Sade Olutola
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
⁂
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Claire Keane
Xuebing Du
Misplaced Lens Cap
titsay
Game of Thrones Daily
sheepfilms
Today's Document
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
tumblr dot com
ojovivo
occasionally subtle
$LAYYYTER
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
oozey mess
No title available
almost home
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
@feministnova
distressing how many trans women I've met who are in extremely long-term relationships with TME people where she's basically just their servant and sex toy. you don't have to put up with that!!!! leave!!!!!!!!
this has haunted me all week. trans women need to be freed right now
this post is crazy you people literally say the same exact thing about lesbians who don't want to fuck trans women
queer allies as a rule have got to get more normal about the idea that trans women can have periods
anyway trans women please learn from the mistake i make literally every single month without fail: if you get these random bouts of feeling really fucking hopeless about everything and they're basically monthly it might be the fact that you are on your period at the moment and you've missed it because you don't bleed and (if you're anything like me) the physical symptoms start AFTER the emotional ones by like three or four days
you will be alright. eat something sugary and go play a board or video game with someone. consider magnesium and b complex supplements please. for me
Wait, I need to google something
Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for teaching me something new, OP.
I wonder if the TERFs know about this...
yes we are aware that no one on this website has even a basic understanding of biology or what is scientifically physically possible
Yet another new study debunked the basis for the anti-trans sports bans. It was never about sports but for creating legal avenues for exclusion and abjection. This is one of the largest analyses ever conducted, involving 52 studies and 6,485 trans people. Read the study here.
post so nice had to reblog it twice and force it down everyone's throats
post so nice had to
reblog it twice and force it
down everyone’s throats
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
>Only 16 studies incorporated any form of physical activity assessment. Among these, two exclusively recruited amateur athletes, and another reported that they included only sedentary individuals
>Methods for assessing physical activity levels varied: three studies used weekly METs (metabolic equivalents); three applied the Baecke questionnaire (mean scores); two reported the percentage or number of ‘active’ participants; two documented weekly exercise frequency; two measured weekly exercise duration; one used the Sport Index (mean scores); one used Saltin-Grimby scale (categorising their activity as sedentary, some physical activity or regular physical); one simply noted ‘regular physical activity’ without further detail, and one reported including only sedentary individuals.
>Only a minority of studies (n=7) applied statistical adjustments for confounders in the outcome analyses. The most frequently adjusted variables were body composition (eg, lean or fat mass), age, hormone levels (eg, testosterone) and nutrient intake (eg, protein, vitamin D). Additionally, one study adjusted for cardiovascular variables, such as stroke volume, in analyses of maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max).
>20 studies lacked dropout data, 11 reported none and 4 had significant attrition (≥20 participants) and 1 had minimal dropouts (n=2).
>Regarding outcomes and measurement methods, studies assessed body composition (n=52), muscular strength (n=21) and aerobic capacity (n=8) (online supplemental table S5). DXA was the most used tool for assessing body composition (n=38), followed by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (n=7). Upper-body strength was primarily evaluated using handgrip dynamometry (n=19), with either hydraulic or electronic devices. A smaller number of studies assessed lower-body strength, assessed mainly through countermovement jump (n=5) and aerobic capacity assessed through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (n=5) or 1.5 mile run time (n=2).
>Transgender women demonstrated higher absolute lean mass (kg) compared with cisgender women
>No significant differences were observed between transgender women and cisgender women in absolute fat mass (kg)
A lot of this is just comparing body composition which is not necessarily the most relevant metric to consider here re: elite athlete performance.
>Transgender women had a lower upper-body strength than cisgender men
>Transgender women exhibited lower lower-body strength than cisgender men
>Transgender men exhibited lower upper-body strength compared with cisgender men
>No significant differences were observed between transgender men and cisgender women in absolute fat mass
>Longitudinal analysis of cross-sex hormone therapy in transgender women: baseline to 1 year.No significant change was observed for relative lean mass.These results remained consistent across all categories. The same applies for the three year period studied
>Risk of bias
Quality scores ranged from 10 to 19, with most studies rated as high (70.6%; n=12) or fair (17.6%; n=3), and 11.8% as low quality (n=2) for cross-sectional studies. Using AXIS, the most common weaknesses identified in the articles were the lack of justification of the sample size (n=13) and the use of a convenience sample (n=15).
Among cohort and quasi-experimental studies, 65.6% exhibited moderate ROB, with limitations concerning confounding (15/32 studies, 46.8%, moderate risk) and selective reporting (22/32 studies, 68.8%, moderate risk). Bias in participant selection, intervention classification and deviations from intended interventions were predominantly low risk (24/32, 75%; 25/32, 78.1%; 30/32, 93.8%, respectively).
