anti religious radical feminist from the holy land 25 female my main is salunes-favorite-lesbian.tumblr.com If you want me to tag something just tell me. Basically all my posts are queued
I actually do think we should discourage women from becoming housewives. Do not become financially dependent on a man. That's how a lot of women ended up dead over the years. A man gets violent suddenly and you have to choose between homelessness or potentially dying at his hand because you have an enormous gap in your resume and no degrees or certifications or anything that will help you pursue a career that will allow you to be financially independent. He owns your bank account. His name is probably the one on the car. Try and leave and he can report it stolen. Where will you go then?
And if you do become a housewife, take steps to protect yourself. Make sure you’re legally married, for starters; stay-at-home girlfriends have very little legal recourse to claim their partner’s assets in a breakup. Make sure your name is on the house deed/rental agreement, and have your car in your name, even if your spouse is paying for it. Have your spouse transfer money every month into an account solely in your name, so you can buy yourself things without needing permission, but also so you can save up to leave if needed.
If your spouse fights you on any of this, then don’t quit your job. The tradwife to poverty pipeline is real, and so is financial abuse.
also, many women/people experience controlling behaviour and domestic violence from their partner for the first time during pregnancy. don’t risk thinking “he’s just stressed, it’ll get better when the baby comes” because it won’t. neither you and your child will ever be safe with that man. get out as early and safely as you can
Internalized misogyny is a term used most often to explain why women feel humiliated because of their female bodies, why women put down other women, compete for male validation etc, but I think we should start using it for the way women see themselves as an individual too. In most women these days there's a sentiment of 'women can do what they want, its all about choice and preference', but those preferences are shaped by society and it's misogyny. That's also internalized misogyny even if no other woman is judged.
If you can support women who rebel against beauty standards but you feel unworthy unless you fit yourself to those misogynistic standards, that is internalized misogyny. If you, personally, can't imagine yourself doing anything because it makes you feel unfeminine and undesirable and therefore less worthy of respect, that's internalized misogyny. If your personal individual choices, goals, attitudes, mannerisms, private sexual desires revolve around being passive or hurt or made less in any way because its just what feels right and natural and even desirable to you, but hinges on you being a woman, that is very much still internalized misogyny. Even if that's not what you think other women should do. It is still a fucked up misogynistic standard with you as both the enforcer and causalty.
a character has survived being raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted/abused. there is a particular part of the experience(s) they endured that they are more ashamed of than any other - maybe they experienced arousal, maybe they came, maybe they played along because it placated their attacker out of being even more violent, maybe they froze up and didn't resist. some part of it makes them feel like it was their fault, like they're ruined or they wanted it or they're dirty or some other thing.
regardless, they're sure, they're sure. that if the people in their life that are supporting them in the aftermath of this horrible thing they endured find out about that part, it will all go away. any compassion, any care, any support, any comfort, it will all vanish. they'll be disgusted or angry or repulsed or start blaming them. because they have been supported. cared for. comforted. held. told it wasn't their fault.
and finally it all just becomes too much. this person who is in so much pain and hates themself so much just can't take it anymore. it feels like it's all built on a lie, all the support, all the care, all the understanding and validation, it's all a lie, and they're deceiving people to get it. it's wrong to let people care for them when they don't know. so they turn to the person they're closest to, the one who's been supporting them the most, the one whose opinion they value the highest, the loss of whose care would devastate them. and they confess. they tell them you have to know something. i have to tell you something. there's something you don't know about.
and they say it. they confess it. and the person they're so sure is going to turn on them now... doesn't. they're just... heartbroken. heartbroken at what this person they cared for endured. heartbroken at how alone they must have felt, keeping this locked inside. heartbroken at the fear, the conviction they had that they would be abandoned and abused and blamed if anyone knew.
there is just no reason that’ll excuse surrogacy to me. sorry. “but what about same-sex” “what about infertility!!” adopt. “oh but i want it to have my genes” too bad. we don’t all get what we want. i’m sure those kids in the adoption service want fucking parents, too, but it’s a tough life, innit?
btw i’m not saying you have to adopt. i’m not against surrogacy because i’m pro-adoption. i’m against surrogacy because women aren’t fucking incubators which you can buy, and if you want to be a parent, children aren’t something you pick and choose according to your narcissistic desires. get over urself and stop thinking ur genes are so fucking perfect that you need a “mini-me”. if u want kids ur gonna have to grow the fuck up and develop some empathy for the rest of human kind outside urself and ur partner.
