a blog might be run by a terf or party to the platforming of terf rhetoric…

if they refer to themselves as “radfems” (or “RF”) “gender critical” (“GC” for short) or as terves, terven, being “biologically female” or a “biological woman” or “biological lesbian”, tehm (trans-exclusionary homosexual male), febfem, vixenamoric, or “gold-star lesbian”

if they place strong emphasis on “believing in science/biology” and being a “real” “female” lesbian (you may also observe a lot of blatant butchphobia coupled with this sentiment; demonization of masculinity and condemnation of “glorifying” masculinity or “maleness”) - to a lesser degree, some covert terfs use “critical thinker” as a stand-in for “gender critical”, and “chromosomal woman” or “XX” or “womban/wombyn” to denote chromosomes and uteri

if they post a lot about the “nordic model” (re: “ending prostitution”), being strongly anti-porn and anti-sexwork, often refusing to call it sexwork and instead referring to it as sex trafficking (to lump consensual sexwork in with actual sex trafficking) - while not all swerfs are transmisogynists or transphobes, many terfs are swerfs

if they fixate on, as the addition prior to this one mentions, “all men being predisposed to violence” and are insistent that men are also inherently rapists

if they, as shown in the screenshots above, refer to trans-inclusive feminists as “libfems”

if they make posts or share ‘articles’ (always by obviously disreputable news outlets) about ‘high numbers’ of trans people being pedophiles or sex offenders (by the way, this is why terfs in the uk are trying so hard to make trans health records public, including supporting health secretary sajid javid’s intentions to allow researchers free access the private medical history of trans people, including trans minors - they genuinely, seriously believe that there is no difference between being transgender and being a sex criminal and they want there to be a public list of trans people like there are sex offender registries)

if they post shit like “terf is a slur against lesbians” and “when they say no terfs they mean no lesbians” - often labeling themselves as “political lesbians” or “lesbian separatists” (i.e. “get the L out” and “drop the T”) and identifying strongly with regressive waves of feminism

if they talk about autogynephilia like it’s a real or valid thing (and not the ramblings of a literal white supremacist)

if they refer to LGBTQ+ educational material (presentations, literature, videos, etc.) as “tra propaganda” or “brainwashing” or “misogynist conditioning”

if they talk about trans women being “socialized male”

if they post a lot about female genital mutilation (FGM) in combination with consistently trans-exclusionary language and other dogwhistles or warning signs from this list, additionally referring to top surgery (or gender-affirming mastectomy), chest binding, and phalloplasty as FGM

have feminist or variations in the url

Lisa Simpson or a Daria icon (I don’t know why terfs like them)

Green purple and white (this sucks for all my genderqueer peeps out there)

Have the word moon in their url

Female is in their blog description

I have several of the terf tags blocked (I went on a massive blocking spree after some terfs started debating autism and gender in one of my posts). Sometimes tumblr will block a seemingly innocent post and then I go to the OP and guess what they’re a terf. I recommend blocking:

radfem

radfem friendly

radical feminist

radfems please interact

terfs please interact

The post says “we should start ending all our posts with “TERFS DON’T INTERACT” so libfems will take our ideas seriously”.

The reblogs say “You’re a fucking genius lmao / Also I’m 100% serious when I say that, first of all they’d be more likely to just scroll past without investigating OP and keep the idea classified in their minds as a good idea, instead of instantly doing the mental equivalent of covering their ears and going “la la la terf terf terf” and secondly if they find out we’re doing it np now they are just going to have to second guess everything they read and check OP’s blog always, necessarily reading more radfem ideas in the process and hopefully eventually getting tired and wondering why everyone says terfs are evil yet we have so many good and logical points / I’m immediately reminded of how Andrew Yang gets Conservatives on board with universal basic income by calling it “Freedom Dividend”“.

By taking income into account, it allows the impoverished able to still survive while paying any fines they may incur. And, ultimately, while $100,000 dollars would be noticeable to a millionaire, they would still get by. And, assuming the law is properly implemented, they would be paying the same equivalent of their yearly income that a poorer person would. That’s what makes it fair. They would be impacted the same way - but you are looking at the amount rather than the equation.

Person making 10 dollars an hour: “Fuck, I better slow down”

Millionaire driving a Jaguar: “LOL 400 DOLLARS, FUCK THAT, NYOOM”

Compared to a proportional ticket.

Person making 10 dollars an hour and must pay 400 dollar ticket: “Fuck, I better slow down.”