All RCTs were classified as some concerns. Methodological concerns primarily stemmed from selection of the reported result (3/3 studies, 100%, some concerns); deviation from intended interventions (3/3 studies, 100%, some concerns); and randomisation process (2/3 studies, 66.6%, some concerns).
>The primary findings indicate that transgender women exhibit body composition distinct from both cisgender men and cisgender women. Specifically, transgender women possess significantly higher fat mass than cisgender men but levels comparable to cisgender women. Regarding lean mass, transgender women show values significantly higher than cisgender women but significantly lower than cisgender men. Of relevance, despite differences in lean mass, no significant differences were found in upper-body or lower-body strength between transgender women and cisgender women
>Because the lean mass and performance data were not necessarily derived from the same cohorts or study designs, direct correlations between muscle mass and functional strength cannot be inferred
>This systematic review aligns with previous ones in highlighting critical research limitations. This includes the typically short study durations (<3 years) and a lack of data on elite athletes.
>The limitations of this review are related to the identified gaps in literature and include.....the reliance on lean mass and strength as proxies for performance, rather than sport-specific outcomes (eg, race times, power output), which limits practical importance to real-world sport scenarios....studies with small sample sizes and unmeasured confounding were included, potentially leading to overestimated results due to heterogeneity, sampling error and/or publication bias.
Yes it is very cool and important that this is being studied! I'm open to whatever findings are made! But can people not act like this is some grand study that establishes trans women are on even ground with cis women in all sports and competing together is fair and that they have absolutely no advantages. The reporting on this is extremely biased.
there is a very particular sense of entitlement abusive parents have over their afab kids bodies. a young closeted trans guy might go out and get a buzz cut and his mom will react as if she herself was forced at gunpoint to get her hair cut on top of losing all her limbs at the same time. yes. the reaction can look like this.
yes that’s the enforcement of femininity on female children, a major element of patriarchy’s oppression of female people, a phenomenon feminists have been writing about and discussing for decades. Why are we re-inventing the wheel here folks
The frustrating thing is that while some trans men can attain a level of social privilege from being viewed as male, even if every trans man passed perfectly it wouldn’t mean we could escape. T won’t make me more likely to survive a car crash when vehicles aren’t made for my body, it won’t allow me autonomy over my uterus, it won’t stop misogynistic abuse from anyone who finds out I’m trans or knew me pre-transition. For trans men outside of the imperial core, he/him pronouns in English don’t save them from forced marriage, pregnancy, honor killings, acid attacks, FGM, etc they are protected from fucking NONE of it. The only privilege we could ever achieve on the basis of gender is some men being nicer to us when we hide our identities and pasts. We will never be able to attain the privilege of having the world be built for us and our bodies unless we overhaul the whole system.
I think the issue a lot of liberals have with radfem views on porn and sex work is because they think we’re blaming the women in the situation, instead of the men. When we say we’re anti sex work, they view it as anti sex worker. Which isn’t the case. They think when we’re anti porn, we’re anti porn actress. Which of course isn’t true either.
They view us as puritans, who hate the women forced into these jobs, and believe we think of them as “sluts” and “whores” and that our issue stems from keeping women “pure” by having them never have sex. That is, of course, not the focus. The focus is the men that force them into these horrible situations.
We want to ban porn and prostitution because there is no way to fully protect all the women involved. As long as it’s legal and thriving, women will be trafficked and forced into it. Even on the buyers end, the people paying for services, need to be removed because you can’t pay for consent. If you have to pay for someone to agree, that is called bribery, (is illegal), and does not equal consent.
Radfems want to support and uplift all women, and a huge focus of that is supporting the women of the porn industry! We don’t want to get rid of porn because we don’t think women should have sex, we want to get rid of it because men are abusing, trafficking, and raping women in the name of sex work/porn!
Hopefully I did a decent job at explaining, I’m writing this at my job #my job
Dude some things cannot be satirized, and the sexy bimbo woman is one of them. You literally cannot draw or create a woman sexy enough or stupid enough that it will make men not want to fuck her or realize how crazy cum brained male attraction to women is. Men will fuck anyone and anything, I wish women would stop trying to make commentary on it when it's only getting men off. Think of Karen from Mean Girls or Jessica Rabbit. I'm certain y'all can think of a few animes that would fit this category.
You also cannot make a proper satire out of women simping for male approval when women literally shave off their own bones to appear more petite and appealing to men and literally defend rapists like their lives depend on it. Our reality is beyond satire or parody.
Op makes fantastic points. You cannot satirise femininity on women without literally serving up a new sex kitten for them on a silver plate. Because women have been satirising ourselves for men, it's just expected.
