ofcourse isff is back on her "but think of the poor rapist" bullshit.
This is literally just Christian ethics with animal ears...
When everyone sides with “forgiving” and “accepting” abusers over victims, this just results in the victims getting de facto ostracized as they attempt to move on with their lives and not interact with their abuser any more yet they then find that there are no spaces that will not welcome their abuser with open arms. Plus the abuser, when not identified as such, when given no reason to change their behavior, has no reason not to reoffend.
“None of my sisters are disposable!” Except for victims of abuse, according to this logic.
I also find it interesting on a rhetorical level that if someone puts up boundaries that exclude rapists, that makes them a “monster,” but a rapist categorically doesn’t get called a monster but a “sister” that must be protected. What the hell kind of standards are those?
I’ve seen this type of social dynamic happen before, both among trans people and among cis people. It’s horrible.
This is an aspect of rape culture.
If we take her argument to its logical conclusion, it removes all standards of conduct. It tells victims "Your safety is less important than this your abuser's comfort and social standing." That is being an enabler.
Should we have standards, especially when the legal system often fails?
Absolutely, yes. In fact, because the legal system so rarely delivers justice for sexual abuse, community-based accountability is often the only tool vulnerable people have. To reject that tool outright is to leave victims entirely defenseless.
She conflates all consequences with "exile", losing a job or having your social circle shrink are not automatically "cages." They are consequences. The severity of the consequence should ideally match the severity of the harm. She's treating a request for accountability as though it is the same as a prison sentence, which erases the nuance between a minor interpersonal conflict and a pattern of predatory abuse.
If she actually wanted restorative justice, she would be demanding that the accused take accountability, apologize, get professional help, make amends, and demonstrate changed behavior over time. Instead, Misstrogen simply demands that the community stop talking about it and accept the person back immediately. That is silencing the victims to make the community feel less "messy."
If someone has caused harm and refuses to acknowledge it, refuses to change, the community has a moral obligation to create distance.
The legal system's failure makes community standards more important, not less. Misstrogen’s rhetoric is dangerous because it strips the community of the ability to enforce those standards. She calls the accusers "monsters," but the real monster in her framework is any form of boundary-setting. Without boundaries, a community is just a hunting ground for those who refuse to change.
