witchy witch

The original poster literally coined it as “Trans Exclusionary Homosexual Men”. Gay men.

For every post that you’ve made declaring that “TERF” doesn’t mean lesbian, I want you to look at the acronym “TEHM” and realize that you’ve never targeted feminists in the first place.

You’ve always targeted lesbians, same-sex attracted women. There are many posts declaring that lesbians shouldn’t say they don’t want to be around cocks, males, or even men. “TERF” was a cover-up; you never cared about the straight and bisexual radical feminists, but those horrible lesbians, to the point where you would assume a radfem is a lesbian and vice versa at first glance.

Now look at “TEHM” again, and realize that we’ve always known you would come for our brothers, for gay men, and it was only a matter of when.

Trans Exclusionary Homosexual Men.

This acronym is homophobic to its core, and it wasn’t invented by some right-wing troll, but by a trans man who felt so entitled to gay men’s bodies that he decided to make a movement out of it.

The cotton ceiling came from a similar entitlement, when a lesbian wouldn’t fuck a trans woman.

Remember TEHM. Remember TERF. Remember that homophobia and lesbophobia pulse in those two acronyms, and that such a statement can’t be denied anymore. You explicitly target gay men and lesbians with these statements, and we’re here to say that we’ve known all about your attempts to make us fall for the opposite sex.

Remember TEHM and TERF.

I was here in 2012 when the Cotton Ceiling clearly stated that “lesbians will be friends with us but won’t consider us viable sexual partners” (so in other words: our sexual orientation friend-zones them).

Further, the women who argued that our panties were not “barriers to be broken through” were called Radscum. Radscum turned into TERF.

i…..haven’t seen any radfems complaining about this? childbirth is obviously necessary for the continuation of human life

i think maybe you’re seeing feminists explain that its unreasonable to deny a woman an abortion because she should just give birth and then give the baby up for adoption, because childbirth IS medically traumatic and will put that woman in tens of thousands of dollars of debt. it’s sexist to insist that women tear themselves apart giving birth to children they don’t want, the pain of childbirth itself isn’t the issue and there’s not much that can be done about that, obviously

(Also I’ve helped women give birth to their children. As in my hands have helped their children come out from their vaginas.) 

Childbirth can be one of the most traumatic events for a young woman. It is often the most painful experience of their entire lives. Women can be physically and emotionally assaulted and violated during childbirth by their partners, doctors, midwives or nurses, women can be cut from their vaginas, perineums and bellies. Women may be anaesthetised and cut open in a split-second decision to save the baby, women may be forced to push without contractions, women may be slapped awake to keep their consciousness while they are giving birth. Women may end up in such a painful state they will go in shock. Women may faint and women may vomit.

Women also may bleed to death. Women also may lose their child. Women may give birth to a dead baby. Women may have extensive tears in their flesh that need to be sutured up in multiple layers. Women may lose control of their bladder, women may lose control of their bowels, women may develop prolapses. 

Women may end up with breast cancer, women may end up with growths and cancers of their genitalia. Women may end up with vulvodynia, 

Women may get infections, women may end up getting a hysterectomy. There are countless of traumatic events and things that may happen during childbirth. But pain almost always is guaranteed. The pain of having your cervix dilate, of having your baby descend into your bony pelvis, of having your vaginal opening stretch to its absolute limit, to having your insides being stretched and pushed to the edge of torture. That is what childbirth is at its worst. 

It hurts. The pain seems endless. 

You are right in one thing. Most women will pull through. Most women give birth to a baby that they are able to give birth to. It’s nature’s design. But increasingly the pathology of pregnancy is something that makes it very dangerous to give birth for some women. 

So yeah… radical feminists would want to talk about this. Everyone needs to understand the pain and labour that goes into being pregnant and giving birth. Birthing practises are in the hands of the whole of the world when it should be in the hands of women. We should have the absolute control of our bodies and we should dictate the amount of research that should go into developing care that is humane for women. 

