Purple Jane

"Oh so you're saying people who've had a foot or leg amputation aren't human?? That's fucked up"

mine was something like this:

person A: humans have 4 limbs

person B: are you saying I'm not human bc i don't have legs :(

person A: of course not, there exceptions to the rules, you are a human :)

snake: me too :) im human and dont have limbs

person A: no, you are a snake

snake: are humans just limbs to you >:(

person B: dude ur a snake

This is going to be long but contain a lot of very important information people need to understand about the radfem perspective on gender compared to both the conservative one and the genderist one.

I don't personally know any radfem who would ever do this so the simple answer is I can't tell you why someone would bc I've never even witnessed it, let alone gotten to ask their reasoning. People who call themselves gender critical and get called TERF aren't necessarily radfems. Radical feminism is by definition a left wing ideology. If you were active on radblr, you would see frequent posts calling out conservative women who try to act all buddy-buddy with radfems re: trans stuff. We on radblr do not tolerate that or their presence - at least not in the corner of radblr where I exist. I block right wing blogs on sight.

Contrary to popular trans belief, we don't agree with conservatives on trans matters either. Where conservatives want to reinforce gender, maintain the existence of gender, and are bioessentialist (a term genderists use incorrectly btw*) by nature of their predominantly Christian beliefs, radfems are gender atheists and abolitionists.

*Bioessentialism doesn't mean "vagina = woman, penis = man." It refers to the belief that women (aka female humans) are genetically/inherently nurturing, caregivers, emotional, sensitive, intuitive, quiet, physically weak, like pink and princesses and flowery dresses, etc., and that men are genetically/inherently strong, resilient, tough, outdoorsy, aggressive/violent, stoic, rational, leaders, like trucks and mud and red meat, etc.

While bioessentialism is the belief that all these stereotypes are innate, these stereotypes themselves are what make up gender. "Gender stereotypes" and "Gender roles" are redundant phrases. Gender *is* just stereotypes based on sex. Male aka "amab" people are expected to adhere to the truck-loving, tough, aggressive, stereotypes mentioned above. Those stereotypes are placed based on their physical body - the male body - not placed on them because of their INTERNAL "gender identity." For proof, look no further than the baby gifts an expecting mother receives after finding out the sex of her unborn child: they are not random, gender-neutral gifts, they're blue pajamas with dinosaurs on them because boy.

Radfems want to eliminate gender. We view sex as a neutral biological fact, like your height, foot width, or hair or eye color.

Imagine if, before a baby is born, doctors tested its future hair color, and that information was believed to determine everything about the child. Oh, it's a brunette! So it will be opinionated, love playing with building blocks, enjoy science, and its favorite color will be green! Oh, a blond? Well, better get it yellow EVERYTHING covered in butterflies, and order some craft supplies (blonds are just naturally more creative than brunettes, of course). Be prepared... blonds are soft and sensitive and moody. They're very artistic but struggle to keep up in math and science classes, and are so indecisive!

This is what gender is. A massive, all-encompassing set of traits that are assigned to one sex or the other, designed explicitly by patriarchy to maintain the oppression of the female sex. It defines everything, starting with how people treat you before you're even born, including who you will be expected to be all your life forever, up to what jobs you're likely to get and how much you'll be paid. Society has decided that which type of gametes your body is designed to produce (whether or not you successfully produce them is utterly irrelevant to what your body is DESIGNED genetically to do) determines every last thing about your life. There's a stronger argument for astrology than gender.

So conservatives want to perpetuate gender, keep males doing all those things I listed (which we call "masculinity") and females doing all those things I listed (often called "femininity"). Radfems want gender gone. We want your sex to be no more relevant to your life than your height or hair color. We believe that regardless of whether your body is structured to produce large gametes or small ones says absolutely fucking nothing about who you are, what you are capable of, your likes or dislikes, your intelligence, or anything else.

So, no. I would sooner die than team up with conservatives. We have nothing in common. You are by definition NOT radical feminist if you support gender and will team up with those who do, just to ~own the trains~. That isn't a no true Scotsman, it's just how definitions work.

I am not against trans people. I am 100% in favor of safety and protection for trans people. I simply don't view gender the same way many trans people (specifically those we call genderists or TRAs) do. I don't believe in an internal gender identity any more than I believe in an internal hair color identity. I do, however, believe in EVERY human's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare, self-expression, non-discrimination, etc. I believe clothes and toys and hobbies and occupations and likes and dislikes and skills and weaknesses all have zero to do with your sex.

