fueled by incel tears

Men claim they need physical affection to feel appreciated. But they don't hug each other. They don't hold their children, or baby wear. They don't hold their friends hands or rub their backs after a breakup. They don't lean on each other on the train after a long night out.

Women do. Women reach out with their hands and their hearts daily both to friends and family but also to complete strangers. Men do not.

They can’t believe that we don’t see everything that moves and want to fuck it… she’s beautiful and so to them there’s no way she hasn’t been fucked

The system intrinsically abuses poor people.

Link to the article here.

Does anyone have the link to that post explaining how the term "assigned at birth" was originally coined and used by and for intersex people (or people with DSD) before it was completely appropriated by the trans lobby, to the point that the people it was originally about have largely been forgotten?

I reblogged it a few months ago, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

Thanks @its-terf-or-nothin

@spagootski

You’re right. And feminists who disagree are fucking blind to the fact that men being allowed to treat female animals as property means they transfer that behaviour on to us because they ALSO see us as animals.

here's a link to @barbievspredator 's rb of a post discussing this, and heres a link to the study (the one in the post appears to be broken):

Of course I had to look her up; her name is Kelsey Pfendler

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.