reminder that this post is about people who pay for surrogacy, not about surrogates themselves. every comment and person arguing starts with “BUT THE SURROGATE CHOOSES-“ okay. argument for another day; i didn’t say anything about that tho.
if u apply the same thing to prostitution, i make a post about “sex isn’t a human right, you can’t buy consent” and everyone start yapping about “BUT PROSTITUTES CHOOSE TO-“ okay. we aren’t talking about that. we’re talking about why YOU think you can buy her body. no supply if there was no demand.
you demand to purchase women’s consent, desperate women will supply. if there was demand for cut off limbs or senseless torture, those who are forced to prioritise their life or the life of their family over their wellbeing, safety and health will supply. if you didn’t think you’re entitled to another human’s body for the right price, she would not be “choosing” [forced to do] it to begin with.
lord forbid a woman advocate for a world where people don’t think with enough money, they’re entitled to whatever they want out of another human who’s less fortunate.
If you can respect a religious woman not wanting to do X around male people because her religion tells her to but you can’t respect a woman who doesn’t want to do X around male people of her own free will you respect religious misogyny more than women
But the TQ+ cult continues to deny that children are transed
Helen Webberley says that her GenderGP business has 10,000 patients but denies that she is treating them personally
Dr Helen Webberley said that her licence had been revoked on a technicality
ADRIAN SHERRATT FOR THE TIMES
James Beal, Social Affairs Editor Friday July 19 2024
The General Medical Council has revoked the licence to practise of a controversial British doctor whose offshore clinic treats transgender children.
Dr Helen Webberley, 55, will lose her licence in Britain from Friday but will remain on the GMC’s register, following the decision by the medical regulator.
The decision was made by the GMC after she did not comply with a registered doctor’s legal obligation to revalidate their licence every five years.
Webberley runs GenderGP, an online company registered in Singapore, which facilitates access to puberty blockers and hormones for adults and children.
She told The Times that the decision would not prevent her from continuing in her role at GenderGP and said that she did not personally treat the patients.
Michael Webberley was struck off in 2022 for prescribing hormones to patients as young as nine without proper assessments
Webberley said: “I fought incredibly hard to keep my licence, both for myself and also for the community, because it’s important to set precedent. Now to have it taken away on a technicality, if you like, is very heartbreaking, but I will continue my work as I have done.”
GenderGP assesses adults and children with gender dysphoria and connects them to doctors outside Britain, in the European Economic Area (EEA), for prescriptions for hormones.
This means UK children as young as eight can access puberty blockers, despite the Cass Report, a review of trans healthcare led by the paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, concluding there was no good evidence for prescribing them.
Webberley was suspended from practising medicine in 2022 after she was found to have committed serious misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel over her treatment of three trans children. She successfully appealed against the decision at the High Court in 2023.
Dr Hilary Cass’s review found there was no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to pause puberty
TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE
Webberley said that she had not used her licence to practise since 2017, when investigations into her conduct by the GMC began. She said that she could not revalidate her licence because she could not find a “responsible officer”, or suitable person, to vouch for her fitness to practise.
Doctors are required to notify the GMC of a designated body and responsible officer to do this.
Webberley said: “The difficulty is … I no longer have a connection with an NHS trust or a GP surgery. I don’t have a responsible officer. It’s also very difficult to get that connection after what I’ve been through.”
She says she was offered the chance to take an exam in order to revalidate her licence, but declined because they “don’t have one for doctors working in transgender medicine”.
Michael and Helen Webberley are now thought to be living in Spain while their business is registered in Singapore
The GMC then withdrew her licence, which it can do if it determines that guidance to revalidate has not been complied with “without reasonable excuse”.
Webberley, from south Wales, said that she would carry on her work at GenderGP.
She said: “I’m not allowed to directly treat and manage individual patients [but] I’m not treating them.
“Treatment means sitting down with somebody, making a diagnosis, making a treatment management plan, prescribing medication, following up investigations and results.
“With GenderGP we have a whole team of professionals who do that. I don’t treat patients individually. They [the GMC] don’t have a regulatory role in my wider work.”
A GMC spokesman said: “Every licensed doctor must take part in the revalidation process, which provides assurance that they are keeping their knowledge up to date, are fit to practise and that no concerns have been raised about them.
“Doctors who do not have a connection to a designated body or suitable person are able to revalidate in a number of ways, including by passing a written multiple choice test called a revalidation assessment.