This is my struggle with gender identity ideology: nobody has been able to answer the most fundamental defining question I have about it. If, as many trans activists claim, their gender identity has nothing to do with clothing, nothing to do with haircut, nothing to do with being hairy vs shaven, nothing to do with personality traits, nothing to do with likes and dislikes, nothing to do with whether you prefer dolls or hotwheels, nothing to do with all those stereotypes I mentioned... but it's also not simply a descriptor for one's sex, what is left? What remains to give gender meaning? What is a boy/man or girl/woman? Without referencing any sex stereotypes or sexed body parts, how do you know which one you are?

If anyone could give me a genuine, logical answer to this, an explanation for gender identity that has nothing to do with sex stereotypes and makes concrete sense, on God I would become the biggest TRA on earth.

Because I don't believe that gender is anything more than sexist stereotypes, the idea of gender identity is incompatible with my values. Because I view sex as a simple biological fact which should be as neutral as hair color, I don't think it makes sense to believe one can fully and truly change sex. If you dye your hair blond, the roots will still grow in the original brown color determined by your genetics. You may be able to appear as a blond and convince some people you are naturally blond, but it doesn't *actually* change the reality.

I believe there are people with physical sex dysphoria, like myself and my best friend, for whom medical transition is in many cases beneficial (it was for me) in alleviating those odd "phantom sex characteristic," very neurological-seeming symptoms. But while having a double mastectomy did help the sensations, it didn't turn me into a male human (man), and I have certainly never wanted to be one. My best friend lives a life where everyone perceives her to be female, though she was born male, simply because the medical process she went through to alleviate those neurological sensations resulted in people perceiving her as female (passing). Her "social transition" was not intentional or gender related, just an incidental byproduct of the medical one. It was simply easier, and probably safer, to assimilate into social womanhood than to tell everyone she's actually male despite appearing female, though she still does not have a gender identity, does not wear makeup or skirts or perform femininity, and couldn't care less about pronouns - I use "she" because that's how my brain naturally perceives her. Outside of this concrete, material, neurologically plausible view of sex dysphoria (which still has nothing inherently related to *gender* about it), I don't understand what it means to be trans.

Radfems want both sexes to be utterly free to be whoever they are, without being influenced/socialized into gendered (aka sex-stereotypical) behaviors and preferences. We want males comfortable & safe wearing flowery sundresses and crying often and being homemakers if they wish, and females under zero societal pressure to shave, wear makeup, etc., and totally free to speak their minds and wear cargo shorts without so much as a sideways glance. Conservatives want males to be "masculine" and females to be "feminine," whereas we want "masculine" and "feminine" to be as absurd concepts as "blondian" and "brunettian" sound. Fundamentally, radfems & conservatives exist in opposition.

Anyone who has an issue with trans people, and for whom that issue is so important they'll team up with conservatives just to fight the trans movement, has utterly lost sight of the goal of feminism (if they were feminist to begin with), which is female liberation. Radfems believe gender abolition is a crucial step toward female liberation; working with people who want to enforce gender such as conservatives would be working against our own interests.

It [the idea that women's spaces are pointless because female exclusivity is unenforceable] is such a telling argument because all that's really being asked for when we demand single sex spaces is for men to VOLUNTARILY self-select out. For males to understand that, though they may not fit in well with other males, female spaces are still not theirs.

The suggestion from feminists is never genital inspections at the bathroom entrance, but that males voluntarily refrain from entering and that females have the right to expel violators when we can identify them. Some males do pass as females, and our request is that they respect our space regardless.

Males truly cannot conceive of the idea of simply respecting the space and boundaries of women. It literally doesn't cross their minds, so their minds immediately jump to whether or not women can forcibly stop them. The belief is that if a woman cannot forcibly prevent it, you may take anything you like from her with impunity.

it is only humans where TRAs get lost on this. it is only humans where questions pertaining to intersex conditions and matters of fertility or even childfree-by-choice come into play.

if i could have one wish come true, limited to this discourse, it would be that this matter be settled and every TRA on earth understand that this is what we mean by "woman is an adult human female." it's a species-specific (what an etymologically repetitive term; love it!!) sex term like all of the above. if you are able to understand the above for animals, you can understand just fine that this is all we mean, all we view "woman" as. "gender" is not a factor.

there are a number of other terms for both horses and humans that specify males vs females and/or developmental stage/reproductive status, such as dam and sire, which refer to female and male horses that have reproduced (mother & father), or foal and yearling, which are sex-neutral but age-specific (fairly similar to infant/toddler/adolescent), or even the term gelding for a castrated male horse (closely paralleled by eunuch).

