every time you see someone saying not to talk about an issue your group is facing because "what if people that hate us see it" it is a sign that you should be louder. being committed solely to optics at the cost of victims of abuse is something that happens in quite literally every group and movement because victims (whom are majority women and therefore seen as disposable) are not seen as important and addressing abusers' wrongdoings is seen as a great risk to The Cause. and you wouldn't want The Cause to fail and the people who hate you to win, would you? (for a recently exposed and relevant example of this, see Cesar Chavez)

Ensuring you’re in control of your own life and you’re thinking about and responding to the requirements of everyday life (as opposed to ceding control to another person) is basic adult behaviour, not a trauma response. What is being presented to you as healed, comfortable feminine behaviour is institutionalisation that will steadily reduce your capacity to handle and respond to stressors over time. You’re jumping into a lifestyle where you behave like a long-term prison inmate and we’re supposed to idolise that?

The document will be posted soon.

Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:

She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.

Yale University, 1969.

Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.

Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"

The faculty answered firmly: No.

Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.

Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.

So she started looking.

She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.

There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.

The professors had been wrong.

But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.

Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.

But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.

It wasn't random. It was systematic.

Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.

Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.

Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.

She needed a name for what she was documenting.

In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.

In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.

The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.

Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.

For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.

Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.

Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.

Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.

Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:

Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.

Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.

Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.

And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.

Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.

I’ll abbreviate the blog to TMVP, which was created specifically to address the sexual violence “TME” people experience from “TMA” people, and it’s really no coincidence that when people speak of “TME” people, they’re speaking of transmascs. The blog exists within the TMA/TME framework, yet the existence of the blog clashes with the ideology the blogger claims to support.

For those unfamiliar, TME means “transmisogyny exempt”, supposedly means “everyone that isn’t a trans woman”, although really the only people it’s ever used for are female people. And TMA is “transmisogyny affected”, so all TIMs.

The blogger describes themself as a TME trans neutral, so a nonbinary identified female person. For anyone reading this, I advise caution and distance since their age is not confirmed, they could be an adult, they could be underage, but regardless they are in an immensely vulnerable state. I’ve blocked them for their sake so they do not have to see this.

They’ve recognized that the TIMs of the trans community often get away with sexual assault and that transmasc survivors are silenced, this is something they’ve had a personal experience with, and there’s a clash between this experience and trying to maintain transgender unity and solidarity, since pointing this out, even when using TRA language. It is still drawing attention to sex based dynamics, which goes against “transfeminism”, as sex based oppression is not real in their theory, not only that, but it is outright dangerous. It does not matter how strongly TMVP hates “TERFs”. As expected, people in their inbox try to bait them into agreeing with radical feminism, and they react harshly and strongly. Unfortunately for them, “TERF” isn’t actually a real category, so they don’t need to be a radical feminist or believe in sex based oppression to be considered one.

Yes, even if they believe that trans women are systemically oppressed, and trans men have privilege, and TMA/TME is real and they abide by that framework strictly. They’re a female person who ventured a bit too close to voicing what looks like sex based oppression. Even if they claim they aren’t and their argument is that transmascs aren’t listened to because trans women are so marginalized, nobody believes transmascs, which is not acknowledging sex based oppression, and still appeals to “transfeminist” theory, any further speculation upon this ruins the whole illusion. It is dangerous to TRA rhetoric.

Mousidy is particularly cruel about this

There is a lot more. They’ve been sent gore. Their pinned post has nearly a hundred hate comments. Their entire blog is just filled of brimming seething hatred directed at them. They have practically no allies outside of a small handful of people, as other transmascs tear them down hard, and the TIMs do what they do best in this situation, death threats, suicide baits, guilt trips, manipulation. They see no allies from radical feminism and reject radfems firmly.

This is what happens when you acknowledge male violence to any extent within the trans community. You simply can’t. While this individual may hold firm in their trans rights advocacy and to stay far away from radical feminism or gender critical theory, what can’t be ignored is how unstable this position is. It is what leads trans men to peaking, what shatters our illusions, what are we supposed to do about the issues with male violence if we are not allowed to name it? Not allowed to see it? Not allowed to find and share support for it? What other choice are trans men left with even? There isn’t any, you have to submit to the ideology completely or you are gone. You would be better dead. You are a TERF. You are killing trans women and girls and you must repent or die.

This is also how the trans community isolates female members. Two things work against us here. Anti feminist indoctrination, where radical feminists, are considered a branch of fascism. And also the fact that it is true radical feminism is not particularly for transmascs, TMVP was denied access to a crisis shelter, and most likely blame radfems for this. While radical feminism is not the fascist evil it’s portrayed as, the fact is transmascs are still overlooked, seen as a part of the opposing trans community, rather than fellow female people to be liberated. Tensions between the two groups only deepen as transmascs have and will harass radfems, bi and straight ones appropriating esbian culture, spitting on and insulting the solidarity radfems sometimes offer.

