Radically Vegan

Gender-critical feminist, anti-speciesist. Thoughts about the intersection of women's and animal rights.

[transactivistsitow]

This one doesn’t contain any violence - it’s just a woman standing up against an entitled trans identified male and that should be applauded:

For clarity - this was the WOMENS world championships. 

 I repeat. Women’s. 

 Congratulations to the brave faces of silver & bronze. The world is gripped by a febrile madness. - @KTHopkins 

I was the 3rd place rider. It’s definitely NOT fair. - @jkwagnermd

https://twitter.com/jkwagnermd/status/1051794655698976773?s=21

http://archive.is/MEGwL

[iblamethecanadians]

Further proof that to be TERF is to be misogynistic as hell.

They aren’t even pretending they aren’t perpetuating myths about women being worse than men at everything. They’re just straight up ignoring the achievements of female athletes, trans AND cis, to pretend that being a man makes you better at things.

Like… yikes.

[auntiewanda]

It’s not misogynistic to know that men and women have different biology and body structures. This is just a bullshit excuse to try to deflect from the issue of male people demanding to be included in female sporting events. It’d be like a heavy weight demanding to be in the light weight class. It’d be like a woman cheating by dosing on steroids only even more unfair.  Sports are categorized by weight, sex and age in the spirit of fair competition. 

But only in topsy turvey neo-liberal la la land can someone feel like it’s sensible to say that keeping men out of women’s sports is misogynistic. 

[iblamethecanadians]

It is misogynistic to presume all women have the same body.

NEXT.

[auntiewanda]

You don’t know how to argue in anything but disingenuous and deliberate misinterpretation do you? Saying that female bodies differ from male bodies is not the same as saying no female bodies differ from each other and you know it.

So what’s your NEXT bullshit argument going to be?

[iblamethecanadians]

I’m being pretty straight forward, actually. I’m not denying the achievements of women, cis or trans, and I’m not insisting that men are magically better at something on the grounds of merely existing.

Unlike literally everyone else I’ve argued with, I’m the only one here willing to accept women who don’t fit a strict physical standard.

The fact is that making a blanket statement regarding any gender is a deadly game of stereotypes, and pretending that trans women are better at sports because of some magical biological factor that doesn’t even exist is the bullshit argument.

Trans women are no different in athletic performance than cis women, and cis women are not terrible athletes incapable of being amazing because #weak bones.

If you keep insisting on something that isn’t backed by science, or defend others who are doing the same, just admit you hate women and move on.

[auntiewanda]

Unlike literally everyone else I’ve argued with, I’m the only one here willing to accept women who don’t fit a strict physical standard.

See, again: disingenuous language. Because you already know what I’m talking about.. A female is one of two sexes in an allogamous sexually reproducing species. Female and male humans display a good deal of dimorphism between the phenotypes of the two sexes. Woman is the common word for an adult female human. 

Saying women are female is not holding them to any sort of specific physical standard never mind a “strict” one. What does even mean? What could possibly be strict about the category: “adult human of the female sex”. 

pretending that trans women are better at sports because of some magical biological factor that doesn’t even exist is the bullshit argument.

“Magical” is a funny way to spell “observable” and “doesn’t even exist” is an odd way to write “is easily testable" and “bullshit” is a silly way to spell “demonstrable”.

[menstru8r-deactivated20210616]

hey ladies i made a shitty lil infographic!

graphic_design_is_my_passion.jpg

[a-blue-wyrm]

this is an amazing way of presenting it, you did a really good job :D

[menstru8r-deactivated20210616]

thank u omg!! 🤧

[lookataleaf3000]

you ever feel like you’re fucking drowning because all the language you’d want to use to describe how violent porn is are used by porn makers anyway. teen, brutal, humiliation, destroyed. like, you can’t even describe violence because if its against a female body then there’s men getting off to it

[whiskey-and-c41]

Vagina is not a dirty word. Vulva is not a dirty word. Clitoris is not a dirty word. Labia is not a dirty word. Uterus is not a dirty word. The words used to describe my body will not be censored.

[radfemqc]

Vagin n’est pas un mot sale. Vulve n’est pas un mot sale. Clitoris n’est pas un mot sale. Lèvre n’est pas un mot sale. Utérus n’est pas un mot sale. Les mots utilisés pour décrire mon corps ne seront pas censurés.

[rad-itzel]

Vagina no es una palabra sucia. Vulva no es una palabra sucia. Clítoris no es una palabra sucia. Labios no es una palabra sucia. Útero no es una palabra sucia. Las palabras usadas para describir mi cuerpo no serán censuradas.

[girlsfrommars]

Vagina is geen vies woord. Vulva is geen vies woord. Clitoris is geen vies woord. Schaamlippen is geen vies woord. Baarmoeder is geen vies woord. De woorden die worden gebruikt om mijn lichaam te beschrijven, zullen niet worden gecensureerd.

