⚢

What is autoimmune: type 1 diabetes, addisons, celiac, hashimotos, lupus, crohns, rheumatoid arthritis etc and many more

I would first like to say I only got about halfway through the article (I will explain why later) but without further ado, let's get into it!

first up, this:

this is misleading and untrue. the UK Supreme Court ruling did not exclude trans women from being protected from discrimination, it excluded trans women from being protected from discrimination for being women. important distinction. that's all I say about this for now.

in response to the first highlight: "many believe?" is that a source? should we take these believers at their word without evidence? I, for one, am not prepared to do that. and in response to the second highlight: the exclusion of trans people is not the core part of its mission, the inclusion of female people is. if one thinks including female people is exclusion of trans people, that's very telling.

let's take a look at the "anti-transgender talking points"

this is not anti-trans, it's basic feminism.

this is where I stopped reading, because after all of the above, they also fail to provide a source for J.K. Rowling supposedly "funding anti-trans movements." the link is simply an interview of Nadia Whittome basically saying source: dude just trust me.

When you read Andrea Dworkin say she’s never been more afraid then when she was speaking to a group of lesbians that were pissed that she called herself one despite not being one that’s her literally admitting she’s lesbophobic. She wasn’t more afraid of speaking out against the men that rape, mutilate, murder, pimp, sex traffic, molest, or beat women and girls? Nope. It’s lesbians holding her accountable for her appropriation of an oppressed community that made her shake in her boots.

When you read bell hooks say that lesbian erotica shouldn’t be sexist against the penis because we all need to celebrate and cherish it she’s proving her lesbophobia.

I’m reading Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology right now and less than 30 pages in she says she doesn’t believe in homosexuality, that when she uses Lesbian with a capital L it’s about women identified women (the ‘correct’ usage) and when she uses it with a lower case l she’s talking about the “male-distorted version… women who relate genitally to women”. That’s worse than Dworkin comparing us nazis.

Why should I ‘separate the art from the artist’ when it comes to “older” or “published” or “brilliant” radical feminist women?  Why should I consider the fact that the foundation of the second wave was the silencing of lesbians and the theft of our culture a ‘disagreement’ and not a deal breaker?

Why should I not recognize that for all the great writing they’ve made they were the foremothers of the anti-lesbian identity politics bullshit we’re currently drowning in?

And when you hear about how there were REAL lesbians who had major issues with these women why is it that you can’t find any names? Any writings? Why were the most lesbophobic and appropriative radical feminists the most successful radical feminists? Why are successful radical feminist lesbians almost nonexistent? Doesn’t it seem odd to you when you consider that the movement was built and maintained by genuine lesbians?

Any lesbian that decides not to read works by women that hate, fear, silence, and deny her very existence isn’t ageist, she’s sparing herself the suffering that comes as a side effect of being part of a distinct oppressed class of women.

bell hooks in penis passions

mary daly in gyn/ecology

I am not uptight about privacy because I'm hiding something. I'm uptight about it because the people who dismiss my right to privacy are dangerous to you and me and our families, personally, all the time.

"This text is about Joan of Arc. She lived, and she strove for freedom; and as long as she was, indeed, free, she fought. She rejected femaleness in the same breath as she rejected the chains placed on femaleness. Her protest was politically minded, practically minded: she could not be free unless she had defined herself in opposition to every other woman she had met, trading material sisterhood for the images of ascended female saints in her mind."

This is how society views female genitalia. They don't quite view it as a human organ in all the integrity that would insinuate. They view it kinda like an accessory to dick. It's defined in relation to dick- not defined by its own self. It's viewed as like a negative space juxtaposed to a positive object (dick). It's viewed as like the background to the main character (dick). It's not seen fully as its own thing with its own functions for its own right and its own integrity. Because of this, something interesting happens with the way people view women- we are seen both as sex objects, and as sexless objects simultaneously. This is the heart of why women aren't seen as fully human, in my opinion. Part of being human is having genitalia. Women aren't fully seen as having genitalia.