This might derail (!!!) but now that I think about it, this is part of the reason drag pisses me off. Because in that case, it's the men doing the mockery of "no matter how extreme I am about femininity, it will always be fuckable," via making it campy, when from the start it's always been men mocking it, and it's always women that it eventually affects. It feels demeaning, because as the oppressor, they're shaping it, not subverting it. Similarly with male-written characters like Jessica Rabbit.
They're "satirising" femininity by putting drag on a man, sure. But that's us reading into it. They're actually doing it because they like being sexy and ditzy and doing it under the shield of hip pads and silicon breasts, not as themselves in all their maleness, which would actually do the vulnerable commentary. No, they're doing it as their woman-sonas.
Do you think these men seriously sat down and thought: "women are oppressed in this way. Let me show my support by showing how ridiculous it is on someone it's not supposed to be on" or do you think they thought "oh wow, women are so sexy to men. I want to be a ditzy whore too." (The amount of drag queens that have talked about having sex in drag might tip you off. What enjoyment/allyship do they get out of that?)
They're the footsoldiers for this "bimbo empowerment" theory. There's no real commentary, but women lap it up because they see it as men lowering themselves to our struggles in solidarity, which is all we get from them. And if men do it, well golly. It must be valid. Drag makeup is bascially expected now, "cunt" was popularised because of them, and it's because femininity has become so extreme as the norm that women feel solidarity with these showboating males for making fun of it. Catharsis, I think you could call it.
And so, what happens? Women feel their societal load lightened. It doesn't crush them so much. They see it more often, on the gatekeepers of what's valid: men. Why not continue on doing it, feeling a little better about the masks they don every morning at 6am?
The "satirising" has made it more common and expected.
Like op said, making pop-culture characters exude extreme femininity never satirisies it. It's exactly in line with what pornography pushes. It's exactly in line with the patriarchy. Women literally kill themselves trying to be this standard. You simply cannot push it further than that. But men do anyway, for their own enjoyment: because what's sexier than a humiliated woman? If you're not getting off to her, you're getting off to being her.
The whole idea of “being born in the wrong body” is just so...religious.
Like you actually believe your consciousness is ontologically distinct from and was created temporally prior to your physical body? Like it existed before your brain was formed, and at some point during the gestation period or birth or something your physical body was ensouled or your consciousness was somehow placed in or added to your physical body? Who did that? How did that happen? How did your consciousness get in the wrong one? Are you suggesting some realm where all consciousness just float around and get a ticket for a specific body and sometimes there’s a mix up? Are you implying a god who just drops you into some empty, mindless corpse and sometimes doesn’t look before he tosses the soul on in there?
And somehow the nervous system and the impact of hormones on your mental and emotional functions, and the fact that we learn, experience, and cognize our entire lived experience through external stimuli and sensory reception does absolutely nothing to your argument? Like... the fact that the release of hormones which causes different emotions and mental responses are largely triggered by different external stimuli first experienced by your physical body doesnt mean anything for that?
AND Even if we did have separately created, ontologically distinct immaterial souls or consciousnesses why on earth would they be sexually differentiated? How or why would some consciousness formed completely independently and distinct from any physical body have any idea of which sex it was supposed to be? Did some god tell you that too, like “hey you’re supposed to go into a female body just so you know, that’s why you like flowers and the color pink?”
Sexual differentiation in animals is for the purpose of reproduction, and thus, depends on the specific mammals’ physical biology—whether they provide the ingredient to fertilize the egg, or whether they carry or gestate the egg is essentially what sexual differentiation boils down to, and thus, is concerned with the physical body (ie chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs). So, how the heck would any signifying characteristic of sexual differentiation exist in something transcendent of the material world? What sort of characteristic or attribute or whatever exists independent of and separate from the physical, material world which denotes, or is indicative of, a specific sex?!
Any way you construe the whole “born in the wrong body” idea at some point falls beyond reason, at some point in the rationale, it fails, and there’s no way to further explain it...just like religion, where no matter how long you try to debate the existence of god, it always comes down to the person you’re arguing with saying “well you just have to take it on faith. God transcends our understanding” ...and as a general rule I don’t let religion and any premise you have to accept on faith, or premise which is based on accepting the truth of its conclusion to overrule scientifically demonstrable and empirically observable truths.
Of course you feel disconnected from your gender it’s quite literally a made up set of rules based on stereotypes
A lot of women seem to believe that all the other women around them are just empty-brained and superficial. Probably thanks to all the vapid, shallow female representations we get in the media. But it jumps out so starkly whenever any woman argues that no woman can survive without a male or without love, as if women were empty, directionless without a man to guide them; or whenever a woman complains that making friends is hard because other women just gossip or are less interesting than a man.