She testified adamantly that it started in 2013, when the Wino Forever tattoo incident. She also said that they “had the first year of peace”, as they started dating in 2012. There was a break because Judge Azcarate had a judicial conference.

Then, and big fucking then, it came out through one of her photos that wasn’t admissible in court due to failure to being discovered in discovery. This photo is dated back in 2012. Her testimony back after the break, now places the Wino Incident in 2012. So now, that bullshit about that “first year of peace” is thrown out the window.

This is the photo in question to be dated in 2012:

Now, in the recent interview due to “new evidence” aka therapy notes that aren’t admissible due to being evidentiary rules on hearsay, places the first incidents of abuse back to 2011. Twenty-fucking-eleven.

A few things are wrong with this, let’s name three:

1. Amber & Johnny wasn’t dating then. She was still with Tasya van Ree at the time. She was still living with Tasya. There’s photos of two still together 2011.

2. She adamant that the first time Johnny ever abused her was the Wino Incident, in this interview, that has now changed. The incident described in the “new evidence”, was something similar to her wild spin on the Australia incident mixed with the December 15th, 2015 Incident. 

3. If she knew that the abuse dated by 2011, considering that she reviews her evidence since this is something she wanted submitted, why change the date twice??? Not once, twice. She was also adamant both times it happened as well. Not only that, Dawn Hughes makes that same mistake as well in her testimony. She also states that the abuse started in 2013.

So now we have an issue, either you didn’t know your own evidence or you’re lying. I’m taking the latter than the former.

Also, this is also not saying that survivors of IPV should have a chronological memory to every abuse that every happened. That’s fucking bullshit, coming from one who has a very shit memory.

i said what i said. i wasn’t confused about saying it.

if i found out a woman had aborted a fetus because she found out that fetus had a disability that i have—disabilities that i have firsthand knowledge of being painful, difficult to live with, and often resource-intensive—i would not be angry with her. i would not feel like she doesn’t think people like me should not be alive (unless she actually said so).

fetuses are not little potential “you”s. projecting your own anxieties onto a woman’s abortion (”i wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted” is common reasoning in plenty of pro-life circles; it’s not better here) is invasive and nonsensical.

bodily autonomy isn’t conditional. you don’t know a woman’s exact reason for abortion and you don’t need to. women’s rights to abortion need to be protected, even if you feel icky about some potential reasoning behind an abortion, which you aren’t even fully privy to in the first place.

disabled people should always be in the care of people who have the resources and desire to take care of them. insisting that disabled children be born simply to ease your own moral qualms with abortion is frankly unethical in my opinion, resources are often very slim for disabled people. not to mention our quality of life is often just lower in general. you can argue all you want in the notes about “mild” disabilities but you aren’t the arbiter of what constitutes a mild enough disability to make an abortion terrible and immoral and shame-worthy. 

women aren’t vessels. regardless of how morally pure you feel your crusade is, they simply aren’t.

speaking as a disabled person, energy is literally always better spent on changing society—by increasing resources for caretakers and disabled people alike, speaking frankly about quality of life, correcting notions about what disabled people’s lives are like, punishing mistreatment of actual disabled people [not potential ones], and putting research into easing the pain/suffering of people as much as possible—than it is on getting mad about women getting abortions. and it isn’t just better spent that way, it’s just immoral to do the latter.

While walking there, a lot of people pointed at him and said it was a cute idea. They were right.

My (and his) personal highlights were:

A guy hugging him and saying something in Ukrainian (bc of the flag, probably)

Someone asking him if they can call him "daddy" (I had to explain to him why I started laughing. He now knows.)

Someone giving him a rose

Someone kissing him on the cheeck

A lot of people seeing me standing around awkwardly while there was a line forming in front of him and hugging me too

A guy my dad's age hugging him with tears in his eyes

A kid my age shouting "I don't have a father!", Running towards and almost tackling him

A guy in a fetish-related dog mask hugging him and clinging to him like a lifeline

Two children between eight and ten initiating a group hug with him and giggling the entire time

Everyone thanking him afterwards and a lot of people saying he gives the best hugs in the world. One guy said he'd never been hugged like that before

This guy in a moving lorry shouting and making the lorry stop driving to get a hug from my dad:

My dad said that the majority of people hugging him were either older (25-60) queer men or younger (15-25) trans people. He really loved the experience and felt like a lot of the people, especially the older guys really needed it.

no. actually, children now feel comfortable and accepted enough to experiment with their gender, pronouns, name, and presentation. and while some of them end up realizing they were cis the entire time, they now have a new understanding and appreciation for one of the most marginalized and abused groups of people in the world.