I have met so many young women who are 35+ weeks along who are shaking with fear because they know nothing of childbirth, they don’t know what to expect, they have grown up hating their bodies and hating their periods and hating their breasts and lumps and fat. And now their bodies, that they still hate, are about to betray them, and suddenly they’re supposed to trust them and understand that their bodies are supposed to have a function other than being sexually objectified. The amount of first-time mothers I’ve met, in the past month, who are disgusted by even the idea of breastfeeding because they feel it’s somehow wrong and sexual, is appalling to me. 

There is so much that you are simplifying with your “women have given birth for thousands of years”-comment about the culture and era we live in as women. You can not just undo all of the above and more by saying that “radfems are whinging about childbirth”. Childbirth is what makes us female, what makes us women. Do not try to make it into a “meh that thing that women do”. It’s the thing that makes us feminists. 

a 13 yr old girl is bullied for being a lesbian, socially coerced into declaring herself to be a boy and is threatened with removal by the state if she doesn’t consent to dramatically and permanently altering her body with experimental medical treatments to make her more gender conforming and “straight”

I’m going to give you a far more patient answer than you deserve. You are “confused” because you’re so deeply misogynist that you think interests and clothing can add positive woman points or subtract woman points from someone. I’ll address these by point. I do not “present as male.” I am physically female. I am obviously physically female to anyone who has seen a lot of butches and has a decent eye for us. I make no real attempt to disguise that I am physically female. It is not a secret that I am, in public or in private. As for masculine interests, would you say that a feminine woman being interested in fishing and hunting and guns and cars like myself makes her less female? Would you say that a feminine woman experiencing chest dysphoria must not actually be a woman?

Screenshots of DL being an ass and Terry handing it back. Links below for my screenreaders https://twitter.com/terrycrews/status/1089487033427361792?s=19

Terry is a national treasure

As an anecdote, apart from being a Feminist I am an intactivist (advocate for abolishing routine infant circumcision), and every time I see a dude moaning in a FGM discussion “what about the men?????” I redirect him to intactivist forums and resources, and then I *never* see them comment or participate in said forums.

They don’t want to fight for their own rights, they want:

1) us to do all their work. Metaphorically, wipe their asses.

2) Silence us.

Pretty much the entire premise of this post is simply not borne out by the facts.

Not necessarily parents: Having kids didn’t affect the likelihood of respondents to declare themselves against vaccines.

In lower income brackets: People earning less than $25,000 a year are 50% more likely to distrust vaccines.

45 to 54 years old: People in this age group are 26% more likely than any other to oppose vaccinations.

Midwestern: Citizens living in the Midwest region appear more likely to have “closeted” anti-vaccine sentiment.

Live in rural areas: Rural dwellers are 28% more likely to refuse vaccines.

Liberal: 60% of anti-vaxxers describe their political leaning as liberal.

Non-college educated: People with a high school diploma as their highest education level are 11% more likely to be against vaccines.

Don’t go to doctors: anti-vaxxers are 88% more likely not to have seen a doctor in the past year.

Don’t care about the environment: anti-vaxxers are 30% more likely to be “not concerned at all” about the environment and climate change.

He DRUGGED her. This worthless bastard then proceeded to text in a group chat to his friends LOLing about the situation AFTER HE KILLED AND RAPED HER and send explicit photos of her. He used her cold dead fingertips to unlock her phone and message her PARENTS who were WORRIED sick about her posing to be her. And post to her SOCIAL MEDIA.

TO TOP IT THE FUCK OFF HE tried to fit her corpse into a BIN TO GET AWAY WITH IT. He has admitted to everything. There’s actually more to the story, this guy deserves fucking life.

PLEASE PLEASE, sign this petition to help out in some way.

 “So I’m being held, and every person in this body is being held to a higher ethical standard than the President of the United States?”

