politically, patriarchy is deeply associated with the control of knowledge and the language we use to talk about patriarchy, thus at every turn anti-patriarchy will have its means of knowledge generation and language critiqued and threatened and challenged. the words we, the opposition to patriarchy, use to talk about patriarchy will always be 'too extreme' or 'not exactly right' or 'rude' or 'annoyingly specific' or so many other things, because patriarchy disproportionately empowers our enemies to wield such critiques against us. and so, we must resist the urge to endlessly soften and weaken our language, and i think no place is this more precise than the description of gender classes.
constantly we are told that it is not 'men' that oppress us, but some other thing, and in turn that it is not 'women' that are oppressed, but some other thing. thus it is important that we not cede this language ground but continue to correctly describe the oppressed class as 'women' and the oppressor class as 'men'. in fact, in our material analysis we must reject the allure of the purely individualistic and thus impossible to precisely analyze 'identity labels', and insist upon the existence of material classes and material labels of positionalities.
and so, it's not just because i think it's really, really hot to call you a 'good girl' because of the way it makes you squirm but also because regardless of whatever the fuck 'femboy' means, you're clearly transmisogynized and therefore misogynized and therefore it's correct for me to call you a woman, so there.
