Don&#x27;t sweep conflict under the rug. Face it.

You believe that there are certain FOODS that if you like them, it proves you are a girl rather than a boy?

Of course not. Isolated traits aren’t indicative of gender at all. Anyone can prefer certain foods, friends, toys, whatever.

This isn’t a predictive study, where the results say “if you like pineapple you are more likely to have woman energy™.” What I’m interpreting is that the overall patterns of behavior support the idea of a shared psychological characteristic (gender identity), especially considering that the trans kids already self identified as trans.

You asked how could a transwoman simply be a woman without any other shared characteristics. This study proves that there are other shared characteristics.

But how? How are you saying that? If you're saying any preference or behavior is not indicative of anything, but if you do enough of the ones you've decided are "woman psychology behavior patterns" that proves you share those patterns with women. That's still just sexism.

The only way that works is if you are saying those preferences for toys and (I can't even imagine *what*) foods, etc are a 'woman pattern,' and that is literally sexism. Those preferences are not shared by every woman or even most women. They are stereotypes, and since I can't even imagine what kind of food you would put in a category of 'things boys like' vs 'things girls like,' they are not even culturally common stereotypes.

@iamphobephobic5

#thank you for responding #discussion

Sorry for the wait.

This isn’t data I decided indicates someone’s gender. In fact I meant to convey the opposite, that I don’t think any trait or group of traits can predict gender. Which I admittedly did a bad job at conveying.

I’m not sure how food plays into it either, but traits like preferring to make friends with girls seems more like preference and socialization than internalized sexism. I think that these preferences are the result of gender identity, rather than gender identity being caused by these preferences. As in, I don’t think that children go “I like dolls, therefore I am a girl.” but rather “I want to feel close to this group, and this group likes these things, so I’ll try these things too,” and may be subconsciously primed to like said things more (and this is a very simplified example, as I am not a psychologist and don’t know how the subconscious works). That may play into stereotypes, but it’s not the origin.

And again, I’m not saying this is what everyone does all the time. Not every woman, trans or otherwise, likes to play with dolls, or make friends with girls, etc.

Am I making sense?

iamphobephobic

@lotyba

"For example, transgender girls, just like cisgender girls, preferred to be friends with other girls and they tended to prefer toys and foods that other girls liked."

Is that really internalized sexism?

You believe that there are certain FOODS that if you like them, it proves you are a girl rather than a boy?

Of course not. Isolated traits aren’t indicative of gender at all. Anyone can prefer certain foods, friends, toys, whatever.

This isn’t a predictive study, where the results say “if you like pineapple you are more likely to have woman energy™.” What I’m interpreting is that the overall patterns of behavior support the idea of a shared psychological characteristic (gender identity), especially considering that the trans kids already self identified as trans.

You asked how could a transwoman simply be a woman without any other shared characteristics. This study proves that there are other shared characteristics.

cam1lla

“Authors should not be ALLOWED to write about–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“This book should be taken off of shelves for featuring–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“Schools shouldn’t teach this book in class because–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“Nobody actually likes or wants to read classics because they’re–” you are an anti-intellectual and an idiot

“I only read YA fantasy books because every classic novel or work of literary fiction is problematic and features–” you are an anti-intellectual and you are robbing yourself of the full richness of the human experience.

moonshinemagpie

"you are functionally a conservative" is such a good and clarifying insult

Literally right after I saw this post, I saw another post in a discord chat for BOOK EDITORS in which an outspokenly liberal editor talked about how Nabokov should have never been published because he wrote about p*dophiles and described women's bodies in ways that made her uncomfortable. She described his writing as "objectively terrible" and said she wanted to burn his books. And other editors were bringing up classics they didn't like and talking about how they wanted to throw them in the trash. This wasn't like a light "unpopular opinion!" conversation. This was actual book editors talking about how books should be destroyed and censored.

There is something so scary and toxic in global culture right now. The revival of fascism is influencing everyone's mindset and approach to art, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

I see far more books being censored today than when I was a kid. Librarians handed me The Catcher in the Rye, The Sexual Politics of Meat, and Animal Farm when I was literally 8-11. My mom would never have taken a book away from me. I read everything from the Tao Te Ching to the Qur'an to atheist texts under my desk at school. Teachers thought nothing of it or encouraged it. Books seemed universally acknowledged as sacrosanct to me.

