Terfish.

I've spent my whole life trying to get away from being seen as a sum of my parts- but only the visible or presumed to be there (chromosomes) parts, rather than a sum of what actually makes me me. If your worldview is 'no you're actually exactly the sum of your parts, you're nothing but titties and womanhood and denying that is misogyny while me telling you how to feel about yourself is definitely empowering and not, in itself, a form of sex based oppression in which I assume because I know what parts you have I can assume everything about you and what I've determined is that you're a liar and you have internalized problems. It's very empowering for me to tell you what to do, think, and how to express yourself we support women here!!' then yeah lol I don't think I'm going to be apt to take it. You know who else thinks because they know what parts I have they can make a number of predetermined assumptions about me, my capabilities, personality, and generally everything else? Sexists.

Freedom is not being defined by your biology, biology is the cage I've been trying unsuccessfully to free myself from since the moment I became aware that people were making value judgements about me based on said biology, which was when I was young so it's not like I've never thought this through before.

This leads to two points vis-a-vis “non women” afabs:

1) you can’t really identify out of your oppression. Even if you manage to pass perfectly always, the world is still designed around amab bodies, you still dealt with female socialization (which starts before you’re even born), you still deal with a bunch of realities of how afab health is handled (see in case Roe) and the side effects of medication, and family and relationship dynamics that are different then if you were born male. And that’s assuming you always pass, which is very uncommon.

2) you’re kinda saying oh it’s okay for those other women to be oppressed. I’m special because I don’t want to be treated that way. Which see original point. None of us want that! But we can’t just all ID out of it unfortunately, which is why we need to fight it together as a sex class.

You do not get to tell me that I have issues when you've never even MET me, what basis do you have for this besides being a terf and thinking I'm sick for being nonbinary?? You think I'm bound to find that so liberating I JOIN you in the oppression you think I need to be free? No! Stop telling me you're an expert on my mental health and gender, you do not know me. You do not have any authority in my life, and you don't even know who I am as a person so I suggest you take your arm chair diagnosis and shove the entire chair up your ass.

TERFS are not saying women aren't baby making machines, you are saying that women don't need to have babies but they DO need to fit all your ridiculous bullshit gender essentialist and biological essentialist horseshit that you call an ideology like it isn't a brand new prison with a pink pussy hat on it. If you slip up terfs will call you a man, insult you, exclude you, and they'll tell you they're doing it all for your benefit like you are right here. I don't need someone to tell me that they know me better than I know myself because you do not and you chose the WRONG person to think that lightly bordering into abuser tactic shit will work in me. I see what you're doing, the emotional manipulation, you will not gain ground here.

Gender neutral language isn't more essentialist than gendered language do you even know what these words MEAN?? besides that, it's fucking BOLD to tell me your views are less harmful when terfs have spent THREE DAYS on my blog OBVIOUSLY following the posts I'm making about a situation YOU GUYS put me though (after I untagged terfs, prior to that I did it to myself) while telling me over and over and OVER again I'm nothing but my chromosomes and that my sex is inescapable- how DARE you tell me I can't identify out of oppression like I didn't walk my nonbinary ass back into the closet in real life because of how nasty people were about it, it's MORE COMFORTABLE FOR ME TO PRETEND TO BE A WOMAN SO DONT YOU TELL ME HOW OPPRESSION IN MY LIFE WORKS. If faking being a woman to avoid discrimination in my daily life is how I chose to start living it two years ago who the FUCK do you think you are to tell ME that being a woman is more uncomfortable than my actual gender? I know for 100% HARD FACT that it is not, not that it's a competition but if you INSIST I only experience oppression the way YOU think I do rather than the way I think I do, because remember I know me better than you ever could, then do not tell me being a woman is the worst thing you can be gender wise. It isn't, I have firsthand experience and mine is NOTHING like a lot of binary trans folks have to deal with not that you care about trans people being killed. You'd probably encourage it. Again, not that it's a competition but if I fake being a woman to not deal with the discrimination of being out as nonbinary I think that speaks for itself, and NO that is not an invitation to tell me I AM a woman secretly I AM NOT because I am not so stupid I cannot figure out my own fucking gender and need internet twats who'd like to reduce me to the aforementioned swear word to read my the fucking vibe of my blog and diagnose me as a woman like they know what's going on in my head with more accuracy than I do. You don't know shit about me to diagnose me with ANY gender and since I'm fond of self diagnosis I already decided gender was 'nah' and that reducing people to their physical sex like it's a fucking personality trait is both transphobic and also a worldview for edgy 9 year olds who don't know shit about how anything works. Also pregnant people is gender neutral and doesn't mention wombs, and where did I say I was comfortable with womb haver?? I think using sexed language like that is often awkward and only half gets to the point being made, a natural step when figuring out how to apply gender neutral language in a traditionally highly gendered discussion.