[sursulapitschi]

Vagina ist kein schmutziges Wort. Vulva ist kein schmutziges Wort. Klitoris ist kein schmutziges Wort. Schamlippen ist kein schmutziges Wort. Gebärmutter ist kein schmutziges Wort. Die Worte, die meinen Körper beschreiben, werden nicht zensiert. 

[uterusperson]

Vagina är inte ett fult ord. Vulva är inte ett fult ord. Klitoris är inte ett fult ord. Blygdläppar är inte ett fult ord. Livmoder är inte ett fult ord. Dessa ord som beskriver min kropp ska inte bli censurerade. 

[radical-my-dudes]

Vagina non è una parolaccia. Vulva non è una parolaccia. Clitoride non è una parolaccia. Labia non è una parolaccia. Utero non è una parolaccia. Le parole usate per descrivere il mio corpo non saranno censurate.

[unapolpgeticalfeminist]

i am frankly so amazed what libfems see as gender non-conforming.

like, they call jan//elle mon//ae androgynous. the hell? that woman always wears a full face of make-up, hair ultra done, high heels and even her “suits” are ultra feminine?

ruby rose is just. do we even need to do this? i don’t think we need to. thanks.

someone just reblogged a pic of a girl with long hair and done eyebrows and lipgloss and went “aww a tomboy” like my god.

y’all are trying so hard with your whole “uwu our generation will end gender” but are more gender conforming than the generation of your mothers

and i mean it. if i look at my mom who never wears make up and barely shaves and has her hair short and wears comfortable sensible shoes…it’s so funny but she’s accepting herself so much more than most people on here with their fake body positive and oh so genderqueer attitude.

[kharakardashian]

“Go out and do something. It isn’t your room that’s a prison, it’s yourself.”

— Sylvia Plath (via purplebuddhaquotes)

[radicallyvegan]

Sylvia gets me.

[shollymannon-deactivated2019032]

when will ya’ll realize that radical feminists aren’t “reducing women to their body parts” when we say that women have vaginas

the only thing we’re “reducing” is the difference between men and women to, yes, their body parts, so that society can move forward based on the understanding that along all axes except physical, men and women are the goddamn same, i.e the whole point of feminism, so that we can finally fucking convince people that there’s nothing inherent to women that makes them enjoy cooking, cleaning, spending hours of time and most of our disposable income being “pretty” and generally being submissive, once you divorce womanhood from biology that argument is completely lost because it places womanhood somewhere in the mind where those stereotypes and cultural norms suddenly become an inherent trait instead of an imposed construct

saying “women have vaginas” is not the same thing as saying “women are vaginas”

saying “only females are women” isn’t the same thing as saying “women are only females”

please learn the difference between classification and reductionism before you try to act like we’re stupid ignorant cis women who “just dont get it”

saying “womanhood is the experience of femaleness” is a statement based on material fact that acknowledges the indisputable reality of sex-based oppression and how it shapes the life experience of females

saying “womanhood is about having a feminine gender presentation/identifying with female gender roles/having a lady brain” are all just post-modern offshoots of patriarchal rhetoric

we aren’t the ones who are being regressive here

[eowyn-is-a-radfem]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[sangefiruze]

methinks….people underestimate how makeup is an actual real psychological trauma and im not being hyperbolic. being incapable of seeing your bare face in the mirror w/o being shook to your core and spiralling into a chain of negative emotions that ruins the rest of ur day? viscerally fearing being observed w/o makeup so much it informs how and when and IF you dare to move in public spaces? how many women fear intimate relationships bc they cant stomach the thought of someone seeing them w/o makeup? being so alienated from your own body that either exposing it or being exposed to it renders u depressed disturbed and disgusted sounds like textbook trauma responses to me

[vegan-activist-network]

[voiceforourdaughters]

Lets debate biology.

I feel like a lot of abortion debates are becoming based on feelings, emotions, and subjective morality. I’m not looking for an ugly knock out drag out debate, i just want to discuss hard facts about abortion and see where this goes. 

[apersnicketylemon]

Okay here are the hard facts about abortions:

The fetus, at any time before 35 weeks gestation does not have the capacity to differentiate between ‘painful touch’ and ‘pleasant touch’. Even at 24 weeks, it doesn’t have the part of the brain that registers touch at all, therefore fetuses feel no pain whatsoever during an abortion. Even during the saline abortions that you falsely claim were ‘painful’ to the fetus on your blog.

The fetus relies fully on the body it is inside of to maintain it’s survival and function, thereby requiring that persons continuous consent to remain there, as the right to security of person was deemed more important that a right to life as seen in the supreme court cases in the USA of Roe V. Wade and McFall V. Shimp (In Canada the two cases that did this were Morgentaler, Smoling, and Scott v. Queen and Daigle V. Trembley).

The fetus does not have the capacity for conscious, purposeful, or controlled movement. All movement that a fetus makes is fully involuntary, and happen as a result of the nervous system forming, testing itself out, and testing limb movement in order to ensure everything is in place to ensure survival capability after birth -assuming it survives the pregnancy and birth. In fact, the first sparks of consciousness in homo sapiens happens at 5 months AFTER birth.