Now I can't find any adults who don't hesitate or want to make exceptions when it comes to censorship. Even the most liberal social activist librarians I know go, "well except for book X..."

Functionally conservative. It's so important to have the language to express that.

cam1lla

Thank you for this addition!

cricketcat9

And, following up on the previous post …

“This makes me uncomfortable” is NOT a valid reason for censorship

These fucking book editors should remove themselves from the profession ASAP 😡

prismatic-bell

The only reason a book should be removed, the ONLY reason, is “we are keeping it in the restricted section for research because its only intended function is to cause harm.”

And to be clear, when I say this, I’m talking about shit like To Train Up A Child and The Protocols of Zion. One is a text responsible for the deaths of multiple children because it’s an abuse how-to, and the other is entirely fabricated “protocols” from a group that never actually existed but is claimed to represent all Jews, and it’s basically one long antisemitic screed.

And even these should be available. Just. Not where they’re gonna be used to start a white supremacist cult.

midwifepilled

“trans exclusionary radical feminist” but nobody is excluding trans identified males, it’s simply that males .. being males .. and doing male stuff has literally nothing to do with feminism … you simply have no place here …

there is nothing needed from males here and there is nothing here we can exclude you from since your participation was and never will be necessary ….

we aren’t excluding you, our ideology has always aimed to keep you out intrinsically! it is only when you demand entry we are viewed as “exclusive” for reiterating we actually never needed or wanted you here.

Feminism is a movement for gender equality. It’s a movement for women’s oppression. Trans women are oppressed, harrassed, assaulted, and more. Why can’t you see any reason for sympathy?

What logic or sympathy would there be in asking a group organized to help one political cause to instead split their focus, because you've decided that their entire reason for existing isn't a good enough reason for you on its own? That's not very sympathetic of you. In fact it's entitled, demanding, cruel, and is actually on the big list of the Rules of Misogyny. It's rule 5. Rule 3 too.

What makes it this group's job to do that? Especially since this additional job you want them to do for you would include opposite purposes to their own? Women fought for separate facilities for safety and separate groups in order to organize, and trans women organize, protest, and assault women in order to undo those gains. You are literally protesting women's right to separate organizing in this literal conversation. Clearly, there would be no logic in feminists working against their own aims.

What logic or sympathy would there be in asking a group organized to help one political cause to instead split their focus, because you’ve decided that their entire reason for existing isn’t a good enough reason for you on its own?

I didn’t want to say this initially because I know how you will react, but trans women are women and their issues are women’s issues too. They deal with similar harrassment over being inferior to men and have similar high levels of sexual abuse. I believe these issues are interconnected, so that’s why I believe transphobia falls under the cause of feminism. We get rid of all bigotry, or none at all.

It’s rule 5.

Asking to address another issue is not me distracting from other issues. Addressing rape does not distract from the wage gap.

Rule 3 too.

I never said or implied this. I asked for sympathy.

Women fought for separate facilities for safety and separate groups in order to organize, and trans women organize, protest, and assault women in order to undo those gains.

If black women are turned away from women’s facilities, then they have a right to protest. To me, trans women have that same right.

You are literally protesting women’s right to separate organizing in this literal conversation.

Because trans women are women, that wouldn’t go against women’s right to separate facilities.

Yours is a linguistic argument, not one based on describing reality. Some men have a psychological desire to be women or be seen as women. You have decided to call these men women. That is obviously inaccurate unless you are redefining women, which women have not agreed to. Which is rule 8. You have also given no reason for doing such a thing.

They are still adult human males, not adult human females. You are aware of this. They still have a statistically much, much higher level of strength and statistically much, much higher propensity for violence than women, which is the reason women have separate spaces to begin with. Hrt doesn't change that, and there is no requirement for a man to be medicating in order for him to call himself transgender anyway.

