tread softly in the woods

"I didn't feel like a woman/girl"

You can't feel like a sex because they're not emotions or sensations. It's just a state of being. You're just uncomfortable and unhappy with gender roles forced unto you.

I can assure you most people, especially women, aren't happy with these roles either.

Not feeling "feminine" or not subscribing to sexist gender roles doesn't make you not a woman.

Okay but nobody said anything about feeling like a sex?? Gender identity and biological sex are two different things and this post just quietly smooshed them together and hoped nobody noticed 💀

And "you're just uncomfortable with gender roles" is so condescending because you just decided you understand my inner experience better than I do. That's not feminism that's just. Telling someone to sit down and accept the label they were given at birth. Which is ironically exactly what feminism was supposed to fight against??

Also "not feeling feminine doesn't make you not a woman" — completely true and nobody argued otherwise!! But genuinely experiencing two distinct gender identities isn't the same as just not vibing with feminine stereotypes. Those are different things and this post knows that and chose to ignore it anyway 💀

The point of (radical) feminism is to abolish gender entirely. This is because gender is a patriarchal construct that disproportionately inhibits women and girls.

Sex is real, gender isn't.

Furthermore, I noticed that what people call "gender" is just having a personality, aesthetics, and habits.

Also, if gender and sex are different, why do some trans/nb people take offence when you acknowledge their biological sex?

"Sex is real, gender isn't" and "what people call gender is just personality aesthetics and habits" and "why do trans people get offended when you acknowledge their biological sex" — that's not radical feminism making a nuanced point about socialization anymore, that's just transphobia and enbyphobia with extra steps and you did that yourself without any help from me

And the biological sex acknowledgment thing — the reason trans and nonbinary people take issue with it isn't because biological sex existing as a concept is offensive. It's because "acknowledging biological sex" is constantly used as an excuse to deadname people, use wrong pronouns, treat trans people according to their assigned sex instead of their actual identity, and basically ignore everything they've told you about themselves. It's not being used for medical purposes in these conversations. It's being used to invalidate. That's the part that's offensive and I think you know that 💀

Gender and personality are also just. Different things. By your own logic cis people don't have genders either, just personalities and aesthetics. Which means you just argued yourself out of having a gender. Interesting choice

she got burned at the stake for wearing men's clothes, she was a teenage warrior protecting her country with whole patriarchal systems against her, show some fucking respect

fuck outta here with that ‘hEr sToRy iS LiKe tRaNsFeMmE, eNbY’ crap. especially with any males that wear a caricature of womanhood. her story is of women and girls charging forward even with all the obstacles in our way, even with the threat of death upon us.

an airplane stuck on a toyota minivan

this miata built by rocket scientists

the mr2 boat

the nyan cat bmw that i think actually played the song at all times

the homer simpson car built by uranium workers

this limo whose brakes caught on fire

the dumbest corolla and supra wearing funny hats

"I didn't feel like a woman/girl"

You can't feel like a sex because they're not emotions or sensations. It's just a state of being. You're just uncomfortable and unhappy with gender roles forced unto you.

I can assure you most people, especially women, aren't happy with these roles either.

Not feeling "feminine" or not subscribing to sexist gender roles doesn't make you not a woman.

love my pumpkin

I can’t imagine the psychological difference in getting sexually assaulted during a match, and being abandoned and shunned and dismissed in perpetuity to the point that you sue. And being sexually assaulted by a male when you assumed your female league was female. They ignore you distress, force you to lawyer up, force you to resort to right wing outlets, totally disregard you on every level.

“You shouldn’t even be on the wrestling team if you can’t handle an oil check.”

“Just because you were fingered by a tranny doesn’t mean you should be on the news.”

It goes like this:

Women being trafficked and forced into prostitution is an atrocity and should be stopped - at this point everyone is still in agreement.

What happens to them is rape - everyone pretty much agrees with this still.

And then: If there are EXTREMELY OBVIOUS warning signs that the prostitute in question is likely a victim of trafficking*, every single john who had sex with her anyway should be prosecuted for rape.

So many people froth at the mouth at the mere suggestion. They get furious if you suggest that this should be the law. But I think nothing could be more reasonable. Trafficking and forced prostitution flourishes because "normal" johns do not care if the prostitute they are paying is there voluntarily. They do not have to care (unless, maybe, if she is underage). Nothing will happen to him.

I say: Make johns deathly afraid of a prostitute possibly being trafficked. I want it to ruin lives to rape a woman who is clearly being forced to prostitute herself.

But no, apparently that's a horrible and hateful stance to have.

Researchers being quoted are like “mostly these men will keep reoffending and we can say jail time might cure them but um. Unfortunately the data doesn’t support that.”

Absolutely none of the men will own up to having done something wrong. One of the men talks about the trauma he and his wife went through together: he accidentally killed her son with a tractor, got into drugs over the guilt, kept harassing her about wanting to kill her, and then went to her work with a noose in his car screaming he would kill her. Another man stole $100,000 from a woman and then started stalking her because she wouldn’t “listen to his apology”. Another man actually previously killed a girlfriend and the stalking victims testified against him on the stand, because he confided the murder story to her to scare her.

What’s interesting though is they do have one female stalker. She started leaving little voodoo dolls and shit on her husband’s ex-wife’s doorstep and car because she was sending nude photos of the women to her husband. Her story made national news. She was put on probation because she never did anything violent, but part of the terms of the probation was she had no contact whatsoever with her own mother for 8 years. The terms of this woman’s no-contact order with her mother were stricter than the no-contact orders given to men against their victims after they were imprisoned (all of the men either attempt to or continue to stalk their victims from prison). The female stalker did own up to what she did and expressed remorse immediately.

A man kept punching out the windows of a woman’s home when she wasn’t there, sent her thousands of texts about being camped outside her home, asked her neighbor about guns at 6 in the morning, memorized her work and gym schedule. Because none of this was “a threat to bodily harm” it was all fine. The stalking victim had to hire an attorney to find other victims he did beat in order to prove he was a real risk to her.

The man was totally aware that as long as she didn’t have his face on videotape while kicking in the windows of her house, he couldn’t be touched. He repeated multiple times that she never had him on tape breaking into her home, therefore it wasn’t him and he shouldn’t be in prison.

Was it the part where a man stated that because he wasn’t on tape breaking into her home, he shouldn’t be in jail for trying to break into her home? That he knew that without cameras it would be very hard for a prosecutor to do anything to him? Even though he had also left hundreds of voicemails detailing her daily movements and outfits to let her know he was watching her at all times?

Was it the part where a man stole $100,000 from his employer but kept breaking a restraining order even while in jail because he “just wanted to apologize” to her? And then later gave a fellow inmate a detailed layout of her home to put a hit on her and then the inmate turned him in and the map of her home was accurate?

Or was it the part that the jails these men were housed in let them continue to make phone calls to their victims, while a female stalker was court ordered to not contact her mother because her crime was committed with her mother, and was following the terms of that court order.

Was it the part where the researcher in Episode 1 stated that data doesn’t back that these offenders will stop offending? That rehabilitation doesn’t necessarily work, which was kind of supported by the stalkers themselves who all had multiple victims (except the one woman who was stalking her husband’s ex).

But simultaneously, stalking tends to be an excellent harbinger of future violence against that victim - once you’re kicking in the front door of a persons property and leaving her dozens of voicemails a day, there’s a higher likelihood that the stalkers next step is actually breaking into the house and hurting or killing her.

—

PBS: Language as Prejudice - Myth #6: Women Talk Too Much (via misandry-mermaid)

Every EVERY women’s studies class I’ve been in has had this problem and failed to address it.