main shadowbanned?

I feel so bad for people who live in primarily protestant countries. You get christian bigotry and on top of all that it's not even aesthetic.

Tbh I think it'd be more accurate to just say "I feel bad for american protestant countries" since those in europe at least have a bunch of old catholic churches around.

Hence the not-uncommon adage that the washing machine did even more for women's liberation than the birth control pill

remember the like tiny sliver of time when there was a real push to just say "people who have a uterus" or "people with testicles" or whatever when that was what you meant, and then faux-progressives who were willing to cave to terfism to avoid saying icky anatomy words ruined it with "AFAB-bodied"

literally just say dick when you mean dick. feeling uncomfortable with body parts and getting all euphemistic about it is conservatism by default.

What about accounting for ambiguous intersex genitalia? You're implying that the body is constructed before language.

How is using the name of specific body parts worse at accounting for intersex folks than referring to coercive assignment at birth? Like, of course it's not perfect, but using terms like "AFAB-bodied" is infinitely worse and reinforces the binary in which intersex people are forced at birth.

Well the original term was AFAB, an acronym meaning "assigned female at birth." The idea behind assignment is that someone uses their judgement to rule out anything else this person is and tells them they're "female," which reflects the process of that happening in real life. Using the word "dick" or "pussy" does not reference this process, so it implies that it hold the same elemental weight as "hydrogen" or "gravity."

It's the reason we're talking about this. It generates discourse about the subjective nature of judgement being applied to people in quid pro quo relationships. It's a reminder that the work to change our society to reflect a culture that accepts all people is not done and it serves as a basis that negates the tendencies that arise from first act in this process which is observation. We need to free our minds, become educated, and change what is manifested. It's the process of mastery: mimic, mutate, then synthesize.

To go back to the original point, I genuinely don't think calling genitals "AMAB body parts" or "AFAB body parts" is helpful as a reminder of work to be done in any way – if anything, it only reinforces the existing binary framework, and makes it much harder for liberation movements to break it.

Yeah, so emancipating the term from implications that positivism supports the construction of these body parts helps us understand that the discretion of the person that has to live subjected to powers beyond their ownership needs to be unified with their peers. Hence, "assigned x by y" helps us once people more widely understand that interdependency is at play, "assigned x at birth" helps us now, and "dicks" is unhelpful.

That's where you're mistaken. There are "literal body parts" being erased from all scientific literature when you use these terms. Biologists don't say dicks. Serious biologists understand sex as a spectrum of genetic expression that varies globally. What you know about genitals is a lie. Did you know that there are populations of people on Earth where it is not only normal but frequent that people born with "vaginas" go through puberty only for that "vagina" to turn into a "penis"? You're embedding racism and imperialism into your argument when you try to say this isn't a discussion about social construction. The only way you're right is through genocide and the medical stigmatization of societies alien to you.

The thing about being religious is you'll talk about your beliefs and/or experiences with non-religious people, and they'll sort of pat you on the head and say, "Yes, what a nice little idea, I'm glad that you have your beliefs to comfort you!" and every time you have to bite your tongue because your religion isn't just a "nice little idea" to you, it's a cosmic truth that underlies all things, and furthermore, although God Himself has comforted you, that doesn't mean that faith itself is comfortable, but if you put any of that into words, they'll look at you funny.

This is a deep failure of, I think, empathy and even relatively simple theory-of-mind. You don't understand the people you're trying to "psychically damage" well enough to actually do damage.

Aotearoa is also a colonizer name. The Maori were colonizers who ate the people they colonized.

Provide an example. I'm begging you. Put a fucking example in your presentation. No one knows what the hell you're talking about can you please include one teeny tiny itty bitty example please please please we're starving here.

i feel like treating sexual violence as infinitely worse and more unspeakable and than any and all other types of violence is probably not good for peoples lives or brains

i think one of the places this is clearest is whenever u see one of those stupid replies thats like "yeah i dont believe in the death penalty. EXCEPT we should kill all rapists and pedos" cuz they never include, like, nazis or doctors that abuse disabled people or anything. like rape is more evil than a guy beating his wife to death due to some nebulous Sin Value. obviously i think the death penalty shouldnt be a thing whatsoever i just think its indicative of.....Something in peoples brains that a sexual abuser is a type of demon that has to be put down like a dog "even though i DONT believe in carceral punishment" but, like, klansmen or serial killers or anything else are somehow nowhere near the same level. its basically an "i can excuse racism but i draw the line at animal cruelty". like what if all bad shit was just bad shit and we didnt pretend that certain types of abject violence and cruelty were Of The Devil.

"Our apologies for suggesting that genocide should not happen to other people, please accept our apologies as we continue murdering Palestinians"

I hate that like when arguing with christians about how they think that homosexuality is a sin because of the bible its a faux pas to be like ok well that's not real

I do not care about someone's personal creation mythology but when we are talking about like actual legislation that decides equal rights it is like ok you cannot just say source: religious document. why is that even allowed or taken seriously

It's kind of sweet how "it's incredibly rude" is on there twice like. so what. when i call someone a racist bastard because he wants to do mass deportations, that is also rude, or at least i hope it is. Politeness is a peace agreement and not some fundemantal moral imperative; if some christian is going on about how god says gay sex is a sin or whatever, then they are being rude and it's fine to respond in kind.