But I'd rather be called a womb haver than be told I can't identify out if oppression like nonbinary people DONT experience oppression OR like someone calling me a womb haver cares about that womb and what it means as much as a TERF, who will go waaaay out of their way to say women are defined by nothing BUT the pain they experience and the parts they have. Personally, I think women are more complex and interesting than what terfs think they are, but you'd never let me escape my labia anymore than sexist men I used to deal with in my small town. Both of you are unhealthily obsessed with genitalia and how much you can extrapolate about me in regards to it. It's unsettling. It's dehumanizing. It's fucking CREEPY.

You do not know me, you don't have qualifications to be saying these things about me, and don't you use coddling language like you can cajole me over by telling me your opinions on my sex and gender are more valid than my own. You know, exactly like the men you're acting IDENTICAL to like to do.

If your behavior is EXACTLY that of the sexist men I've dealt with while being TOTALLY UNAWARE of this you are not likey to convince me you have they key to anything but rapid brain cell death.

You said “terfs” (scare quotes bc that covers a very wide range of of people who get called that) were gender/bio essentialist and won’t see you as a sum of all your parts, only care about your chromosomes/reproductive organs.

I addressed that, in fact, that’s pretty much the opposite of what they(we) think. Women should be seen as people! We’re sick of people treating women like a bunch of stereotypes, dealing with sexism, etc.

Ideally being female would have to do with biological stuff (specific health needs, athletic shoes made for female joints sexual orientation stuff, properly accounting for pregnancy, etc) and otherwise it wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately people/society/institutions do treat women differently in bad ways (and as you said make value judgements about us) and we want to talk about it, make people pay attention to it, and fix it.

They/we think that that oppression is based mostly/mainly/entirely on sex (depends a lot on the “Terf”). That the world is designed on a male default is a sex based issue. That medical stuff is based on male bodies is a sex issue. That people treat their babies and children all sorts of different ways based on sex in formative ways is a sex issue. Laws on female bodies is a sex issue. Violence and predation and vulnerability patterns are sexed (with some impact from who you have romantic and sexual relationships with). Factors like emotional and caretaking labor appear to follow sexed patterns though I would love to see some real data. Acceptable behavior and social policing follow sex patterns. Historical (recent) oppression which still affects women in terms of mentoring, role models, opportunities, etc was sex based. That our working system punishes mothers and benefits fathers is sex based, even if obviously it impacts childless women less. Outside of certain westernized nations (and inside them in many subcultures), sex oppression is even more legally and socially ingrained.

I do agree that the unfortunate way discourse has lead to having to make the sex distinction is awkward, but I think that’s more due to the limited language people are allowed to use then an actual focus on say the presence or absence of a uterus or whatever. Afab would probably be best except that: a) intersex people would like their language back; b) assigned makes it seem like it’s up in the air and not a simple biological reality for the vast majority of people, which understandably makes some women uncomfortable; and c) I’ve seen a lot of push back on using it as a way to talk about sexism. It’s also not the most accessible language either.

I honestly want to know: do you think all those people in your hometown who were sexist, do you think they would honestly change how they thought about you if you tell them you’re not female, you’re non-binary. Personally either way it’s an issue. Don’t see you differently, well that sucks that they continue to not see you as a person and suggests that sex discrimination is an issue. Do see you differently (I’d be surprised but idk where you live is like), well then it’s okay to say that anyone but women get to be people, which is a big issue abet not for you anymore (although it was, so still imo a sexism issue).