“There are 12 assessments to choose from, and doctors are encouraged to choose one closest to their most recent area of specialty. We cannot tailor assessments to every doctor’s specific area of practice.
“If doctors do not comply with our guidance on revalidation without reasonable excuse, we may withdraw their licence to practise.”
Webberley and her husband Michael, who set up GenderGP in 2015, are now believed to live in Spain.
As an online business based abroad it is not registered with the Care Quality Commission, but Helen Webberley has denied basing it in Asia to avoid scrutiny.
Michael Webberley, 67, a former gastroenterologist, was struck off in 2022 for prescribing hormones to patients as young as nine without proper assessments.
GenderGP was also criticised in the High Court earlier this year for giving “dangerously high” levels of hormones to a 16-year-old, who was born female but identified as male, that could have resulted in sudden death.
Webberley has called the court claim “untrue”. The Times reported last month that GenderGP, which has more than 10,000 patients, had ditched health advisers in favour of an AI algorithm providing “self-service” treatment.
Behind the story
The health secretary Wes Streeting has indicated that he will seek to make permanent the temporary three-month ban on puberty blockers being supplied to children (James Beal writes).
But Helen Webberley said children at her clinic were still getting hold of them.
Laws to ban the drugs being supplied by private or offshore clinics were passed by Victoria Atkins, Streeting’s predecessor, in emergency legislation before the general election.
They are due to expire on September 3, but the Labour government suggested last week that it would, subject to court proceedings, renew the ban with a view to making it permanent.
It followed the Cass Report, which found there was no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to pause puberty or transition.
However, Webberley, in an interview with The Times last month, said patients at her offshore clinic were going abroad, using foreign doctors and chemists, to side-step the ban.
She said: “The parents of young people who are affected by this ban will find another way. The last thing is that they will allow their child to stop the puberty blocker and start going through puberty. That’s going to really really affect them mentally and physically.
“I know mums and dads who are just going on holiday to get their puberty blocker instead. They’re going to wherever they’re going on holiday this year.”
Distancing GenderGP, her clinic, from their actions, she said: “We don’t have to find those opportunities, the parents find those ways of managing it.”
Now the revelation that she has lost her GMC licence to practise may increase concerns about her clinic, which operates out of reach of regulators such as the Care Quality Commission.
It follows disclosures that GenderGP had created an AI algorithm to make treatment recommendations rather than using health advisers.
However, given the state of transgender healthcare in the UK, with long waiting lists for treatment, it may not deter transgender patients from turning to GenderGP.
im not even saying there are no women who ~choose~ prostitution, stripping and porn and ~want~ to do it, it just doesnt matter because
a) thats not the premise, the premise is that the consumer/sex buyer gets what he wants against payment
b) the overall harm of the sex industry outweighs individual wants (for example what it does to a society when consent can be bought and girls are raised knowing they could be for sale)
c) this is a minority that could never meet the demand created by liberalisation/legalisation and the acceptance of sex as a product if - hypothetically - all women who didnt freely choose it were to exit the sex industry
d) you have to question why its mostly women „choosing“ sexual submission and men choosing to use money to make others perform sex acts for them
e) it doesnt make it okay to commodify sexuality which will always leave to exploitation and abuse, and subjugation of less privileged groups
f) it doesnt excuse sex buyers willfully using their monetary power to coerce others into sexual acts and performance
g) the sex buyer and porn consumer can never know if the consent is freely given or pressured and even forced, in fact they have to assume there is no desire from the paid prostitute/woman in porn/stripper
i) it just is not reflective of the reality for the vast majority of prostitutes who lack viable alternatives or ways to exit
j) it is a harmful narrative suggesting women enjoy sexual submission and legitimising male entitlement and disregard of their sexual partners desires and satisfaction
k) it doesnt change that the sex industry profits from and enforces systemic abuse, misogyny, racism, ableism, neocolonialism and other marginalisation and inequality
l) women choosing submission instead of being forced into it is not a win for womens rights, on the contrary
m) unwanted and merely endured penetration, sex acts, harrassment, insults, and subjugation are harmful to mind and body
n) a lot of sex buyers/consumers dont care whether the woman wants it or not, they pay her to pretend or they even get off on enforcing sex acts
o) its egoistical and throwing less privileged girls and women under the bus, especially when legitimising and defending men buying sex acts
p) it is often a trauma response, coping mechanism and/or product of grooming and manipulation
If anyone expresses disbelief that a man would go to insane lengths to get away with sexually abusing women, please let them know about John Schneeberger.
