A Radical Reference

the fact that men see women as primarily sex first and not as people shows in every facet of society. that a woman cannot befriend, think, dress, behave or speak without it being interpreted as sexual. how we dress as women and girls is always about our sexual character and never ourselves or our self-expression. are we married, of mature mating age, innocent, feminine and sexually chaste, sluts, lesbians? this is what clothes on women are discussed as. women’s clothes and bodies aren’t allowed to be as neutral as men’s are. there simply isn’t all those politics surrounding maleness or men’s fashion.

it was a bunk, unrepeatable piece of shit. also, the two MEN who published it have been claiming that women are biologically less geared for science than men for decades, so complete bias. they have their belief and work backwards to try and 'prove' it, the complete opposite of what actual scientists are supposed to do.

the rates are 5-6% and 10-12% for this study. this source cites reasons for higher PTSD rates to be more acute stress trauma at a younger age, typically sexual abuse.

But, their bizarre leap from “less muscular” to “weak and feminine” aside, raw strength is not the only metric of physical capability. For example:

Women are much better at ultra-endurance sports, owing to:

Muscle composition—females have muscle fatigue and more slow twitch muscle fibers, resulting in better oxygen delivery [x]

Better ability to pace themselves and think ahead [x]

More body fat, allowing female bodies to oxidize more fat than carbohydrates, which is more effective and sustainable long-term [x]

The science of female endurance leads us to the next point: women are more likely to survive extreme situations like natural disasters, famine, and disease.

Estrogen increases immune reactivity, meaning women are more capable of fighting infections [x]

Women are more likely to survive serious physical trauma, also due to estrogen [x]

XX chromosomes provide genetic diversity and provide a “backup” allele in case of a deleterious mutation on one X chromosome, making females less susceptible to genetic disease [x]

Female infants are hardier than male infants due to the above, even in populations where sex preference for male children is high [x]

Increased body fat makes women less likely to starve or freeze [x]

Want to bring a little more neuroendocrinology into this? Women are more likely to remain cool under pressure, from direct threats to physical safety to emotional stress.

Cortisol affects the brain differently in females and males, causing males to take emotionally-driven risks while women evaluate threats more logically [x]

In fight-or-flight scenarios, testosterone increases the likelihood of violent or extreme reactions in males, while females release oxytocin instead—women are not as inclined to make extreme, snap decisions when faced with a threat [x]

I could go on but I think this should suffice for now. The point is that these are the “great men” that have been profoundly influencing Western thought for thousands of years and are quasi-worshipped for their supposed “genius”.

Incomplete females

walking abortion[s]

Deficient, emotional cripples

Incapable of empathizing or identifying with others

half-dead, unresponsive lump[s], incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness

[having] pussy envy

Then you realise that this work is a parody of, directly quoting in some parts, the way Freud wrote about women.

The work was intended to point out an unconscious bias and double standard. It succeeded in doing so.

As I heard once, “the most telling social commentary is not the work itself, but the way in which we react to it”.

–

Full publication is available here

Male and female brains aren’t wired differently

If sex is a service it can be provided to family members, morally.

If sex is a service it can be a small child’s career aspiration, and it should be supported as such.

If sex is a service then pornographic content can also be displayed to children,as they should be given examples of their work possibilities.

If sex is a service, and sex work is an existent opportunity to you, you can’t complain about being unemployed.

If sex is a service csa is just some form of child labour.

If sex is a service it is bigoted and against the costumer rights to denny service on the basis of anything, including sex, regardless of the workers orientation they should provide service to the costumer.

If transwomen had founded an all-trans music festival, I'd think it would be shitty if women went there, drew vaginas all over the place, told them they deserved to get raped, and exposed themselves. But that's not what happened. They didn't want their own places in the world. They wanted Michfest. They wanted the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter. They want zero women-only locker rooms, gyms, pools, classes, schools, book clubs, doctors offices, or private clubs. They want us to not exist.

puberty blockers do not alleviate negative thoughts in children with gender dysphoria, finds study.

here’s a compilation of various sources that shows that the majority of children grow out of their dysphoria into healthy homosexual adults.

a study proving that the suicide rates increase after transition and that sex-reassigned people have considerably higher risks for suicidal behaviour and psychiatric morbidity.

another study showing that between 80% and 97.5% of transgender children later detransition.

