bebe sloff

"Us? Oh, of *course* our Dachshund sleeps inside- we just let him out in the morning and make sure he comes back for dinner. He just does his own thing, no worries."

"Um, you know it's not humane to keep a chihuahua confined to an apartment? They're dogs, they're natural predators. They need to experience hunting behaviors or they get depressed. No we don't leash ours, he absolutely hates it, we just let him come and go whenever."

Yall get how fucking stupid that sounds, right? So stop letting your goddamn cats get eaten and attacked and infected and hit by cars

A toddler would probably love full unattended access to the neighborhood too, but we don't do that either, do we

DONT ask why corvid isnt wearing a shirt bc the answer is embarrassing. (i forgor to draw it)

idk my friend, if you need to pretend that trans men don't have materially different experience of patriarchy & are classed differently under patriarchy than cis men, in order to see trans men's manhood as real? i don't think your line of thinking is much different than TERFs who stubbornly refuse to admit that trans women are also have a materially different experience of patriarchy & are classed differently than cis men.

in both cases, rather than acknowledging how the cissexism in feminism has led to the erasure of how fundamental queerphobia and transphobia is to upholding patriarchy, you are clinging to that very cissexism, and privileging the experiences of cis people over trans people and basically blatantly stating that it is the experiences of cis people which define what it means to be a "real" man or woman.

feminist is not equivalent to woman. this is for one, because anyone can be a feminist, and two, because "being a feminist" (or rather, doing feminism) is not just being a woman or caring about women. it is a dedicated to a movement that seeks gender liberation and the end of patriarchal oppression; to call yourself a feminist, in my opinion, means holding yourself as a feminist to a higher standard in the pursuit of liberation. while we should of course be vigilant about reproducing patriarchal dynamics, we must not conflate the role of feminist with simply being a woman.

feminism has historically been deeply cissexist in a way which prevents full analysis of men and trans people's position under patriarchy. trans men have been involved with women's liberation forever, yet trans men have also been constantly excluded from feminism because of their manhood, despite being no less materially affected by misogyny.

men's liberation cannot be achieved without women's and trans liberation, and ultimately all gender liberation cannot be achieved while we maintain gender segregation. we must be unafraid to be heterosocial, affiliate with one another, and disregard the boundaries of gender in order to demand true freedom. if gender is a tool of patriarchal control which divides us socially and economically, we must turn gender into a tool of liberation by emphasizing inter-gender solidarity and our intertwined, overlapping experiences. we cannot achieve gender liberation by continuing to maintain the illusion that "men's issues" and "women's issues" are separate, especially when for trans and intersex people, this illusion is itself extremely violent and excludes us from feminism ideologically

going off that; women must take the first step and claim men's issues as a feminist concern, in order to take a sledgehammer to that gender segregation. by insisting that men's issues are women's issues, we can also then demand that men recognize women's issues are men's issues, and trans issues are men and women's issues, and men and women's issues are trans issues. many men have tried to do this themselves, but it is very hard for men who recognize women's issues are men's issues to be given enough recognition and validity amongst cis men. this stance means that feminists are not sitting around and waiting for cis men to collectively realize their position; they are demanding men realize it, and they are doing that through very pointed compassion. "you are with us whether you realize it or not; our doors are open, we are concerned for you, and to turn away from us is to reject yourselves."

yes* the image most people have in their heads of a nonbinary person is someone white, thin, lacking breasts, lacking a visible penis, lacking facial hair, lacking makeup, lacking lacking lacking. but why is it that when people critique this image, they never critique the idea that this is how we are defining androgyny? people loving talking about how this image is neutral-masculine as proof it favors transmasculine/FTX people, but there are plenty of transfeminine/MTX people who also go for this neutral-androgynous look.

meanwhile, many nb/gq/gnc people of all assigned sexes and genders are hairy, fat, have breasts (or give themselves breasts), have penises (or give themselves penises), dresses using both feminine and masculine clothing, etc. hell, just look at how stigmatized the androgyny of intersex people with PMOS & other kinds of hyperandrogenism are. the image of a fat hairy person with large breasts and a deep voice is repulsive in patriarchal culture; this is androgyny, too. to act like "androgyny" is one simple thing is to erase how misandrogyny actually functions.