In 1992, he drugged a 23-year-old patient, a woman who had gone to him before and whose baby he delivered, and raped her. The victim, known as Candice/Candy, remembered the assault and that he was the one who did it, and she reported it to the police.
Of course, everyone thought she was crazy. Whose side would you take: a respected small town doctor or a young single mother?
When the police took his blood, it didn't match the semen taken from her rape kit. She was adamant this was the man and asked for a re-test. A year later, they took blood again, this time with police observing. The blood didn't match the rape kit. The police closed the case.
Candice/Candy didn't let up and hired a private investigator who did an extremely illegal thing by breaking into Schneeberger's car, stealing some chapstick presumably used by Schneeberger, and testing the DNA. That DNA from the chapstick matched her rape kit.
Due to the illegal seizure, the positive results didn't mean shit, but Candice/Candy brought a civil case against Schneeberger. He agreed to another test, this time the entire thing was videotaped by police. Initially, they asked to take the sample from his fingers. He asked if it could be done from his arm instead, due to some disease that made his fingers swell.
During the video, the examiner tries multiple times to get a sample from his arm. While she's prepping the sample for testing, she looks obviously skeptical. Someone off camera asks her what's wrong. She remarks that, even though she had just taken this sample herself right now, the blood looks...old.
The sample was apparently too degraded for testing, presumably due to a mistake on the lab's part.
The case didn't move again until 1997....when Schneeberger's wife reported to police that her husband was sexually assaulting her daughter from a previous marriage. This had been apparently going on for several years. He would go into her room, give her injections and assault her.
They took a sample from him again, and videotaped it again. This time, they took multiple kinds of DNA samples: hair, blood (taken from his fingers!), saliva...and it all finally matched Candice/Candy's rape kit.
Insultingly, he was sentenced 6 years and got out on parole after 4. But how did he get away with making an entire town turn on a woman and call her crazy, all the while he was raping his stepdaughter in the same way he raped Candice/Candy?
To illustrate the lengths men go to cover up their violence against women, Schneeberger revealed during the trial that he had SURGICALLY INSERTED A PLASTIC TUBE INSIDE HIS ARM that had the blood of someone else inside. He made sure that examiners took blood from that arm in particular. The blood inside the tube had degraded over time, which was why the examiner had noticed it.
A man surgically inserted a plastic tube of someone else's blood in his arm to avoid DNA tests. Never, ever doubt the depths a man will go to avoid punishment, even the paltry one he got.
Legal requirement to be placed on tech platforms to prevent users from seeing such ‘choking’ material
Porn featuring strangulation or suffocation – often referred to as “choking” – is due to be criminalised, with a legal requirement placed on tech platforms to prevent UK users from seeing such material.
Possessing or publishing porn featuring choking will become a criminal offence under amendments to the Crime and Policing bill tabled in parliament on Monday.
In a separate amendment, victims of intimate image abuse will also have longer to come forward, with the time limit to prosecute extended from six months to three years.
The government said this would help break down unnecessary barriers victims face when reporting a crime, “improving access to justice for those who need it the most”.
The choking ban comes after a recommendation from a government review into pornography which found it has contributed to establishing strangulation as a “sexual norm”.
The independent porn review, conducted by Baroness Gabby Bertin, which was commissioned by former prime minister Rishi Sunak and published in February this year, recommended a ban on porn featuring strangulation.
Research shows strangulation is never a safe practice, despite a widespread belief it can be performed safely. Though it often leaves no visible injury, oxygen deprivation, even for very short moments, causes changes to the fragile structures of the brain.
Multiple studies have specifically shown brain changes in women who have been repeatedly “choked” during sex, including markers for brain damage and disruptions in brain hemispheres linked to depression and anxiety.
Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, after concerns that perpetrators would often avoid punishment because they leave no visible marks.
Under the new amendment, platforms will be required to take proactive steps to prevent users from seeing illegal strangulation and suffocation content.
The choking ban is set to become a priority offence, meaning porn sites and tech platforms will have a legal requirement to ensure UK users do not see this material.
The Ministry of Justice said this could include companies using automated systems to pre-emptively detect and hide images, moderation tools or stricter content policies to prevent abusive content from circulating.
Those who fail to take action will be subject to fines of up to £18m from Ofcom.