The constant conflict and general lack of desire to have female solidarity, having been told trans solidarity is of the upmost importance, transmascs remain relegated to the wider trans community. We are told “TERFs” want to genocide us all, or genocide only trans women and we’re privileged men who need to understand that. TMVP is being thoroughly punished, slandered, dragged across all of transfem tumblr by mousidy and his followers, and is given hardly any support from other female trans people.

As female people we are to put the interest of males first and foremost, in this case, that is trans “women”. They might be so merciful to us that we can talk about having been raped once before, even more if they allow someone to admit it was a trans woman who did it. From there you’re expected to clarify that you don’t believe it’s all trans women, and you’re expected to be grateful they listened to you at all. What is not allowed, and will never be allowed, is pointing out the rate of violence, sexual violence, that trans “women” commit against themselves and “TME” people. What’s also not allowed is bringing up how many “TME” victims are silenced.

You can talk about your assault, just don’t say it’s a pattern, or a problem, or any indication of a large scale issue, any indication you’d like to see improvement on the problem, don’t ask for actions to be taken to address this rape culture, and especially do not point to who is doing it. Only ever talk about your assault as it was done by someone who happened to be transfem.

When a female trans person observes another one breaking these rules, they will step in and correct them. “Hey what happened to you was bad but speaking about it like this is very transmisogynistic.” The male’s ideology and peace of mind must be protected, even if it means policing the way someone talks about their sexual assault. Being “transmisogynistic” is a greater sin than committing an act of sexual violence. Deny any of this you face expulsion and hatred from the wider community of which you depend upon.

Female trans people are trapped, cut off from women who would advocate for them, unable to make any progress against their oppression within the community, unable to name and point to the oppressor, keeping themselves and each other in check, taught to care more about TIMs than ourselves and each other.

The end result is what you see above. Isolated, publicly humiliated, and disowned.

the shift between the two polarized states is profoundly turbulent, disorientating and vulnerable - and the abuser capitalizes on it, harnesses the inherent embarrassment and says "yes, you are stupid, you are irrational, you do not know what you're talking about, you cannot trust yourself, your flip-flopping does not make sense, so you must disregard and silence the part of you that protests my treatment of you".

i think there is inherent risk when jaded women meet the polarization on similar terms but in the opposite direction: accuse the part of the battered woman that is susceptible, is manipulated, is attached to the batterer, the relationship, the institution of heterosexuality, of being stupid, vapid, senseless, ridiculous, irrelevant, deserving of being entirely disregarded. when jaded women push the internally polarized, cognitively dissonant battered women to "pick a side and stick to it", stop the back-pedalling, back-tracking, stop seeking out The man or men in general, they are - unintentionally - speaking the language of the abuser. and the reason why the language is so dangerous is not our - feminists' - fault. those groundworks were laid down by the batterer. and the impact of our words is never going to be the same: we will never have the hold and sway of an abusive, manipulative, baby-trapping sociopathic male. i am not accusing the jaded women of being equally - or at all - abusive.

what i am trying to say is that, the way i understand it right now, the polarization needs to be resolved before a woman can be free. her consciousness and clarity cannot be continuously compartmentalized away from her attachments, affections, conditioned responses. she needs to find ways - and be given tools - to reconcile them. and for that, she needs to not - ever - feel "stupid" for any movement and expression of her psyche. if she allows herself to feel stupid about any part of this, she will feel embarrassment, and she will feel distrust of her own intense emotional experience. her inventory of her own experience and behaviours needs to be perfectly clear, mindful, lucid, and in that borderline non-judgmental.

and after that was uncovered, netizens immediately, again with literally no evidence at all, started accusing the kidnapped girl who was groomed when she was a child, of murder, despite the trans woman who died constantly posting suicide fantasies on social media dating back many years. Imagine trying to frame the victim of grooming as a murderer just to maintain the victim narrative of the literal sex offender

While in spaces like Tumblr, it is a known that conservative media tends to distorts reality and uses rhetoric manipulation to form their audience opinions, I must heavily point out, that so does the left. And particularly so about transwomen matters.

This article about the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on what a woman is from The Nation, written by Sophie Lewis, is a shocking example of how little objectivity is found in her work and how deeply manipulative and inaccurate her claims are. Nearly every sentence is filled with fallacies.

In just 362 words of the text, I have found TWENTY-SEVEN attempts to manipulate the audience with claims that aren’t testifiable but emotion-driven. Journalism is in crisis, and many outlets produce pieces not to inform but to spread political activism.

I ask you, please, be critical. Transgenderism is an ideology, not a fact. Trust sources like AP, Reuters, and BBC, for they are the least biased.