxxers are irrational and dangerous! they blatantly ignore science and fact, backed by decades of research and empirical evidence!

the same people: biological sex is a myth. chromosomes and sex characteristics don’t matter. citing biological sex is an attack and offensive. eradicate the use of biological sex.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I always find it kind of weird that matriarchal cultures in fiction are always “women fight and hunt, men stay home and care for the babies” because world-building-wise, it makes no sense

think about it. like, assuming that gender even works the same in this fantasy culture as it does in ours, with gender conflated with sex (because let’s be real, all of these stories assume that), men wouldn’t be the ones to make the babies, so why would they be the ones to care for the babies? why is fighting and hunting necessary for leadership?

writing a matriarchy this way is just lazy, because you’re just taking the patriarchy and just swapping the people in it, rather than actually swapping the culture. especially when there are so many other cool things you could explore. like, what if it’s not a swap of roles but of what society deems important?

maybe a matriarchy would have hunting and fighting be part of the man’s job, but undervalued. like taking the trash out or cleaning toilets: necessary, but gross, and not noble or interesting. maybe farming is now the most important thing, and is given a lot of spiritual and cultural weight.

how would law work? what crimes would exist, and what things would be considered too trivial to make illegal? who gets what property? why?

how would religion work? how would you mark time or the passage into adulthood? what would marriage look like? if bloodlines are through the mother, bastardy wouldn’t even be a concept - how does that work?

what qualities would be most important in a person? how would you define strength or leadership? what knowledge would be the most coveted and protected? what acts or roles are considered useless or degrading?

like, you can’t just take our current society and say you’re turning it on its head when you’re just regurgitating it wholesale. you have to really think about why things are the way they are and change that. 

[wondrousworldbuilding]

This.

[kitchenalia]

misogyny is not “hatred of the feminine,” it’s hatred of women. femininity is what is associated with women (because femininity has been pushed on women as a gender role). men can be hated for being feminine, but that doesn’t rewrite the entire meaning of misogyny and who its primary targets are

[kitchenalia]

if it was hatred of the feminine, then masculine women would have been loved/celebrated throughout history, wouldn’t they? so why wasn’t that the case?

[vladtheunfollower]

remember when Julia Serrano said misogyny was hatred of the feminine and also went on to coin “transmisogyny” using this concept

[feminismforlesbians]

stop treating lesbians as though they are the enemies

[feminismforlesbians]

lesbian is not a dirty word. lesbian is not a threat. lesbian is not alien. stop saying that is an offense when a lesbian proclaims happily that she loves being a lesbian, rather than she loves being gay or q*eer or wlw or whatever it is that is more palatable to you. it isn’t about you, or anyone else. it’s about her, and her lesbianism. stop replacing “lesbian” with “q*eer” or “wlw” when “lesbian” would be the most appropriate term, particularly when a woman has explicitly identified herself as a lesbian. do not then reference her as anything but lesbian, or ask that she define herself any other way. stop making such efforts to use the word lesbian. if you feel discomfort at the word lesbian, ask yourself why. because the reality is that it harms no one for lesbians to be lesbians and for lesbians to be shown basic respect of having their identity spoken of without the hesistiant tone of a taboo.

lesbian is not a dirty word.

[feminismforlesbians]

asexual people do not have a “better” claim to the strength of saying no to sex or to the importance of active consent compared non-asexual people. if a person says no to sex, they mean no, and it is not quantifiable based on asexuality or non-asexuality. it is absolute.

[feminismforlesbians]

@punkwithametalarm can you please tell me how this is “anti-ace”? it’s a statement that everyone’s claim to consent and saying no is equally important. there is often rhetoric that because someone is asexual, when they say no to a sexual advance, it means more, or it is worse when their rebuff is trespassed and they are assaulted. i am stating any person, asexual or otherwise, has an equal right to sexual boundaries and has been equally assaulted when their sexual boundaries are violated.

how is that anti-ace? do you believe that asexual people do have more a right to say no, or that violation of their saying no is somehow different from those of a non-asexual person? do you believe that the quality and validity of consent is different because of a person’s identity, rather than absolute as a basic human right?

where is it anti-ace?