This is not about liking every woman that you meet. But at least try to recognise that all women have thoughts and dreams and passions and aspirations — which might not align with yours but which don’t make them stupid or vapid if you don’t share the same concerns. I don’t understand how women could keep dating men, and yet I don’t rush to declare all women dating men useless and brain-dead. I don’t get how a woman could wear a ton of make-up daily, but that doesn’t stop me from holding conversations with women who do so. How come so many women, who on one hand decry their oppression at the hands of men and the fact that men paint them as inferior, lowly creatures, on the other hand so readily turn around and do the exact same thing to their fellow women?
It apparently bears repeating, but all women are thinking, feeling full human beings with complex thoughts and reasons. Not being able to relate does not mean that there is nothing to relate to. I’m not saying that you have to care, but at least don’t do men’s work for them. We already have half of the world’s population thinking we’re dumb, no need to add to it.
Crazy how “people deserve respect regardless if you find them fuckable” changed to “you need to find someone fuckable if you think they deserve dignity and respect” real quick in feminist and LGBT spaces. :/
It’s crazy how “no means no” turned into “you have violent internalized biases you need to reflect on” real quick in feminist and LGBT spaces.
It’s crazy how “your sexual boundaries aren’t public negotiation” and “no means no” turned into “your preferences are violently bigoted and exclusionary” real quick in feminist and LGBT spaces. ://////
It’s crazy how “homosexuality is beautiful and normal” turned into “genital fetishism”, “conditioned associations”, and “preferences” real quick in feminist and LGBT spaces.
It’s crazy how “rape culture is wrong” turned into “there are other ways to have sex”, “you don’t have to be attracted to someone to have sex with them”, and “kink-shaming” real quick in LGBT and feminist spaces. :///////////////////
“the trend of young women wanting to wear tankinis instead of bikinis is a conservatism indicator-” SHUT UP!!! some of us want to be able to actually play and run and swim without having to constantly adjust straps and check to make sure a nipple or a lip hasn’t fucking slipped out! maybe it is a conservatism indicator on some level but guess what?! maybe just maybe this particular trend is a net good for women in this liberal feminist hellscape. maybe catering to exactly what men want by being uncomfortable and self-conscious and damn near fucking NAKED over our own comfort and functionality isn’t actually an indicator of PROGRESS
inspired by @abeldamsblog 🖤
Het 4B radfem here and love my febfem + lesbian sisters. 💕
Im the one on the left ヽ(･ω･´)ノ
Not to get too gender on main but a lot of the TERF discourse around trans men reminds me a lot of when I was a teenager and every female relative I had complained constantly about how awful bras were and how much they hated wearing them but then when I said I didn’t want to wear one at all, they got real mad
This is such a profound misunderstanding of radical feminism.
This isn’t about your aunties that made you wear a bra.
This is about gender ideology saying “if you stop wearing a bra it makes you a man” which is a lot closer to the aunties than you think.
Radical feminists say ditch the bra- you’ll still be a woman without it.
Do we even have a chance not to suffer?
Sources:
Winterberry Family Medicine. (2022, February 22). Kids who want to be thin may gain more weight as adults. Retrieved from https://www.winterberrymedical.ca/2022/02/22/kids-who-want-to-be-thin-may-gain-more-weight-as-adults/
National Organization for Women (NOW). (n.d.). Get the Facts: Love Your Body Campaign. Retrieved from https://now.org/now-foundation/love-your-body/love-your-body-whats-it-all-about/get-the-facts/ 
The Times. (2025, April 28). What’s making our daughters so miserable? Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/daughters-miserable-tgb8cds06 
Joanne Kathleen Rowling (Also known as Robert Galbraith) enjoys having friendly conversations with Matthew Paul "16 year olds want to get pregnant" Walsh about their shared views on transgenderism...so maybe you should find a new feminist icon to obsess about?
You know, the funny thing is, i usually just delete asks like yours, cause i'm so boooooored and tired with you all proudly ignorant morons repeating each other's fairy tales in my inbox. But this morning, i don't know, i woke up early, the sun is shining, it's Friday, my pants fit great on my ass: call it whatever but i was like, "eh, why not answer, just this once"? And that's how i discovered the Rowling Index! A website which provides you quotes from JKR. Like all the quotes. It's amazing! Look, here, we have that whole twitter thread in a readable, non tweet format!
Can you imagine that i've spent all these years not using this wonderful ressource to debunk your bullshit quickly and easily?? Now thanks to you, as an obsessive JK Rowling fan, my self-appointed task is gonna be so much easier. So thank you!
honestly i feel like yeah current gender ideology has roots in misogyny but i think we spend way too much time caring about women trying to identify out of womanhood when we should really just be focusing on men being demons. trans men/transmascs/nonbinary women etc are not our enemies. sure sometimes they aren't helping the cause but they're still not the actual enemy here. can we maybe start thinking about them like they're actually people because they're really not the ones who are the problem here.
