Your Local Hoiden

anti porn stats

Marsha P Johnson

Stonewall riots

anti porn stats + receipts

masterpost of anti porn masterposts

female oppression in the United States

discover radical feminism

intersex conditions

tra receipts (misogyny + mostly homophobia): 1, 2, 3

women are biologically superior

silenced by trans politics

pre stonewall lgb history

brain sex debunked again (different post)

Also @auntiewanda used the BITE model to analyze the trans community

Radfem Sourced Arguments doc by @pronoun-fucker​ 

Trans Violence sourced post by @theewench (tumblr wouldn’t let me tag them, so I linked their blog)

Radfem Masterposts by @thatkindoffeminist​

Feminist Literary Resources by northw0man(deactivated)

Black Feminist Books by @readabookson 

Delusions of Gender PDF

Radfem Library by @men-sik-isleyarin

Documentaries On Sex Trafficking by @cool-daniela-fan

Another Resource Post on Black Feminism by @quiteliterallyhotsauce

MTF Violence (and some other stuff) by @evolution-through-revolution

Prostitution Resources 

Free PDFs of radfem books, organized by author

TRA Receipts by @its-turning-all-the-frogs-gay​

he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.

the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved. to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant. once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body." instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."

it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus. that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.

at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this - that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.

i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.

i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant. when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.

how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment. how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.

it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually.

If you think "children should not be allowed in this space," you HAVE TO reckon with the fact that you are now excluding parents (and very often women specifically) who don't have access to childcare. You are isolating people who are poor, or rural, or single parents, or any number of other factors that might prevent someone from having on-demand childcare. You are cutting them off from being able to exist in public. You are denying parents and children the ability to fully participate in society.

My mom spent several years only leaving the house to buy groceries or take me to school, and even then, people would still come up to her to complain TO HER FACE about how she shouldn't bring a crying toddler to Walmart. Entitled strangers would literally try and demand that my mom leave and come back without the kids.

"Why can't your husband watch them?" Because he was at work, usually working extreme amounts of overtime so we didn't get evicted, because landlords don't like it when you stop paying rent.

"Why can't you send them to daycare?" Because that costs money.

"Why can't your teenager stay home with them and babysit?" Because I also deserved to be able to leave the house for something other than school, and taking me to the grocery store was how my mom taught me to manage a household budget, shop sales, and meal plan.

"Don't bring your kid in public if you can't CONTROL them and make them stop crying!" Kids cry when they're upset, and being dragged around a store is upsetting! Don't be an asshole! Children are human beings who are still learning how the world works, and they don't have a lot of agency. You'd cry, too.

"Spank them until they learn to stop crying!" That's just straight-up child abuse, Jesus Christ.

I have blocked multiple people who went on tirades about how I'm a "horrible breeder" who is "contributing to overpopulation" and how I and my "spawn" deserve to be trapped at home. (I am infertile and my foster kid is an adult now, so I don't know what breeding and spawn they think they're talking about.)

One person asked if I was posting ragebait for fun because "this isn't a real issue." Several have asked if this "really happens" and told me that my "experience isn't universal." (There are multiple parents in the comments who have agreed with me and talked about how hard it is to navigate the world with their kids.)

Children are an oppressed class who are treated like absolute vermin. Parents are given absolutely no support in caring for them. Good parents are set at a disadvantage even when they have all the best intentions, struggling parents aren't given resources to improve their situation or get community assistance, and blatantly abusive parents don't get caught because hitting and screaming and controlling are considered perfectly normal ways to treat a child. Communities would rather shut kids away where they can be ignored and forgotten and mistreated, all for the sin of "being annoying in public."

Youth liberation is vital, regardless of whether you, personally, like kids. You cannot ban children from public. You cannot shut children away in isolation and expect them to grow into happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults who can function in our society. You do not get to demand children be removed from every corner of public life all for your personal comfort.

For children to learn the right way to behave in public places, then shock horror, parents need to bring children to public places.

Babies are going to cry. It's their only way to communicate. And speaking from experience. If mum could have left baby with someone, then she would have.

Toddlers are in the process of that very long and tough lesson, learning how to manage emotions. Tantrums are going to happen. They're par for the course.

And experience here again. Sometimes the best thing to do, is to take a step away, and let it blow itself out. Tantrums are exhausting.

If we try to fight it, it just adds fuel. Better to remain close but unengaged and the child tires soon enough, now ready for that reassuring hug from loving arms.

I've seen follow mums and dads doing this. And they have nothing but my support. To my mind they're giving their little ones what they need.

men just love to run their fucking mouth about what women do or do not want without even once considering consulting any actual women on the matter

Edit to add:

Let me explain what I mean with a specific, hypothetical scenario and let me know your thoughts:

Imagine that you are in a gym, in the women's only section to be exact. The women's section is a smaller compartment in a mixed sex gym where there's a few machines but a bigger number of the same machines is downstairs on the first floor, where both sexes have access and train together. In the women's section for the most part there is only one machine per type available; for example, instead of 5 treadmills in the mixed sex department, there is only 1 in the women's section and so on.