You may not think sex or sex-based rights matter, but that is why men who agree with you have no place in organizing to defend those spaces and rights, and they don't want to either. They are actively dismantling them.

Any space where a man can self identify in immediately becomes a mixed sex space. That means there are no separate facilities. Both are open to any men. You are also aware of this. It's quite obvious. In many places the women's room has become an 'All Gender' bathroom because of these men. So yes, this means they have single-handedly removed these women's spaces. They have put men who have committed sex crimes against women and who have brutally murdered women into locked jail cells with women. Statistically the amount of women who commit violent/sex crimes is negligible. So these men have put much stronger, much more horrifically violent men into prisons with women serving time for fraud or theft or prostitution. That is a circumstance that is literally a war crime.

A black woman is not a man. This is also obvious, so the only reason you would claim a black woman's exclusion is like excluding a man from a space for women is some kind of horrific racism that you need to fucking deal with... No woman entering a woman's space makes it a mixed sex space. You know what human sexes are, and yes all males always and everywhere are still male no matter what they think or say. Any other suggestion is absurd. 0 cannot equal 1.

And NO, men do not have the right to *assault* women because they don't want women to have sex specific spaces and sex-based rights for safety. That seems like feminism to you? You literally think feminism is beating women in the streets...?? I can't even.

Putting women in statistically higher danger of rape or murder is not working for women's rights. It is actively dismantling them. Assaulting women in an effort to end sex-based spaces that women have for safety is not feminism. You are at cross purposes with feminism. You are literally pro-assaulting women according to your last post.

So no, feminism is not for men who assault women. You've proven you are not interested in women's rights or safety.

That is obviously inaccurate unless you are redefining women, which women have not agreed to.

You don’t represent all women. Plenty of women exist who support trans women.

Besides, many cultures have allowed trans people to exist in the past. So I believe re-introducing would be a more accurate label.

You have also given no reason for doing such a thing.

The reason is that these identities are very similar to sexuality. They are deeply ingrained and cannot be changed (source 1, source 2). And most importantly, being forced to repress these identities leads to a high suicide rate, which is reduced in welcoming environments. Human lives are the reason. (source 1, source 2, source 3)

They still have a statistically much, much higher level of strength and statistically much, much higher propensity for violence than women, which is the reason women have separate spaces to begin with.

There is no evidence that suggests men are trying to larp as trans in order to harrass women. “This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded” (Source)

In many places the women’s room has become an ‘All Gender’ bathroom because of these men.

Provide a source please. I cannot believe that buildings are converting only women’s bathrooms into All Gender bathrooms and leaving men’s bathrooms alone en masse without actual statistical evidence.

They have put men who have committed sex crimes against women and who have brutally murdered women into locked jail cells with women.

I won’t deny that the decision to move some of the trans criminals presents a danger to women. That does present a problem. However, this isn’t the black and white issue you think it is. Not all trans inmates are the exceptionally violent criminals that make the headlines. They don’t pose the same threat to women.

But more importantly, their lives are in danger if they are kept in all-male prisons. One trans woman was raped 14 times by both inmates and staff. (Source 1, Source 2)

A black woman is not a man

The reason why I made this comparison is to show why I think you are being unfair. I’m saying that denying a black woman access women’s spaces is a terrible thing. How is that racist?

And NO, men do not have the right to *assault* women because they don’t want women to have sex specific spaces and sex-based rights for safety

I don’t condone assault.

Is it too much to ask that you don’t assume I’m an emotionless monster who has no regard for women’s safety? I want to have a productive conversation about this, but it seems like you are taking every opportunity to reconfigure my arguments in the worst ways. I’m just trying to do my best.

