Mina is a febfem, I'm calling it

Q. You want to raise every boy as a girl? Yes.

Q. Why? A boy will learn to hate girls as long as he is raised in such a way where he is treated as better, and superior to, his girl peers, whenever he is cruel to girls. So, instead, we raise boys as girls.

Q. What if they say they are not a girl, and want to be acknowledged as boy? Then you know they are a boy, so you must make sure to understand them as boy, and not a girl.

Q. What does it mean to be 'raised as a girl'? That's up for you to decide. The only difference is that you should not raise boys any differently than you raise girls, since you raise every boy as a girl.

Q. Girls and boys are raised in specific ways for specific purposes, so it does not make sense to raise boys as girls. If you raise every boy as a girl, then there is no being which is not raised as a girl, so anyone raised as a girl necessarily must learn to do anything and everything to grow up, without restrictions on tasks, labours, or interests.

Q. But boys and girls are different. All two girls are different, and raising girls in one specific way destroys this individuality in favour of moulding girls to serve the same master. Still, the girls resist to live life on their own terms. If girls can be raised such that they know they can do anything they want, including not being girls, so too will boys raised as girls.

Q. Why not raise every girl as a boy? Because if a girl does not exist among boys, then the girl is made.

Q. Why not raise girls and boys as themselves? The self must be made in a world where girls and boys can first and foremost be themselves. One step towards this goal is to raise every boy as a girl.

Q. The way people raise girls is cruel, so why would you raise boys with that cruelty? If you raise girls with cruelty, then you should stop being cruel to girls.

as i understand it the core point being made here is challenging the concept of "raising a child as a gender" entirely by going straight to the misogyny that is fundamental to patriarchal gender. to me this suggests "raise boys as girls" is about raising boys to identify with girls, rather than to develop an identity as a boy around opposition to girls. this is not being depicted as simply "genderless parenting" because it is making a specific point about misogyny & its role in gender socialization and identity formation. to deviate from patriarchal demands of masculinity is to become associated with femininity / girls regardless of intention or actual intentional performance of femininity (what i assume is meant by "a girl is made"). rather than trying to pursue an almost apolitical gender neutrality that fails because it doesn't engage with the role misogyny plays in preserving patriarchal gender as a whole, gender neutrality is presented as synonymous with identifying with girls, as under patriarchy the entire construction of gender is built (not exclusively but fundamentally) through sexism that is both oppositional (exorsexist) and traditional (misogynistic).

the point is that raising a girl should not involve cruelty, or stereotype, or stigmatization, and boys should be encourage to feel no shame or identity conflict in identifying as the same kind of being as girls. so its a purposeful act of provocation to say "boys should be raised as girls" which to me sends the message that challenging misogyny and challenging the construction of gender itself are the same project. and that being (raised as) a girl should not mean anything other than being raised as a whole person, as part of a community of whole people.

Me reading like 2 of their books for free has now had me buying all their books digitally and starting on physical copies. One I dont even read the summaries on new books, I just purchase the them.

you play it while walking around with friends and if you see something and don't know what it is or wonder why its there, you stop and point and say Hey What Is That Thing. and everyone speculates about it. googling it is allowed but preferably after spending several minutes guessing or asking a passerby about it

weird structures, ambiguous signs, unfamiliar car modifications, anything that you can't immediately understand its function. eight times out of ten, someone in the group actually knows, and now you know!

a few examples from me and my friends the past few weeks: "why is there a piece of plywood sticking out of that pond in a way that looks intentional?" (its a ramp so squirrels that fall in to the pond can climb out) • "my boss keeps insisting i take a vacation of nine days or more, thats so specific" (you work at a bank, banks make employees take vacation in long chunks so if youre stealing or committing fraud, itll be more obvious) • "why does this brick wall have random wooden blocks in it" (theres actually several reasons why this could be but we asked and it was so you could nail stuff to the wall) • "most of these old factories we drive past have tinted windows, was that just for style?" (fun fact the factory owners realized that blue light keeps people awake, much like screen light does now, so they tinted the windows blue to keep workers alert and make them work longer hours)

There is a very abundant supply of such articles and a recent one especially annoyed the hell out of me because it (without actually mentioning the idea of disability) repeatedly alluded to accommodating a kid's sensory issues as example of parents being too permissive or failing to teach kids to tolerate discomfort.

That's bullshit because being in tune with your own needs and discomforts sensory wise is so fucking important for being able to adapt and function in the world.

Like, just an example, I got rid of almost every piece of clothing I own that was polyester or a polyester blend and just doing that dramatically improved my life and gave me more ability to cope with stressors, because I figured out that a lot of my sensory issues with clothes came from bad temperature regulation and the scratchy pills that polyester blends make.

"Discomfort tolerance" has never been super helpful as a concept for me. I have no problem tolerating discomfort in the sense of like, not doing anything about the thing that's hurting me. It's just that if I do it for too long, I can't think straight and process what's happening around me and I eventually become so fatigued it feels like I've got a fever, or else become uncontrollably angry.

I think "discomfort curiosity" is way better concept. You feel uncomfortable. What is the feeling like? Where in your body do you feel it? What does your body urge you to do about it? When does it start? What is it responding to? What about that thing makes you feel that way? Feel it...Experiment with it...Dabble in it...Play with it. I say curiosity because curiosity is so closely related to fear and to some extent, disgust. Curiosity is a frontier zone between repulsion and fascination.

Curiosity is an instinct that encourages us toward unfamiliar things, not away from them. It is part of a large landscape of feelings where away-instincts and toward-instincts are blended together.

I think of the difference between curiosity and fear to be like the difference between solitude and loneliness, or like excitement and apprehension. Or, think of exploring an eerie abandoned place, one of the "liminal spaces" the internet speaks of. The place is "eerie" which is closely related to fear, but the "eerieness" shades into becoming a positive stimulus that our instincts are drawn toward. Liminal spaces, for those of us that enjoy them, are "creepy," but they are also "nice" at the same time. And the "creepiness" is part of the "niceness."

And curiosity is sensitivity. It allows for openness and playfulness toward the unknown.

Many humans' relationships with their own urges and instincts are based on domination and punishment. Tyranny over the body by the mind. The goal is to absorb without shock and endure without indulging the urge to seek relief, to reduce your attunement to your body.

But the ability to be "less controlled by" your body's urges is not positive, because your body is providing information about what your needs are. I find that the ability to make reasoned decisions about how and when and why to persist through something painful requires a deeper attunement to the body's instincts, not a greater ability to ignore them.

Stop treating your bodies like they're animals in a cruel experiment to be shocked with electricity until they lay on the floor whimpering in helplessness. It doesn't help.

On what the male loneliness epidemic is really about. Given actual alternatives, women are opting tf OUT of "traditional roles".

I love to see the general public finally waking tf up