I've spent my whole life trying to get away from being seen as a sum of my parts- but only the visible or presumed to be there (chromosomes) parts, rather than a sum of what actually makes me me. If your worldview is 'no you're actually exactly the sum of your parts, you're nothing but titties and womanhood and denying that is misogyny while me telling you how to feel about yourself is definitely empowering and not, in itself, a form of sex based oppression in which I assume because I know what parts you have I can assume everything about you and what I've determined is that you're a liar and you have internalized problems. It's very empowering for me to tell you what to do, think, and how to express yourself we support women here!!' then yeah lol I don't think I'm going to be apt to take it. You know who else thinks because they know what parts I have they can make a number of predetermined assumptions about me, my capabilities, personality, and generally everything else? Sexists.

Freedom is not being defined by your biology, biology is the cage I've been trying unsuccessfully to free myself from since the moment I became aware that people were making value judgements about me based on said biology, which was when I was young so it's not like I've never thought this through before.

This leads to two points vis-a-vis “non women” afabs:

1) you can’t really identify out of your oppression. Even if you manage to pass perfectly always, the world is still designed around amab bodies, you still dealt with female socialization (which starts before you’re even born), you still deal with a bunch of realities of how afab health is handled (see in case Roe) and the side effects of medication, and family and relationship dynamics that are different then if you were born male. And that’s assuming you always pass, which is very uncommon.

2) you’re kinda saying oh it’s okay for those other women to be oppressed. I’m special because I don’t want to be treated that way. Which see original point. None of us want that! But we can’t just all ID out of it unfortunately, which is why we need to fight it together as a sex class.

I'm so fucking tired of getting pseudo progressive backlash when I criticize hijab on children...

even when I pretend to buy into the whole "it's a choice" thing, and I don't believe that it is with everything that's going on, I'll be called uninformed and/or racist on the regular

I'm much more outspoken in real life than I am here, because in real life people have a much harder time twisting what I'm actually saying

but, well, what I guess I am trying to ask is, am I racist for criticizing hijab on children specifically, or am I playing into the hands of those I oppose by trying to restrain myself, because it's not really my place to speak?

and is it any good to criticize it, if a ban will more likely than not lead to girls and women being essentially made prisoner?

I'm aware that the way this is phrased already includes a conclusion, but I'm really not sure what the right thing to do is...

speaking against it isnt racist. it’s misogynistic as hell that not only are women expected to wear the hijab, but many are expected to wear it when they’re extremely young. ive seen little girls who looked like they were 5 wearing hijabs. it’s fucking weird. why does a child need to wear a piece of cloth women are expected to wear so that men aren’t enticed by us? what message does that send? how are we gonna argue it’s a choice when we’re having little kids wear it?

I wish more people understood that. It’s a recurring debate in France and everyone expects me to be all “Yeehaw, laws criminalising wearing the hijab!” and is utterly confused when I’m not.

Those laws only ever hurt women. They never hurt the men who force them to wear the hijab. Let us ban the hijab in public places, sure! It’s basically banning those women from public places. French people won’t have to see hijabs anymore (which, let’s face it, is what it’s really about), not because those women won’t wear them anymore, but because they won’t leave their homes. And I’m talking about women but there’s girls too. Muslim girls in France are already at a risk of being kept away from school (parents not agreeing with the teachings, or not agreeing that she should get educated at all ; bullying from peers and teachers ; etc), if the hijab is forbidden in public school then their parents just won’t send them to school anymore.

I do not support abortion as a completely unregulated “solution” to any unwanted pregnancy that is essentially treated as a birth control method.

this has to stop, men are not the default and even if they demand authority they have no right to it, they are not entitled to it, they have no business demanding that every single thing, creature and human exists and functions only for their benefit only and they have no business deciding that qualities they cannot use are worthless and to be ignored/discarded

Social coercion and shame is a type of force. It’s shaming gay people for their sexuality, telling them that they are wrong and broken, and telling them that the only way they can be ’right’ or ’an ally’ is to date trans people.