Bernie Ryan, chief executive of the Institute For Addressing Strangulation, said the organisation welcomed the ban. “While consenting adults have the right to explore their sexuality safely and freely, we must recognise the serious risks posed by unregulated online content, especially to children and young people.
“Strangulation is a serious form of violence, often used in domestic abuse to control, silence, or terrify. When it’s portrayed in pornography, particularly without context, it can send confusing and harmful messages to young people about what is normal or acceptable in intimate relationships. Our research shows there is no safe way to strangle.”
Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, Alex Davies-Jones said online misogyny had “devastating real-life consequences for all of us”. Every day, women and girls have their lives turned upside down by cowards who hide behind screens to abuse and exploit them.
“This government will not stand by whilst women are violated online and victimised by violent pornography which is allowed to normalise harm.
“We are sending a strong message that dangerous and sexist behaviour will not be tolerated.”
It follows a UK government-commissioned review in 2020 that highlighted “substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women”.
A separate survey of children the same year found that most of them had come across violent or aggressive pornography that they found upsetting or disturbing, with some of them copying the behaviour they had seen online. Children who watched porn were between three and six times more likely to have “potentially dangerous behaviour” around consent, the research by the British Board of Film Classification found.
In a separate amendment, victims of intimate image abuse will also have longer to come forward, with the time limit to prosecute extended from six months to three years.
Honestly surprised to see the disinformation and scaremongering around Pap smears. Just to be clear:
-It is a screening for cervical cancer, precancerous cells, and cell abnormalities. It involves a small cotton swab around the cervix and in the center of the cervix. There is no penetration of the cervix.
-In order to access the cervix, a speculum is used. You are within your rights to ask for: a child size speculum, lube, and warming. My doctor has a lube warmer for this purpose.
-Some OBGYNs will do some level of sedation if you are truly scared or unable to handle this.
-Cervical cancer can be caused by HPV or not caused by HPV. Virgins can get cervical cancer.
-You can get HPV from sex with men or sex with women. Lesbians are not immune.
-If cancer is caught at the precancerous level, it is treated with an outpatient LEEP procedure, which removes pre of the cervix. If it is caught when symptoms arise, you may lose your entire cervix, your reproductive organs, your ability to orgasm, or your life.
-If you have never seen someone go through cancer, count your lucky stars.
Some further information - this is from a UK context and may not be universally applicable:
-Cervical screening (aka a pap smear or smear test) is not a test for cancer itself, it is a test for HPV/human papillomavirus, some strains of which can cause cervical cancer
-The sample taken in a smear test can also be checked for cell changes that might be associated with, or caused by, cancer
-HPV is spread by skin-to-skin genital contact, not necessarily exclusively sexual contact or penetrative sex, therefore you may have acquired it without realising
Source:
Find out why cervical screening is done and how it can protect you from cervical cancer.
It is important to be aware of the symptoms of cervical cancer, and seek medical help if they arise, in addition to attending your cervical screening.
Symptoms of cervical cancer include:
-vaginal bleeding that's unusual for you – including bleeding during or after sex, between your periods or after the menopause, or having heavier periods than usual
-changes to your vaginal discharge
-pain during sex
-pain in your lower back, between your hip bones (pelvis), or in your lower tummy
“If you have another condition like fibroids or endometriosis, you may get symptoms like these regularly.
You might find you get used to them. But it's important to be checked by a GP if your symptoms change, get worse, or do not feel normal for you.”
Source:
Find out what the main symptoms of cervical cancer are, such as vaginal bleeding that's unusual for you, pain during sex, changes in vaginal
You can find out more about cervical cancer, and the other four gynaecological cancers, at the website below - Eve Appeal is an independent charity which provides support and raises awareness of gynaecological cancers:
To help save lives, we focus on preventing or improving the early diagnosis of womb, ovarian, cervical, vulval and vaginal cancer.
TL:DR: cervical screening is important even if you haven’t engaged in forms of genital contact you might expect to spread HPV, but it’s also important to be aware of cervical cancer symptoms and seek help between screenings if necessary
“Omg who would go through the trouble of transition just to be a creep and predate on women”
How many times do we have to go over this. Many men have fetishes and are sick fucks.
Transvestism, autogynophilia, or sexual preoccupation with being a woman is a paraphilic obsession of men that’s been studied for hundreds of years. There’s a lot a man would do for sexual obsession, ok.
Can we please put this argument to rest that there are things that are simply “too inconvenient” for perverts to do. Because there’s really nothing that stops them.
No Gods No Men @vulva-la-r-evolution - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