[feminismforlesbians]

@punkwithametalarm I didn’t say that asexual people as a group act in any such way. In fact, I didn’t imply that to be asexual was to hold this perspective. I said “there is often rhetoric”, referring to commentary I have seen repeatedly by both asexual and non asexual people which either insinuates or directly asserts that consent takes on a different value when a person is asexual. That is a problem. That commentary, that perspective. I was making a statement about a broader concept, not attacking asexual people for being asexual, which would be “anti-ace”.

I’m validating the equal importance of consent and saying no amongst any single person, as a human right. Discussions which suggest that for any reason, one type of person has a better claim to this right than another are damaging.

This isn’t “anti-ace”. Asexuality used in direct reference to the topic at hand, so it isn’t out of place in the general “asexuality” tag. I could see your point if I had explicitly tagged it as “asexual positivity” or “ace positivity”, but I didn’t.

This post isn’t attacking asexual people for their asexuality, so if you did actually agree with my point, that consent is absolute regardless of individual identity, then this post shouldn’t be seen as some sort of threat, because it’s not.

You’ve skipped over the point of the post, made fallacious assumptions about the content with disregard to the words actually said. I wasn’t being “anti-ace”. Don’t accuse me of being so.

[feminismforlesbians]

asexual people do not have a “better” claim to the strength of saying no to sex or to the importance of active consent compared non-asexual people. if a person says no to sex, they mean no, and it is not quantifiable based on asexuality or non-asexuality. it is absolute.

[feminismforlesbians]

@punkwithametalarm can you please tell me how this is “anti-ace”? it’s a statement that everyone’s claim to consent and saying no is equally important. there is often rhetoric that because someone is asexual, when they say no to a sexual advance, it means more, or it is worse when their rebuff is trespassed and they are assaulted. i am stating any person, asexual or otherwise, has an equal right to sexual boundaries and has been equally assaulted when their sexual boundaries are violated.

how is that anti-ace? do you believe that asexual people do have more a right to say no, or that violation of their saying no is somehow different from those of a non-asexual person? do you believe that the quality and validity of consent is different because of a person’s identity, rather than absolute as a basic human right?

where is it anti-ace?

[feminismforlesbians]

rape apology/rape culture perpetuation people like to claim isn’t rape apology/rape culture perpetuation (trigger warning for descriptions of rape):

“it’s worse to be raped if you are asexual”

“it’s worse to be raped if you are a lesbian”

“it’s worse to be raped if you are a straight man”

“it’s worse to be raped if you are trans”

“it’s worse to be raped if you are a virgin”

“it’s worse to be raped if you are religious”

“it’s better to be raped while drunk, intoxicated, or unconscious”

“rape isn’t as bad if the person didn’t actively resist”

“rape isn’t as bad if the rapist is a significant other or friend”

“it’s worse to be raped anally than vaginally”

“rape isn’t as bad if you experience arousal or orgasm at any point”

“rape isn’t as bad if you have enjoyed or fantastized about kink-involved sex acts”

“if you didn’t develop formally recognized ptsd after being raped, it wasn’t as bad as if you had”

“people working as prostitutes have less of a claim to rape experiences”

“people who hold values or opinions i disagree with are less deserving of compassion and justice as rape victims”

“people who can talk about their rape are less traumatized/violated than people who cannot”

(note: if you are a rape victim and have said these things, i am not suggesting you are less so of a rape victim. such a statement would belong with the former. there are many ways these statements are used or formed and i am suggesting reevaluating of how or why you have used it, rather than accusing you of being a blanket rape apologist. it’s easy to develop these perspectives, but very possible to reorient them as well. further, this is not the same thing as being a rape victim and experiencing personal feelings that your rape was less valid, or resenting those who experienced it differently. that is an individual struggle, separate from antagonized expression of irrational statements for the uses described at the end of this post.)