In places where abortions are legal and easily accessible, there are lower abortion rates. In places where abortions are illegal or heavily restricted there are more abortions. This is an across-board thing, a global pattern.

Lack of safe abortion access KILLS. An estimated 68,000  people per year die because of lack of access to safe abortions, and a uncounted millions are left with permanent health issues as a result. That’s an estimated 186 people who will die TODAY because they did not have safe access to an abortion. There are an estimated 19 million unsafe and illegal abortions performed annually.

Most abortions are NOT performed on teenagers who were sleeping around and did not use protection. The largest groups recieving abortions are ages 20-24 (33% of all abortions), non-hispanic white (36%), religious(37% identify as protestant and 28% identify as catholic, meaning over half of abortion recipients follow a sect of Christianity) , married or cohabiting (55%), have one or more children (61%), used protection (51%) and are below the poverty line (42% are 100% below the poverty line, and a further 27% are 100-199% below the poverty line. 69% of abortion recipients are below the poverty line). (source)

Abortion has no severe, long term effects on people who get them. There is no increase to breast cancer risks, there is no increased risk to ectopic pregnancies, there is not increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, there is no Post-Abortion Syndrome, there is no increased risk of abruptio placentae.

And finally there is the fact that organs, does not a person make. Most things on this planet have organs. Birds have organs, bees have organs, dogs, lions, bears, pigs, cows, and even individual cells have organs or organ-like components that keep them alive. The fetuses development level does not grant it rights because that is not how we grant rights.

Those are the cold, hard facts on abortion. Those are the facts pro choicers have presented a thousand times to you and countless other pro lifers like you. Those are the facts that your group has ignored over and over again in favour of proven misinformation. I have no doubt there will be no response to this, and if there is you will give me lifenews or some other equally biased site as a “source”, despite my giving you only unbiased ones. If you want to discuss the facts on abortion you can’t use websites that are based in lies.

[laurierrose]

fully inclusive term for all people with penises:

[hungry-skin-vacant-meat]

LOL

[thewitchyoucannotburn-deactivat]

As someone who lives in a country where the transgender  movement hasn’t progressed quite as far as it has in the West, I find it morbidly curious how most people are willing to tie a blindfold over their own eyes.

For example, a lot of the times that I’ve heard about the ‘should trans “women” be allowed in x place’  I wonder if nobody notices that these trans “women” don’t want their own spaces. They want women’s spaces. And yeah, they say that ‘trans women are women’ but like??? Wouldn’t they be mad if a ‘cis’ woman came along and said that she wanted to take up x position that should belong a trans ‘woman’? The only conclusion is that they don’t want to live a life being themselves. They want to be us. 

They don’t want trans shelters, trans safe spaces, unisex bathrooms along side regular bathrooms, trans marches or any of that. They want women’s spaces.

Women’s shelters. Women’s spaces, women’s bathrooms, to be centered in women’s marches.

And the fact that they say radfems=incels is like?? What? Literally no radfem ever has ever said that she feels entitled to sex.

All of the articles that they show as evidence of evil terfiness is men killing trans people. That is terrible, all the people who are just trying to live their lives getting hurt, but to use them as a prop to shut down women is just plain wrong. The problem that trans “women” face is more to do with men than actual women.

God, I can’t believe anyone takes this bullshit.

[ophelias-revenge]

THIS

[eudaemaniacal]

this is from a real diary by a 13-year-old girl in 1870. teenage girls are awesome and they’ve always been that way.

[rhube]

Read this - oh my goodness, this girl was wonderful.

[lrlamauthor]

Where can I read this in full?

[caitiesith]

It’s from  Real American Girls Tell Their Own Stories, and that particular section is by Martha Carey Thomas who grew up to be a suffragist, linguist and renowned educator, as well as a badass lesbian.

[goodluck-letsf-ck-deactivated20]

Opinion Time Radfems

Do you consider us 2nd wave or 4th wave?

Our understanding of feminism stems from second wave, but on the other hand, our immediate problems are quite a bit different then what our cultural mothers face, and our understanding of social issues, especially in regards to sexuality and race, are vastly different. 

[spencer-shayy-archive]

Oh this is a good topic. Please discuss. I’m curious about this too.

[radicallyvegan]

Wave 2.2

[defend-animals]

[anti-capitalistlesbianwitch]

As long as accused sexual assaulters can be elected President and nominated to the Supreme Court, y’all can shut the fuck up about false accusations ruining men’s lives.

[cleavingtolilac]

This is more extreme version of a broader phenomenon described by Rebecca Solnit (among others): “A book without women is often said to be about humanity but a book with women in the foreground is a woman’s book.” This is the same logic that allows us to unreflectively give teenagers The Catcher in the Rye instead of The Bell Jar, because JD Salinger’s book seems to have universal appeal, while Sylvia Plath’s is an account of pathology (when in reality, of course, both books tackle the protagonist’s mental illness).

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/04/incel-movement-literary-classics-behind-misogyny