“That’s right, ‘cause there are some ethics committee rules that apply to you.”

“And it’s already super legal, as we’ve seen, for me to be a pretty bad guy, so it’s even easier for the President of the United States to be one, I would assume.”

“That’s right.”

“Thank you very much.”

An excerpt from the above article:

I was first introduced to the husband stitch in 2014, when a friend in medical school told me about a birth her classmate observed. After the baby was delivered, the doctor said to the woman’s husband, “Don’t worry, I’ll sew her up nice and tight for you,” and the two men laughed while the woman lay between them, covered in her own and her baby’s blood and feces. The story terrified me, the laughter in particular, signaling some understanding of wrongdoing, some sheepishness in doing it anyway. The helplessness of the woman, her body being altered without her consent by two people she has to trust: her partner, her doctor.

Yes I have that same lip and the only reason I never went back to get it fixed is the conception/birth was so traumatic I couldn’t bring myself to be touched like that by doctors for years.

The Defense Department hardened its policy of excluding homosexual servicemen and -women, tripling the World War II discharge rate and, in a reversal of prior practice, generally giving less-than-honorable “blue discharges.” These punitive discharges stripped thousands of veterans of the benefits that had been promised them in the GI Bill of Rights. After Lt. Roy Blick of the Washington, D.C., vice squad testified before the Senate in 1950 that 5,000 homosexuals worked for the government (a figure he had invented), the Senate authorized a full investigation into the matter by a subcommittee chaired by North Carolina senator Clyde Hoey.22 The Hoey subcommittee’s report said that “those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons.” Having concluded that “one homosexual can pollute an entire office,” the subcommittee urged that the military’s recent purge of homosexuals be the model for civilian agencies.

The Civil Service Commission and the FBI complied by initiating an intense campaign to ferret out homosexuals by, for instance, correlating morals arrests across the United States with lists of government employees and checking fingerprints of job applicants against the FBI’s fingerprint files.

After Eisenhower became president, he signed Executive Order 10450, in April 1953, which added “sexual perversion” as a ground for government investigation and dismissal. The government shared police and military records with private employers, resulting in the dismissal of hundreds.

While McCarthyism encouraged the toughening of laws toward homosexuals because they were believed to be security risks, America’s Puritan tradition was producing hysteria over child molestation. Homosexuals were believed to be the main culprits. As the right-wing demonization of homosexuals proceeded apace, the negative qualities attributed to them overlapped until it became a common assumption that any homosexual man or woman was so beyond the pale that he or she must also partake of the most forbidden ideological fruit of all: communism. Homosexuals thus became handy scapegoats for both of these postwar obsessions. Antihomosexual laws were correspondingly made more severe.

States passed new laws that either stiffened the penalties for homosexual sex or created new categories to criminalize. For example, California governor Earl Warren thought the sex offender problem so serious that in 1949 he convened a special session of the state legislature to deal with the issue. That session passed laws that increased the penalties for sodomy and invented a new crime: loitering in a public toilet. The name of anyone convicted of spending too much time in a toilet was registered with the state. […] In almost all states, professional licenses could be revoked or denied on the basis of homosexuality, so that professionals could lose their livelihoods.

By 1961 the laws in America were harsher on homosexuals than those in Cuba, Russia, or East Germany, countries that the United States criticized for their despotic ways. An adult convicted of the crime of having sex with another consenting adult in the privacy of his or her home could get anywhere from a light fine to five, ten, or twenty years — or even life — in prison. In 1971 twenty states had “sex psychopath” laws that permitted the detaining of homosexuals for that reason alone. In Pennsylvania and California sex offenders could be locked in a mental institution for life, and in seven states they could be castrated.23 At California’s Atascadero State Hospital, known soon after its opening as “Dachau for Queers,” men convicted of consensual sodomy were, as authorized by a 1941 law, given electrical and pharmacological shock therapy, castrated, and lobotomized. Gay Law author William N. Eskridge Jr. summed up the legal status of homosexuals at the beginning of the 1960s: “The homosexual… was smothered by law.”24

— David Carter. Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution (2004), Ch. 1.

