How if you're a lesbian, you're not allowed to be homosexual, and your orientation is only valid if you're attracted to people whose gender identity is "woman", and you're not allowed to be only attracted to people who are female (as if our orientation was even something we could choose).

As homosexuals, we know deeply what it's like to be rejected for our sex, people who aren't homosexual don't and that much is obvious, in the way they act as if it was an act of hatred and not a natural part of life.

I'm seeing this rhetoric more and more, how cosmetic surgery on your genitals supposedly changes your sex and therefore people's attraction to you. Sex is more than the cosmetic appearance of your outer genitals.

Being of the female sex, means having a body that developed in the general direction of ova production. Being of the male sex, means having a body that developed in the general direction of sperm production.

If you're born homosexual, you're exclusively able to form an attraction to people whose sex mirrors yours. So if you're homosexual and female, that means you can only develop attraction to other females. No attraction to males is ever possible, and the gender identity, hormones or surgery of that person can't change that.

this idea that women just “choose” SW on a whim or because they’re wanting to cater to the male gaze?? delusional. at least 90% of women end up there because they don’t have other options. this is my personal opinion as a former sex worker who used it to escape homelessness. most of my co-workers were single mums struggling to feed their kids. full stop.

and YES you’ll see women online saying “i love it, i chose it, it’s empowering.” but you’re forgetting: that’s the JOB. the fantasy is the product. the whole point is to make men believe it’s fun, empowering, and a choice.

AI agents are agents of the person or organization that deploys them—and should be treated by the law as such. If a company hired human writers to write its summaries, that company would be liable for inaccuracies in those summaries. If a company’s human agent signed contracts in the company’s name, that company would be bound by those contracts. And if a doctor gave dangerously wrong medical advice, they would be liable for malpractice.

To allow businesses to hide behind the excuse of faulty AI in those same circumstances would be a massive handout to companies, and would introduce disastrous incentives for corporate misbehavior. Why hire human writers, lawyers or doctors when AIs are not only cheaper, but also absolve employers whenever they make a mistake?

We are rapidly moving to a world where AI-powered chatbots will be at the other end of all sorts of corporate communications channels. It makes no sense for a company to be able to honor its statements when it wants to and disavow them when it doesn’t.

One of the non conservative/liberal criticisms I see against antinatalism is that good people need to have children, raise them with their ideology to make the world a better place because conservatives are having children. The idea is for "good people" to have children to outnumber the evil conservatives.

People often say this about the 4B movement's call not to give birth to a world that will discriminate against their gender. I saw a comment somewhere of a woman telling 4B antinatalists that they are going to be discriminated against whether they have children or not so they should have children to raise them to fight against patriarchy.

First of all, I personally don't care what happens to the world after I die. And if I am going to experience discrimination regardless, then I would rather stay childfree and enjoy my life as much as possible.

Secondly, anybody who has lived in oppressive systems knows that numbers alone are not enough to change systems: you need power (money, weapons, political access and control, etc.). If you do not have power, you and your future descendants are not changing shit. You are only bringing in more people to be exploited by the system.

All around the world, the ruling class are the minority of the population and yet the majority is unusually unable to overthrow them without power (money, weapons, political access and control, etc.). And even then the system of a few ruling class repeats itself again.

Thirdly, what guarantee do you have that your child as an adult will keep your ideology? Many people who were raised religious are no longer religious, women raised by working women are choosing to be tradwives, boys raised by feminist mothers turn out to be misogynists and even rapists. As minors, you may be the primary influence on your child but as they get older, you will not be. Adults choose their belief systems.

People fought for generations to be allowed to dress that way. They fought hard to be allowed to wear pants. Blue jeans were a symbol of feminist revolution. Women were barred from workplaces and schools for wearing them.

This is not some a natural fact that women dressing masculine is less shocking and humiliating. That normalization was fought for and hard-won.

And yet so many people erase the struggles of those people who fought to make that happen and pretend that it's just normal and natural that people don't see women "dressed like men" as ridiculous.

The Marriage of Figaro has what's called a "breeches role" which is a woman wearing men's clothes playing am ale role. This was done partly due to the vocal range requirements, but in many cases it was done comedically. It was risque and sexualized or comic relief that a woman was dressed as a man.

Anti-suffragette posters mock women wearing pants - well they were bloomers and split skirts back then - and mocking more masculine cut styles of clothes. This was meant to portray this as ridiculous.

They mocked the "new woman" in Weimar Germany, lamenting that they were too masculine.

This is a political cartoon from the 1920s depicting a woman in masculine dress deciding which bathroom to use:

Sorry but you're erasing these struggles and flattening history when you say this shit.

Women were killed and institutionalized in the struggle to make this happen. It really fucking bothers me the way it's framed as "people just don't find it as weird when women dress masculine."

Yes they fucking did. Until women and transmasculine people fought for their right to wear what they want. It's normalized because people struggled to normalize it.

And it's not normal everywhere. There are many countries where it's still illegal for women to wear pants. Afghanistan, for example.

Even in the US, it's forbidden and considered ridiculous in groups like the FLDS, the Amish, and the Hutterites.

she was granted asylum in Canada after leaving prison and never really recovered mentally. she was isolated and depressed. she committed suicide on june 14th 2020.

don’t let anyone fool you that lesbians are the “less oppressed of the LGBT”. don’t let anyone fool you that our pain isn’t real. that straight men can suffer the same things as us because they said they are ‘queer’.

don’t let women like Sarah be ever forgotten.

“Transphobia hurts cis women too!”

Do they seriously think this is transphobia?? They’re not calling her a man to be transphobic, they’re calling her that because they’re RACIST. When they use those insults, they aren’t thinking “ooh I bet those trans people will be so offended!” they’re aiming to offend Black women, not trans women.