You like to train in the women's section to avoid stares from men and generally feel much more comfortable in a space where there's only women and no men at all.

Then there are some women who train in this female only space for religious reasons. They also do not want to be watched training by men, their reasons stem predominantly from religious reasons.

As you're working out on one of these machines, a woman approaches you and asks you how long you intend to keep going and you reply that you've only just started your workout and tell her how long you'll approximately take until you are finished. The woman argues that since you're not religious and do not "need" to cover yourself in front of men like she does, you could just go downstairs to the mixed sex section and use those machines and leave the one you're currently using to her and other women who can only train in this singular sex space.

How would you most likely react and/or respond to her argument?

Scenario A: You tell her that in this country with the locally established women's rights, a woman covering herself is optional and a misogynistic choice women make under the influence of oppressive, patriarchal religions. You also say that her not wanting to train next to men because of her faith is not more valid or important than your reasoning for not wanting to train next to men with the absence of faith and that you will not leave your machine to go work out downstairs. You empathize with this woman and the fact that you do not know her background and to what extent she might be forced to cover up because of her family but at the same time do not believe that sacrificing your comfort and right to be here will help her out in the long run. You even hope that by refusing, she will eventually see how restricting her religious lifestyle is, start to resent it and break free.

Scenario B: You feel sad for this woman and how restricting her life must be, although you also recognize at the same time that she would probably have the agency to break out of it, if she really wanted to. That her covering herself, would not be necessary if she really decided that she didn't want to anymore. You decide that your comfort and right to be here mattered less than making this woman's life a little easier by giving in and using the machines downstairs. You simply hope that she will someday realize how misogynistic the religion is, that she follows. You know that you would be justified to refuse giving up your machine as you were there first but also think that refusing to give in, would rather make her resent people outside of her religion as she would view them as disrespectful, thinking that they are actively making her life harder; that she would avoid these people and likely blame them for not making her restrictive lifestyle easier instead of recognizing that the true culprit and root cause is the religion itself that she follows. So you bite the bullet, leave her the machine and go train downstairs.

Feel free to share your thoughts and/or alternative ways you would likely react. Which scenario do you align with more?

Personally, I feel very torn between both of them so I wanted to hear your takes on this. Are there other ways in which you (would) accommodate religious women and/or sacrifice your own comfort in order to make their life easier, in which ways and for what reasons? Do you believe that doing so could potentially open them up more for religious criticsm as they do not view you as someone who is making their life harder and/or that not doing so would make them resentful of you and people outside of the religion rather than the religion itself?

"FGM is happening to females!"

You are a female so did it happen to you? No, it is actually banned in your country and you share zero of the violence those girls who actually suffered.

Did you actually get socialized like that? No, you were never forced to cover your head. Your family supported your education.

like fucking stop pretending it's a PRIVILEGE that a handful of women in the west aren't treated like absolute dogs in their day-to-day lives, or that at least some of their very basic human rights are respected to an extent. stop fucking pretending that we don't have anything in common with mistreated women. and stop fucking pretending that you even know what's actually happening in our lives.

if an individual woman has not experienced female genital mutilation in her life, she still knows it happens to other women and girls solely because of their sex. it is a mere COINCIDENCE that it's not her. and as long as such practices exist somewhere else, she is not free. she is more than entitled to talk about it, to scream about it as long as she thinks is necessary.

I ran into her two years ago. Last week, her daughter turned 1. This girl, let’s called her “P”, is a really good example of why I never feel comfortable mocking trad wives

Her perfect trad husband, who was a shining young figure in the local religious community, volunteered in all sorts of groups, well loved in his workplace and everything else, beat her up at 1 month post-partum. I reached out to her after seeing her desperately asking for a stroller on a page, confused and slightly concerned knowing both of them came from wealthy backgrounds.

The reality for lots of tradwives living “perfect lives” is this: P was immediately ostracised. All the wealth of her husband and her family meant absolutely nothing if she wasn’t in favour and doing what she was told. Her child and her well-being didn’t matter. P, at 25 years old, was basically deemed an oopsie, and left on her own to figure out how to pay for herself, a baby, find housing, and every other task you can think of.

Having known many of these women (and supported many of these women), another factor most people don’t consider is this: they are intentionally raised to be helpless. When I immediately offered my support to P, she really needed it. This young woman needed to be guided through how to apply for government assistance, how to weigh up rentals and apply for them, how to apply for jobs, how to sign up for childcare. How to sign up for your own power and internet, and how to connect them.

It wasn’t that she was “stupid”, or incapable, or spoiled. While it looks like they’re being sheltered, in reality, these women are practically being held hostage. Sure, they might be allowed to learn things that are expected of them (see: basic cooking, baking, cleaning, child rearing, women’s bible studies, hosting, and so forth) but they are heavily controlled from family life into marriage life, and they are never given the opportunity or the reality of what many of us would consider basic adult tasks.

She’s doing okay now. Her daughter turned 1, is happy and healthy. They live frugally, but they have a roof over their heads and the essentials. I often babysit for her so she can attend counselling, or go to a woman’s support group. She is painfully aware that she has so much to learn about how to live as an adult.