these things are not the same as acknowledging vulnerabilities in certain populations—such as those of economic, social, and cultural groups—which heighten risk of rape, decrease access to support resources, or lend to the nature/circumstance of rape

these things are not the same as recognizing the added sufferings of those who do not achieve justice in the capture or punishment of their rapist, who do not receive adequate support and care, and who develop ptsd or chronically impaired quality of life

this type of acknowledgement is an evaluation of a systemic problem. the above statements are direct invalidation of the actual act of rape and suggest certain kinds of rape are more excusable, thereby destabilizing the important reality that rape is rape and all people who have been raped are equally raped and all rapists are equally rapists

most people who make these kinds of statements or similar believe they are not acting towards rape apology or contributing to rape culture because they are using these statements to support another argument or point, such as validation of oppression, of injustice, and of privilege. this is disgusting because it works at the expense of rape victims, and encourages rapists to view themselves as less guilty than “other” kinds of rapists, allowing them to rationalize their assaults. this in turn mars the argument itself, because its now built upon rape apology and rape culture. it is self-serving and cruel.

rape is rape

rape is rape

rape is rape

discuss the systemic causes and results of rape. do not discuss the severity or validity of actual rape experiences. the former targets rapists, the latter targets rape victims. don’t confuse the two.

[feminismforlesbians]

asexual people do not have a “better” claim to the strength of saying no to sex or to the importance of active consent compared non-asexual people. if a person says no to sex, they mean no, and it is not quantifiable based on asexuality or non-asexuality. it is absolute.

[feminismforlesbians]

@satanaei did you even read the post? are you telling me to shut up about the validity of consent regardless of sexuality or identity? are you calling me an idiot because i pointed out that being asexual doesn’t give a person a stronger right to say no? this post wasn’t about gender or trans issues, yet you’ve surmised i am a “terf”—i won’t get into what made you check my blog to vilify me because i’ve played that game before, but it seems that it’s easier for you to attack me simply for that than address my point. what about this makes me an idiot? what does this point have anything to do with my being a “terf”?

i’m talking about consent and sexual boundaries and you’re telling me to shut up. i wouldn’t call myself the idiot here.

also very classy to block me immediately after replying my post so i couldn’t @ you. really shows your maturity to reply with baseless insults to a rational argument then block a person so that you can blissfully pretend you’ve won some perceived battle.

[feminismforlesbians]

asexual people do not have a “better” claim to the strength of saying no to sex or to the importance of active consent compared non-asexual people. if a person says no to sex, they mean no, and it is not quantifiable based on asexuality or non-asexuality. it is absolute.

[feminismforlesbians]

any statement, implication, point, counterpoint, or deliberation concerning whether rape, in any context or from any side of any argument, is “worse” for a certain person or type of person is disgusting and never justified or reasonable and if you think otherwise, reevaluate your morals

[feminismforlesbians]

it’s less than a week into pride month and i’ve already lost count of the number of ways gay people have been shamed into relinquishing their personal boundaries, integrity, and group identity under the pretense of “inclusivity” and “welcoming everyone” by implying that to do otherwise shows a lack of respect, as though it is impossible to be kind and respectful while maintaining actual pride

[feminismforlesbians]

the vehicle used to reinforce oppression is not the target of oppression itself

the vehicle used to reinforce oppression is not the target of oppression itself

the vehicle used to reinforce oppression is not the target of oppression itself

[feminismforlesbians]

woman, the gender—defined by your behavior, appearance, personality, “feeling” etc female, the sex—defined by the innate, concrete and physical realities of biological sex independent of individual lifestyle, psychology, or appearance one definition attempts to dictate what women must be “like” and implies they are not women if they do not conform to it, the other definition grounds women in reality and affords the autonomy of their biology while freeing them from social constructs attached to it which is one is the misogynistic crap again?