*Benyw - Welsh (noun, adjv ) [gram: Fem.] Female

I would define it as actively supporting the idea that sex and sexuality can change via transition.

Simply having a friend that identifies as trans and respecting their name, and even using the pronouns they want used is harmless. Especially the name…I really don’t see any issue with calling somebody by the name they prefer. There’s so many reasons somebody might not want to go by their birth name: abusive parents, named after a family member they don’t like or was abusive, simply doesn’t like the sound of it, goes by their middle name instead, etc. It’s not that big of a deal. I understand it’s frustrating when some 50 year old man wants to be called Daisy because it affirms his belief that he can be a woman…but also it’s just a name. And names are just a collection of sounds, they shouldn’t be gendered in the first place.

But when you start actively affirming the idea that your male friend is actually a “trans lesbian”? Or that your female friend is actually a “trans gay man”? You’re now supporting the idea that sexuality can change with a simple declaration of “I’m trans!”, and you’re encouraging heterosexuals to invade gay spaces. Which leads to the cotton ceiling and boxer ceiling rhetoric, as both are born from that initial thought of “I’m gay, so why aren’t other gays attracted to me? It must be because they’re transphobic!”. If these entitled hets weren’t showered in endless validation and affirmation of “yes of course you’re soooo valid trans lesbians are lesbians and trans gay men are gay men and anyone who disagrees is evil”, I don’t think they would have been emboldened enough to push this shit on homosexuals.

I assume this anon is in good faith…but I want to gently say that I’m really tired of having to explain this. Respectfully, use your brain. Of course simply being respectful to people who identify as trans isn’t the same as supporting their misogynistic and homophobic ideology. Same way that being respectful to religious people isn’t the same as supporting their misogynistic and homophobic ideology.

I got these back to back on my facebook feed. Now, I haven't read the Atlantic article, and also it was written in 2020 and not as a response to this couple, but clearly the Atlantic is reposting it with an incendiary pull line to capitalize on this couple's story.

And the pull line is ridiculous on its own, regardless of what context I'm missing from the article. Down syndrome is not an inherited trait like red hair or brown eyes. It's chromosomal abnormality. Talking about it like there's some kind of movement trying to "wipe out" a group of people is so intellectually dishonest. Down syndrome is not an ethnic group, and one woman aborting is not a call to murder all living people with Down syndrome.

So, in Western countries people with Down syndrome have the best resources available than ever before, but it's the also the "worst time" because many people are simply not being born? Huh? They're just not being born, not experience worse things than before. People are trying to "eliminate" Down syndrome because of the individual choice to abort, but not, uh, the collective choice to give those who are born with it the best possible life they can? Life expectancy going up does not change the face that you might have to bury your child before they're 40 or 30 or 20. School is not necessarily affordable, and school existing does not mean your child will be capable of it. A child in and out of the hospital getting heart stints is not the preferable way to live for a child or a parent. Can both choices not be from a place of love?

This argument makes no sense unless every Down syndrome child must be born. And so then why shouldn't every child be born? There's just no way around it, if you argue this way, you must ultimately think there is no reason "good enough" for abortion.

and who, I suppose, are not the ordinary people, that presumably had the power before? this is a rhetorical trick, you see. ordinary people aren't to be trusted. ordinary people do not deserve power. there are extraordinary people who can be trusted. ordinary people make decisions based on emotion, fear, from a lack of education. You're expected to nod your head like "of course. not me but I know the people you're talking about. the ones we all know who can't be trusted." Perhaps ordinary people do get some say on what life is "worth" bringing into the world. Perhaps the most ordinary person in the world, a woman, is actually precisely the most capable person to know the value of human life, and the cost of pregnancy and birth.

It is no one's place to judge a mother or couple who decide that they don't want to raise a child that has been revealed to be severely disabled in the womb. Every woman and couple knows their own life, knows their own limit, and is capable of making their own information choices on this matter.

Wow it must be soo hard to have to put up with free fucking breast implants instead of some other less common surgery to supplement your larp. He is so oppressed 😢

You don't have to stop being a woman to stop performing femininity (in fact, you can't really stop being one--not on a chromosomal level, not on the level of bone structure, nor even come close to true average male hormone levels without becoming severely sick, and not on a genital level. Aesthetic changes to the flesh under a surgical knife may ease dysphoria in some, but are not the same as truly replacing female genitalia with male genitalia.)

It reinforces that woman=femininity when your abandonment of femininity is coupled with your attempted abandonment of womanhood.

Those men felt unfairly trodden upon for the same reasons TIMs do now: because feminists are threatening to take away some of the male privileges over women that they never shoulda had in the first place. Do y'all think that the men back then thought of themselves as evil misogynists? No, they thought that their natural rights were being taken away from them by the mean, ugly witches spinsters shrews bitches feminazis terfs.

The message in both images is exactly the same: "Women I disagree with shouldn't be allowed to speak"

So ok look. The point is not the flared leg by itself. These cannot be yoga pants. These are, and you have to understand this if you are too young to have worn them, BLUE JEANS. And this was the last years before all jeans were 70% spandex.

They were denim, and they weren't bell bottoms. They hung loose from the knee in a way that would make a wizard envious. We all walked around like we were wearing hakama. And they dragged on the ground. That was important. Ragged cuffs. If your jeans weren't so long that they had ratty cuffs, they were embarrassingly short.

And the thing about denim is that it's a twill weave and it's cotton. So not only does it hold a lot of water, it wicks. Walking around in these suckers on a wet day could get you wet to the knees even if you never stepped in a puddle.

Then you'd go inside and take off your shoes and try to avoid letting your freezing, wet, filthy pant legs touch your skin.

Closeted AMAB non-binary = regular looking man.

No wonder they feel like a predator going to women’s spaces when they are a man. Women’s spaces aren’t for men.