Unfortunately you can give a million examples and people will write them off, excuse them, say that they’re by sekrit terfs whatever. Sure some will write it off no matter what but I’d like to think that a major human rights organization saying that one of the precious rights trans women ( it applies obs to some trans men but we all know they’re an afterthought unless they can be figures of horror) don’t have is the right to fuck whoever they want? That’s peaking territory. If not because you care about woman, then for the love of god will someone please call them on their racism and appropriation of minority racial groups.

I mean think about how much of a crack they see it to be, that a major trans rights organization would threaten the news from reporting a single wishywashy story that says some lesbians have felt pressured by a few trans women.

There’s also the factor where platforms like Netflix support the making of more niche content, which promotes the voices and careers of people who we wouldn’t otherwise hear from (and who are usually more marginalized). That doesn’t happen with traditional network TV, which is very focused on the largest view (of a specific demo) as possible. Things like Netflix and Spotify are also a lot cheaper then previous options - even a cheap dvd or cd would cost $10 in 1990s money, things that were unusual or not mainstream could easily cost $30-80).

Also internet is a utility (which in and of itself suggests it should be more highly regulated), it’s not a content provider. It’s like saying if you pay for your electric, you should get free tv. Maybe this is part of what is the confounding factor? When you pay for internet, outside of whatever random stuff your provider gives you to choose them over someone else, you’re just paying for access. Everything else is it’s own entity, with its own bills to pay from employees to servers.

the electricity comparison is wrong since electricity is used for tons of things that aren’t content. lighting, cooking, warm water. TV is solely content. internet is solely content. TV writers get paid via TV providers. you do not pay each content provider on the TV.

Netfix and such barely pay the creators anyway… and unlike Spotify, on the radio real people work and provide your music. AND back in 2000-2012 when everyone downloaded and listened to free music, celebs were STILL INSANELY RICH. take Miley Cyrus. her fans were all young teens who downloaded her songs on mp3. still horribly, horribly rich

you’re a radfem, you should be a socialist. are you still on “WHAT ABOUT CORPORATIONS???”. perhaps you should just call yourself gender critical

It’s a bit like the heyday of illegal downloading — which still exists. I may remind you that your argument is that people who are WILLING to pay shouldn’t. Lots of people were still buying cds and the radio was playing for play, so people were paying just not you. Also it killed a lot of small artists and independent firms that didn’t have the resources to survive it, which concentrated power into fewer big companies and limited whose voices we heard.

As for the people at the radio working and the people at Spotify not, — okay seriously this part I can’t say without being snarky — you do realize websites are created by people right? They don’t come from thin air. Tons of people are always working at Spotify to keep the website updated, make sure it doesn’t break, updating music, estimating and buying server capacity, patching security issues, etc. I really don’t understand why you can’t - or won’t - see that there are thousands and thousands of people who work really hard behind the scenes making shit. (Also the radio is dominated by a few large companies that are huge assholes so idk I wouldn’t want to be praising them all that highly)

Also the internet is not just “content”, it’s communication, it’s also education, ability to do basic tasks like banking, provides tools, even medical care, allows for research, plus facilitates a lot of people’s jobs and work.

Not to mention what a huge issue -logistically, economically, and in terms of rights and free speech it would be if internet providers needed to cover the entire cost of the internet. It would be like cable but worse. Pay a ton for stuff I didn’t want just to see the one thing I did want. Small niche things wouldn’t exist at all. My internet might suddenly stop accessing a site because they couldn’t come to an agreement with the provider. The cost to have access to the internet would skyrocket outside of maybe large corporations who paid for me to be able to see them. Unpopular ideas would be blocked because no one would pay for them or provide access. And likely, a lot of one time random costs and fees. (In case you were wondering, that’s pretty much how broadcast TV works, at least in the English speaking world).