#discussion

some-jw-things

Never let anyone tell you thinking is bad. Critical thinking is essential. Never blindly follow authority; that’s how the worst atrocities in the world were committed. You have a right to ask questions, and if someone tries to convince you you don’t, that’s a serious red flag If your beliefs are well founded, then asking questions and getting answers should reaffirm them, not threaten them. If all it takes to topple your belief system is actually sitting down and thinking about what is being said, then maybe those aren’t really your beliefs. You need to be able to ask questions

Edit: Radfems/TERFs/transphobes DNI. This post was made by a cult survivor, and I do not support anyone using it to call the LGBT+ community or trans community a cult.

mithliya

how does op not see the irony here lmaoooooo

“Never let anyone tell you critical thinking is bad. Unless it’s a man and he’s telling you he has a female brain, then critical thinking really is bad!”

goodbye-guys

I think you didnt actually get free from cult mentality completely

OP survived a cult just to fall into another lmao the irony is palpable

goodbye-guys

exactly, its a sad thing about surviving anything: sometimes being a victim once does made you more vulnerable to be a victim more times

Why do you think trans people are a cult?

Watch these discussions about it if you are interested.

It will take me a while to get through this, but I wanted to let you know that I am watching it.

midwifepilled

“trans exclusionary radical feminist” but nobody is excluding trans identified males, it’s simply that males .. being males .. and doing male stuff has literally nothing to do with feminism … you simply have no place here …

there is nothing needed from males here and there is nothing here we can exclude you from since your participation was and never will be necessary ….

we aren’t excluding you, our ideology has always aimed to keep you out intrinsically! it is only when you demand entry we are viewed as “exclusive” for reiterating we actually never needed or wanted you here.

Feminism is a movement for gender equality. It’s a movement for women’s oppression. Trans women are oppressed, harrassed, assaulted, and more. Why can’t you see any reason for sympathy?

What logic or sympathy would there be in asking a group organized to help one political cause to instead split their focus, because you've decided that their entire reason for existing isn't a good enough reason for you on its own? That's not very sympathetic of you. In fact it's entitled, demanding, cruel, and is actually on the big list of the Rules of Misogyny. It's rule 5. Rule 3 too.

What makes it this group's job to do that? Especially since this additional job you want them to do for you would include opposite purposes to their own? Women fought for separate facilities for safety and separate groups in order to organize, and trans women organize, protest, and assault women in order to undo those gains. You are literally protesting women's right to separate organizing in this literal conversation. Clearly, there would be no logic in feminists working against their own aims.

What logic or sympathy would there be in asking a group organized to help one political cause to instead split their focus, because you’ve decided that their entire reason for existing isn’t a good enough reason for you on its own?

I didn’t want to say this initially because I know how you will react, but trans women are women and their issues are women’s issues too. They deal with similar harrassment over being inferior to men and have similar high levels of sexual abuse. I believe these issues are interconnected, so that’s why I believe transphobia falls under the cause of feminism. We get rid of all bigotry, or none at all.

It’s rule 5.

Asking to address another issue is not me distracting from other issues. Addressing rape does not distract from the wage gap.

Rule 3 too.

I never said or implied this. I asked for sympathy.

Women fought for separate facilities for safety and separate groups in order to organize, and trans women organize, protest, and assault women in order to undo those gains.

If black women are turned away from women’s facilities, then they have a right to protest. To me, trans women have that same right.

You are literally protesting women’s right to separate organizing in this literal conversation.

Because trans women are women, that wouldn’t go against women’s right to separate facilities.

radfem-rage

Imagine letting men in dresses speak for you.

Imagine letting them decide how you should refer to yourself and women’s sex organs.

Imagine being more upset about them possibly getting angry than them dehumanizing you.

The internalized misogyny is real, imagine thinking all womanhood is about is being an identity, costume or feeling…

Trans people don’t reduce womanhood to being an identity. If they did, everyone would identify out of being a woman.

radfem-rage

You can’t identify or identify out of being a woman. Womanhood and menhood is born not worn. Yet trans people believe by 💞feeling💞 like a woman or a man that means they are one.

Feelings don’t mean shit.

If it was just a feeling then it would leave at some point. Since gender identity doesn’t, that means it’s more of an ingrained trait like sexuality.

Also, clearly feelings like rage mean something to you.

midwifepilled

“trans exclusionary radical feminist” but nobody is excluding trans identified males, it’s simply that males .. being males .. and doing male stuff has literally nothing to do with feminism … you simply have no place here …

there is nothing needed from males here and there is nothing here we can exclude you from since your participation was and never will be necessary ….

we aren’t excluding you, our ideology has always aimed to keep you out intrinsically! it is only when you demand entry we are viewed as “exclusive” for reiterating we actually never needed or wanted you here.