Notes:

It was a mistake. I wish Adrienne Rich had never written that accursed essay, but here we are. @sespursongles made some good comments about this that I completely agree with, so I’m just going to quote her because I’m lazy. (link)

Compulsory heterosexuality…was developed by and for political lesbians. The original essay was about women choosing to be lesbians and suggested that we “expand” lesbianism into a “lesbian continuum”, “to embrace many more forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support”. (And iirc the “many more forms of primary intensity between women” that could fit within the “lesbian continuum” included nursing your infant daughter.)…[T]he term compulsory heterosexuality has some merits; I think it could have been a useful term for actual lesbians to describe the many ways in which everyone (including ~LGBT) tries to force us to experience or admit to at least some mandatory minimum level of heterosexuality, but originally it wasn’t a term meant to help us make sense of our own struggles at all, so it’s not surprising that the majority of people who seem to find this phrase helpful are not lesbians. I agree with you that a lot of non-lesbian women find the term compulsory heterosexuality very convenient and use it to demand that their attraction to men (past or present) be recognised as a valid lesbian experience. There’s a lot of guilt-tripping involved too (it’s harder to say “no, these feelings you experience(d) actually mean you don’t fit the definition of lesbian” when said feelings are framed in terms of “my traumatic struggle against compulsory heterosexuality”.)

There are some real lesbians who use the term to describe experiences in contexts that make sense for lesbians dealing with heterosexism and homophobia (e.g. faking crushes on men to fit in with hetero women, repressing genuine crushes on women, etc.) and aren’t aware of its questionable origins, and that’s fine. But most people using the idea of comp het to describe their experiences are not lesbians, and it’s easy to tell. If you want to see a totally insane take about comp het by bi/het women, here you go:

We are not attracted to body parts and that’s kinda obvious considering none of us are walking around with our junk out in the open. Sexual attraction is natural, but the question “what are we attracted to?” Is more complex than dick and vagina. And in a way you’re right, it doesnt have to do with gender either bc that’s just a social construct. In my opinion, and this isnt being sourced or anything, our sexualities are just as much a social construct as our genders. For example, what sexuality might intersex people identify with? With both genitals, you cant determine their gender the way our society does. Are they male or female? The answer is no. So if they have both genitalia and we cant determine their gender, how would we determine their sexuality? They could be attracted to whatever they want, as exclusively as they want to be, but theyll never be gay or straight regardless, if were basing those terms on peoples genital preferences. Ultimately whatever they choose as their gender identity would be a precursor to their sexuality.

So you could like dick and hate pussy or vice versa and it doesnt mean a damn thing to me, but if your sexuality is determined by genitalia then I stand by my original statement. We as humans are attracted to so much more than genitalia. And again, in my opinion, that attraction can be found in gender identity/expression. We tend to be attracted to features that are determined less by chromosomal arrangement and more by hormonal excretions. If you like facial hair and broad shoulders, some might say you like men, but there are also women with those same features. There are men that might look like that and have vaginas, and theres women who might look like that and have penises. At the end of the day, you like who you like, and you’re never forced to have intercourse with anybody you dont want to.

It’s not a social construct; penguins, swans, pigs and elephants don’t have societies, but they all do demonstrate same-sex attraction and form life-long pair bonds.

Ergo; same sex behaviour — what humans call homosexuality — is innate and natural.

And what is this “intersex people with both genitals” bullshit? My god, do you actually believe they’re ‘hermaphrodites’?!

lesbians would never stand for this, because it’s fetishistic as hell, and has nothing to do with actual lesbianism - just someone’s creepy masturbatory fantasies that are only tangentially related to us.  So why are blatantly fetishistic and masturbatory things like these not only allowed, but celebrated when people talk about gender identity?