“medical intervention may, in effect, become another form of ‘conversion,’ whereby some children who would otherwise have grown up gay or lesbian receive ‘gender affirming’ cross-sex treatments instead”.

there is significant evidence of transitioning being the new contagious social condition for teenage girls.

“evidence for puberty blockers use very low.”

transgender surgery provides no mental mealth benefit, another study says.

let’s talk then about the procedures and consequential effects of these long-term medical interventions you so easily dismissed:

a general overview regarding transition procedures and its effects. 

a masterpost about puberty blockers.

here’s compilation of several sources explaining the dangers of lupron.

the medical harms of hormonal and surgical interventions for gender dysphoric children.

gender transition procedures for minors must be considered experimental procedures at best.

‘transition’ treatment harms kids, veteran psychiatrist at UK gender clinic says

please read what detrans people have been saying as well:

“for the past four years I’ve been stuck as a child.”

“I was a transgender woman for 8 years — time I can’t get back.”

“I was an unhappy girl who needed help. instead, I was treated like an experiment.”

detransitioning Individuals and stories.

this whole website is worth checking out.

a collection of detrans stories from female detransitioners and desisters.

A row between Oxford academics has broken out over a taxpayer-funded transgender study whose participants laud the benefits of puberty blockers for children as young as 13.

The university’s prestigious Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences was given a £700,000 public grant to identify the healthcare needs of young trans people.

The three-year research has now been published, interviewing 50 trans and gender-diverse people across Britain about their experiences, along with 20 parents and carers and covering topics including everyday life, the Tavistock Clinic waiting list, school and family.

However, it has been met with a backlash over what critics call its “hardline trans activism”.

It was led by Dr Melissa Stepney and Dr Sam Martin, two Oxford researchers who posted call-out adverts for trans interviewees aged 12 to 35 on Twitter by tagging the controversial charities Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence.

The advisory panel features three staff from Mermaids, the charity now being investigated by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns, and the chief executive of Gendered Intelligence, which campaigned against a High Court ruling on puberty blockers for under-16s.

It also contains an interview with Tom, a 13-year-old who was asked by interviewers to rebut those who are “critical about hormone blockers” and asked “What would you say to people that might actually want to try and stop young kids getting blockers?”

The 13-year-old is featured twice, first describing the “really good” reversal of changes in breast development and then to “describe the positive impacts” of puberty blockers.

Other interviewees describe how it is “cruel, just cruel” to be referred for puberty blockers aged 12 and not receive them until 16, another said they “would have leapt at the opportunity” to take them, while another mentioned two suicide attempts during puberty.

While the drawbacks of cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery are discussed in other sections, the puberty blockers chapter fails to mention concerns about the irreversibility of some side effects.

The study initially named Gender GP, a private clinic whose founder was prosecuted for running it illegally, in two interviews with 17-year-olds and on its front page, but this was removed when Prof Michael Biggs, an Oxford academic, complained.

Prof Biggs, an expert in sociology, last week wrote a second complaint to the University of Oxford’s registrar alleging a conflict of interest between some activists using the study to advertise their own consultancy businesses, and raising concerns with the ethical board.

“My concern about this research project is shared by others,” Prof Biggs told The Telegraph, who said that an individual interviewed by the project contacted him last year. He claimed that other medical professionals have also raised concerns.

“This project poses a risk to the University’s reputation.”

One parent, who was interviewed alongside 19 others for the study, told The Telegraph: “Trans rights activists have hijacked this study, they’ve used it as a figleaf for hardline trans activism and have recruited from a very narrow selection of channels.

“I only got involved by accident, after seeing an advert on the Mermaids Twitter feed, and they were shocked at how off-script I was. I am under the name Elijah and the only parent without an introduction, without a biography, heavily redacted.

“The whole purpose of the study was to push for barrierless medication for children as quickly as possible, that was the starting point. It is textbook institutional capture.”

The study’s list of resources links to the controversial trans charities Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and the Gender Identity Research and Education Society. The Telegraph understands other parents have also complained to Oxford about the study.

The research, published on the Healthtalk website, was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, an offshoot of the Department of Health and Social Care.

A University of Oxford spokesman said it was ethically approved, adding: “The research team were not commissioned to evaluate any particular service or agency, including private providers. The published testimonies are the real-life experiences of those individuals, and are not intended as advice or to advocate any of the views expressed.