Feminism is a movement for gender equality. It’s a movement for women’s oppression. Trans women are oppressed, harrassed, assaulted, and more. Why can’t you see any reason for sympathy?

radfem-rage

Imagine letting men in dresses speak for you.

Imagine letting them decide how you should refer to yourself and women’s sex organs.

Imagine being more upset about them possibly getting angry than them dehumanizing you.

The internalized misogyny is real, imagine thinking all womanhood is about is being an identity, costume or feeling…

Trans people don’t reduce womanhood to being an identity. If they did, everyone would identify out of being a woman.

what-a-bastard

Accepting identities I don't understand is actually extremely easy because I just go "this isn't about me" and move on with my life unbothered by someone else's identity, it's truly that simple.

woman-for-women

You can't identify out of your oppression / You can't identify out of your privilege

*Feel free to repost

Click here to see more of my original content & follow for more

Hence why being trans isn't a choice.

Neither is depression, but neither one changes your sex.

Trans people don’t change their sex. Trans people have a different gender identity than the one they were given at birth.

#discussion

woman-for-women

You can't identify out of your oppression / You can't identify out of your privilege

*Feel free to repost

Click here to see more of my original content & follow for more

lottle4463-deactivated20230731

Hence why being trans isn't a choice.

bumblee-stumblee

HASHTAGS:

#MahsaAmini #Freelran #Helplran #Savelran

#IranProtests2022 #Mahsa Amini

VISIT/DONATE:

Please do not donate at this time.

FOLLOW ON TWITTER:

@AlinejadMasih @NazaninBoniadi @1500tasvir_en

Please visit these blogs for more ongoing information, follow them, reblog and spread as much as you are able to.

https://snowflake.torproject.org/

به اعتراض به قتل #مهسا_امینی بپیوندید | Speak up against killing Iranian Women #MahsaAmini

luxarcher

Gentle reminder that LGBT individuals in M/F presenting relationships still belong at pride. M/F relationships do not erase their LGBT identity.

They might be trans, they might be bi/pan, they might be closeted. Whatever their identity is, it’s none of your business.

Don’t judge, Stay safe, Spread love, Happy pride!

Why I am now a TERF

I know I'm gonna get hated on for this but please hear me out.

I am not one of those "extremists" who is actually transphobic BUT.

I do not think trans women have the same inherent role in the feminist movement.

Why?

Cis women were born into womanly struggles. They grew up with them. Trans women, on the other hand, were born into male privilege and then later started identifying as female, thus having willingly entered the realm of misogyny and female oppression.

I am in no way saying that trans women don't deserve rights or that they can't participate in the feminist movement. Even men do. But they should not act as if they are on the same level of cis women and that they deserve the same level of sympathy, because for a significant part of their lives they have been in a position of privilege.

Feminism is centered around empowering women, particularly those who are born feminine, who have the ability to create new human beings, who are given the gift of the unique female perspective and creativity.

Feminism is not the trans rights movement.

radhyena-deactivated20250210

You’re right. Trans women shouldn’t overshadow cis women.

But I am going to disagree with one or two things. The main one being that trans women don’t “willingly” choose to be women. Being trans isn’t a choice. It’s the same argument that gay people could just choose not to be gay to avoid discrimination. That’s not how being gay works.

Secondly, I don’t believe that transwomen should be put on a lower level in feminism. Everyone should get an equal say. If people disagree then people can sort it out, but we shouldn’t create a hierarchy to avoid conflict. That seems counterproductive for a movement that is meant to dismantle hierarchies.

The thing is even if you do hate Rowling and think she’s a bigot, you should still be able to see that she gets an extreme amount of hate never leveled at men. Men can straight up rape multiple people and not get the level of hate she does.

I don’t care what the person is saying. A rapist is worse than someone who says mean things online.

#she is still harmful #but a least some of the hate isn't deserved

True.

clittromney2

I am losing my god damn mind