As for socialism vs capitalism, I’ve been completely honest on here that Im more of a Sweden style capitalist system (which it is still) then a full government controlled system. And I think some things about capitalism are great. I think it’s awesome that someone in my neighborhood sells cocoa bombs to my locally owned ice cream store, and I get to buy them. I like having options, I like getting some say over what I do for a living, I appreciate that the medical treatment that saves my life exists even though its completely not a sensible use of resources that could be used on others, and hence pretty much doesn’t exist outside the US.

There’s also the factor where platforms like Netflix support the making of more niche content, which promotes the voices and careers of people who we wouldn’t otherwise hear from (and who are usually more marginalized). That doesn’t happen with traditional network TV, which is very focused on the largest view (of a specific demo) as possible. Things like Netflix and Spotify are also a lot cheaper then previous options - even a cheap dvd or cd would cost $10 in 1990s money, things that were unusual or not mainstream could easily cost $30-80).

Also internet is a utility (which in and of itself suggests it should be more highly regulated), it’s not a content provider. It’s like saying if you pay for your electric, you should get free tv. Maybe this is part of what is the confounding factor? When you pay for internet, outside of whatever random stuff your provider gives you to choose them over someone else, you’re just paying for access. Everything else is it’s own entity, with its own bills to pay from employees to servers.

There’s also the factor where platforms like Netflix support the making of more niche content, which promotes the voices and careers of people who we wouldn’t otherwise hear from (and who are usually more marginalized). That doesn’t happen with traditional network TV, which is very focused on the largest view (of a specific demo) as possible. Things like Netflix and Spotify are also a lot cheaper then previous options - even a cheap dvd or cd would cost $10 in 1990s money, things that were unusual or not mainstream could easily cost $30-80).

someone gentle, empathetic, humble, sensitive, have long flowing hair and clear skin, someone skinny with no body hair or facial hair, and are less favorable leaders.

Here’s a trans YouTuber I like, she’s extremely funny and sweet! She’s also a woman

If they wanna be a woman, they’re a woman

"female" and "male" become as meaningless as "floopdiloop" without a real definition. we need these terms to mean something because they denote oppressed and oppressor classes along the axis of sexism. the immutable traits these words describe are the traits for which women (by which I mean female humans) have been oppressed worldwide for all of human history. if "woman" means nothing, we have no language to describe ourselves as a marginalised group fighting for our rights and safety. the only reason you think it's harmless for a man to identify as a woman is because you don't truly believe women are oppressed. no one would have to explain to you why a white person can't identify as a black person and then say they're the most oppressed type of black person because no one actually sees them as black and because they're not getting access to resources specifically reserved for black people. the fact that a man can perform femininity and y'all will jump to say that makes him just as– if not more– oppressed for being a woman as the women who are groomed on the basis of their female sex from the second they're born, as the women in menstrual huts, as the women attacked with acid, as the women forced to carry their rapists' babies to term, as the women denied jobs on the assumption they'll later leave to be homemakers or on the assumption that they're unqualified because they're female, as the women groomed into being housewives for men much older than them specifically because of their perceived female fertility.... I could go on forever because that's how fucking infinite the list of sex-specific issues ""AFAB""s face on the basis of being ""AFAB"". there is a millennia-old history of misogyny and it is demonstrably (and obviously!!) sex-based. What trait are women oppressed for if not their sex? with your airy bullshit non-definition of womanhood, how do the oppressor class (men) even tell whom to oppress? if "woman" is so internally self defined and meaningless, how did they know whom to deny the vote? who couldn't open a bank account? whom to forcibly impregnate? whom to marry off with a dowry? this so-open-minded-your-brain-falls-out lack of critical thought from libfem "activism" makes it seem like people are oppressed for wanting to perform femininity as though femininity itself isn't something which is artificially superimposed through intense socialisation of most "AFAB"s from birth. women weren't denied the vote because they were the ones in skirts, they were denied the vote and restricted to skirts because they were female. "a woman is anyone who identified as a woman is a woman is a woman is a woman" is tautological empty nothingness on par with the meaningless "floopdiloop"; it is not progressive and it is actively hindering feminism's progress.