We're told our genitals smell like fish, that "roast beef curtains," are hilarious and a sign that a woman is a sl*t, that our natural pubic hair is offensive. That periods are disgusting and shameful, and should be kept secret. We aren't even properly taught about our own anatomy- a lot of women don't know until later in life that the vulva and vagina are separate, and that the urethra is not the same opening as the vaginal opening.

There's hardly any research into female-specific medical conditions. Nearly 10% (1 in 10) women are afflicted with endometriosis, yet there's literally no research on what causes it. PCOS is also under-researched. It's all shoved under the rug, too stigmatised to be discussed.

While boys can talk freely about their dick and balls, the words "vagina" or "vulva," are still treated like a humiliating joke at best, and a vulgar obscenity at worst.

Men talk with pride about their genitals. To "grow a set" = to start acting tough and assertive. To "have big balls" = to be brave. "Big dick energy" = to be a charismatic "alpha" that commands attention.

Meanwhile, there are no positive cultural connotations regarding the vulva/vagina. Even "serving cunt" is used as a tongue-in-cheek memetic joke.

I think it's very predatory that shame, disgust and aversion about having a vagina/vulva is marketed as a sign that a girl/woman is dysphoric. That it should just be censored and called a "front hole" or a "bonus hole," to avoid the stigma. It's a cultural by-product of the crushing misogyny imbedded into society.

For example, I'm sure we've all seen people say things about how the repeal of Roe v Wade will harm people with uteruses/people who can get pregnant/etc. And while yes, it definitely harms those people, the full truth is that abortion bans harm *female* people, *regardless of if they can get pregnant or have a uterus.* Because female people who don't have uteruses can still get pregnant, and in those rare cases will 100% of the time need an abortion. Female people who deal with infertility and can't carry a fetus to term can still be jailed for miscarrying. Female people who are completely sterile (for whatever reason) can still be denied medications/medical treatment on the grounds that the treatment could theoretically harm a fetus. Female people who may currently have no uterus/no longer be able to get pregnant but who have had an abortion in the past will face increased stigma.

Here's another example:

It seems pretty straightforward- menstruation stigma is experienced by people who menstruate. But again, that's only half true. Period stigma is experienced by all female people, regardless of if they menstruate. Think about the fact that we are told female people should not hold political leadership because "what if a female president has PMS and starts a war", despite the fact that almost all female presidential candidates are old enough that they would have experienced menopause. Female people have their feelings dismissed because "it must be that time of the month", regardless of if they're too young to menstruate or too old or if they have a condition causing amenorrhea. Female children grow up seeing periods- a natural function of their bodies- portrayed as disgusting, dirty and gross, as making them unclean, as something to dread and fear. This affects them before they experience menarche, this affects them even if they never experience menarche. It affects all female people.

That trying to define female people as a class is inherently creepy and illogical because there is no necessary connection between people with uteruses and people with vaginas and people with breasts (they are all different overlapping circles on a ven diagram) thus the only reason you would try to is an obsession with controlling the narrative around other people's reproductive organs. And in doing so you forcibly cut people out of groups they do belong to because they don't fit your arbitrary standard, like Cinderellas step sisters cutting off their toes to fit the slipper.

It's the unwanted pregnancy that's traumatizing. That fucking stays with you. That sense of panic, of your body not being your own, of feeling like a trapped animal, I don't wish that on any woman or girl, and that's my point: in order to get to the point of needing an abortion, she still has to be pregnant first, and that is hell. Absolute hell.

So it's not about men getting out of the responsibility of being a father (though, yes, plenty of men do support abortion for this reason). He could be the most willing father in the world (and there are also men who fit the bill here; reproductive coercion is a thing), and that still isn't going to make up for the fact that he made a woman pregnant when she didn't want to be.

So that's what I mean when I say the fact there are so many abortions happening reveals a huge problem. 1 in 3 women are suffering through pregnancies they don't want for however long it takes for them to be able to get rid of it (not to mention all the women who can't get rid of it and forced to carry to term). All because men are irresponsible or coercive.

All pregnancies should be presumed unwanted unless some form of contract was signed, and men should be legally punished accordingly. Impregnation is assault, at the very least. "But! But accidents happen!" Welp. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ car accidents happen but you're still punished if you kill someone. There's absolutely no way to punish an ~innocent man~ because it's literally his genetics in her. If she aborts it, she didn't want it, and it's time for men to be held accountable for that. Sucks to be you, maybe learn what a condom is, fuckhead.

You watch how fast "elective early-term abortion" rates plummet when men are sent to prison for impregnating women who didn't want it.

This was an ad in the early 90's. I first saw it in a textbook in the late 90's, used as an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy.