not to sound like a commie but you cannot wish for the abolition of racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism and sexism without also wishing for the abolition of capitalism. the oppression of poc, women, disabled, nd and lgbti people are linked to the struggle of the working class and their common source is capitalism. if capitalism stays, you can never meaningfully abolish any form of oppression.
Because in communist and socialist countries people DEFINITELY are not any if those.
Oh wait. They are worse than us. I have proof. Online I have talked with 2 bulgarians, and bulgarian was a socialist country merely 30 years ago. They still are barely starting ti advocate gay rights, have no gay marriage and is absolutely normalized if not encouraged to think and talk about homosexual people in a derogatory manner. And that’s light example of a country that was socialist 30 years ago, and barely doesn’t straight up kill gay people. Not to sound like a capitalist but your statement is bullshit.
learn to read if you dont want to sound like a dumbass
@emperorofbeards youre still missing the point. how can we abolish profitable oppression without also abolishing a system driven by profit?
@emperorofbeards please google “pay gap”. look into how racism & transphobia also plays into the pay gap. search what populations make up most of prisons’ inmates. google prison unpaid labor. look at the increase of the price of insulin. i beg you, at least google slavery or the native american genocide. aren’t those profitable? dont they exploit marginalized people? can we then please conclude that oppression can be profitable? or do you need me to come to your house & explain in person that it doesnt need to be logical to be real, Mr.Ofbeards?
Wage gap is forged myth. That’s false.
Prison inmates… tell me which group commits disproportionately high amount of violent crime compared to population.
Hell let’s dive further. Why women have way smaller prison punsihments for the same crimws under same file. Why do men get in prison for longer for the same deal.
Prison unpaid labour is kind of… eh. I think they should make up for their crimes, by benefitting society.
Now the medical industry raised prizes for different reasons, and the reason behind it is nore important.
Oh you mean the genocide of native americans which were mostly killed off by diseases and plagues while way less were actually killed. Anyway the past is the past. I mean slavery was and is not really a thing in only america and not only done by one race and are not a byproduct and a concept of capitalism.
So none of your points…. really apply…
Yo, @datmoki. I don’t get your point on why you can’t get rid of bigotry and oppression without getting rid of capitalism.
I think you’re reading too much into a system that is really just “provide goods at prices that people can agree on.” That’s essentially what capitalism is. Maybe you might have a point in how capitalism is implemented or managed, but you can’t just advocate for abolishing an economic system for some perceived problem of oppression. Its too broad.
im sorry its so long & that it may sound a bit condescending. since i have no idea whats actually misunderstood, im gonna try to thoroughly explain everything at once. im also sorry for apparently “reading too much into” a system that will literally dictate my whole life but ok lol.
im not here to argue on the definition of capitalism since im not an economist. my point does depend on what definition we use tho, so lets get one right now (im using google’s dictionary for ease):
[image desc: a screenshot of the google dictionnary feature. the entry is that of “capitalism”. it reads: “an economic and political system in wich a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”]
again, im not arguing that it is a correct definition, im arguing that based on that definition you cannot meaningfully liberate marginalized groups under capitalism. its advocating for the abolition of capitalism only if you want to abolish all forms of oppression (and the people who do is who the post was intended for)
now, since it seems i actually do need to explain what i meant by “google x” ill clarify that next. that point relies on the assumption that everyone agrees that: -in our current society, some groups of people are oppressed (even in america & western europe) and were oppressed in the past. -most of these groups are more or less: women; people of color (poc); lgbti people; disabled people
ill go over the “google x” stuff point by point:
the pay gap: it affects women, poc, lgbti & disabled people. that means that companies are able to pay those (marginalized) people less & get away with it and so make more profit.
prisons: uneducated & poor people, black & latino people, lgbti people and disabled people are over represented in american prisons (but its pretty much the same in western europe as well). prison inmates work for free or a ridiculously small wage: companies are able to get free or extremely cheap labor from those marginalized people while still having products made in the us, wich means more profits. (ill come back to the point about women being under represented in prisons later)
the price of insulin: insulin and other life-saving medications are being sold at prices subject to enormous raises (the exemple of insulin: it had a 300% price increase). the people who need those meds to stay alive are obviously disabled people. companies are able to sell their products (medication) for whatever amount they decide while still knowing itll be bought since its needed in order to stay alive, wich means more profits.
slavery andthe native american genocide: pretty straight-forward, black people were enslaved (=free work) & native american people were massacred intentionally & their land stolen (=free land that might contain gold & other ressources that can be sold at high prices), wich means more profits.
and thats not including other forms of exploitation for profit. i hope we can all conclude from this list that the oppression of some group of people can be profitable. but since oppression can be profitable, why would abolishing it be possible under a system meant for profit? thats what i mean by ”meaningfully liberate”, you might argue that its possible to abolish bigotry on an individual level (nobody says slurs anymore, everyone is treated equal in social cicles & under the law) while still under capitalism but you cannot liberate those people from the exploitation of their bosses, of the state, of pharmaceutical companies, and more generally, of the ruling class within capitalism since its precisely what is profitable, wich is to say, desirable under such system.
that brings me to a point that was part of the original post, the working class is oppressed in the same way that the groups i cited earlier are. they share their struggle with other oppressed groups and so, if you care about liberating all marginalized people, you should care about the working class as well. since thats part of the point i was making, i didnt include “the working class” or “poor people” in the oppressed groups earlier but they do belong there.
as a short conclusion of my original post: if you want to meaningfully liberate every marginalized groups you should strive to abolish capitalism both because it plays a role in the oppression of those groups & because the working class is just as oppressed as other groups and in order to liberate workers, you need to abolish their exploitation for profit (ie: capitalism).
now, on women being under represented in prisons: they are. i am not denying that. men do make up most of prisons’ population and that could be for a number of reasons, one of wich could be the infantilization of women & the sexist belief that women are somehow less capable of bad than men are that would lead to them getting lower sentences. those lower sentences are then contrasted with the higher sentences, charges and rates of carceration that black men get that then raise the overall men’s averages and so they appear especially unfair to men. this is all speculations, i haven’t specifically looked into this as it doesn’t really disproves the overall oppression of women imo. im not trying to bend reality & say “women dont actually have lower rates of carceration than men” since the difference between the two is ridiculously huge, im just trying to bring an explanation as to why that might be so that point isnt left unanswered and i dont look like im avoiding facts that i dont like lol.
and since the native american genocide was questionned, i do recommend Shaun’s video on the subject if you can handle 30min long videos, its really good and properly sourced, unlike my post: https://youtu.be/Xd_nVCWPgiA
not to sound like a commie but you cannot wish for the abolition of racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism and sexism without also wishing for the abolition of capitalism. the oppression of poc, women, disabled, nd and lgbti people are linked to the struggle of the working class and their common source is capitalism. if capitalism stays, you can never meaningfully abolish any form of oppression.
Because in communist and socialist countries people DEFINITELY are not any if those.
Oh wait. They are worse than us. I have proof. Online I have talked with 2 bulgarians, and bulgarian was a socialist country merely 30 years ago. They still are barely starting ti advocate gay rights, have no gay marriage and is absolutely normalized if not encouraged to think and talk about homosexual people in a derogatory manner. And that’s light example of a country that was socialist 30 years ago, and barely doesn’t straight up kill gay people. Not to sound like a capitalist but your statement is bullshit.
learn to read if you dont want to sound like a dumbass
@emperorofbeards youre still missing the point. how can we abolish profitable oppression without also abolishing a system driven by profit?
@emperorofbeards please google “pay gap”. look into how racism & transphobia also plays into the pay gap. search what populations make up most of prisons’ inmates. google prison unpaid labor. look at the increase of the price of insulin. i beg you, at least google slavery or the native american genocide. aren’t those profitable? dont they exploit marginalized people? can we then please conclude that oppression can be profitable? or do you need me to come to your house & explain in person that it doesnt need to be logical to be real, Mr.Ofbeards?
Wage gap is forged myth. That’s false.
Prison inmates… tell me which group commits disproportionately high amount of violent crime compared to population.
Hell let’s dive further. Why women have way smaller prison punsihments for the same crimws under same file. Why do men get in prison for longer for the same deal.
Prison unpaid labour is kind of… eh. I think they should make up for their crimes, by benefitting society.
Now the medical industry raised prizes for different reasons, and the reason behind it is nore important.
Oh you mean the genocide of native americans which were mostly killed off by diseases and plagues while way less were actually killed. Anyway the past is the past. I mean slavery was and is not really a thing in only america and not only done by one race and are not a byproduct and a concept of capitalism.
So none of your points…. really apply…
wow i cant believe i was actually talking to carl of akkad!!!! im so sorry sir i wont rely on proven data to construct my world view again :(
I know fighting TERFs is really important to you, and I really admire you, so I wanted to share this with you, because I am hoping it will be helpful. Pardon how long this turned out to be, but I wanted to tell you everything I could think of that might be useful, so, here goes.
I used to be a TERF (a rather prominent one, when I was involved–my username at the time was thesecondsex or something like that, I don’t remember it was a long time ago, and it’s really quite far behind me) and have been away from the group for 2-3 years, and have been actively anti-TERF for about a year now. I only tell you that to give you context for what I’m going to say.
Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that while I don’t think you’re WRONG, I think that one of the things that stands in the way of destroy TERF-ism is calling blanketly-fascist rhetoric ‘terf’ rhetoric.
Let me explain. It was really easy for me, when I was a TERF, to think of myself as a regular old leftist who just loved women more than ‘libfems’, as TERFs call them. I was same-gender attracted and felt uniquely oppressed because of that. (You see I still carry some of the rhetoric even now, but that’s the language they use and how I classified myself. It’s not a surprise to you, I’m sure, that while not all exclusionists are TERFs, all TERFs are exclusionists.) Lots of TERFs are marxists, lots of them are women of color (I’m black) and the anti-racist rhetoric is there. It’s easy to say TERFs are inherently more racist (and there are plenty of racist TERFs) but that’s oversimplifying their viewpoint. All of their bullshit comes from their inherently fascist way of thinking of sex and gender. First of all, to TERFs, sex is obviously dyadic. Sperm fertilizes eggs, sperm come from people with penis and testicles, men, eggs come from people with ovary and uterus, woman. Women are oppressed because they can bear children (see Simone deBouvoir’s A Second Sex, a beloved TERF text–and more proof that TERFs and ‘radfems’ are one and the same. Radfems are just TERFs who won’t say tr*nny, but the rhetoric is the same, and the ideology that backs it is the same.) and so women’s oppression is based on biology. Blah blah blah, there’s more, but that’s the foundation for why they think they are justified in exluding trans women from their definition of womanhood: because women are oppressed because of their biological sex, female, which is being equipped with the assumed-child-bearing-parts. Intersex people are defined as a biological aberration, not that that’s why I think, but that’s how TERFs think. It’s a pretty basic, elementary-school concept of sex and gender, with a bit of 2nd wave feminism sprinkled on top, but they’re just not very educated on the topic of biological sex, period. (More on this later.)
So basically, the point is that TERFs think they’re leftists, and they think they’re oppressed because they are ‘female’, so to speak, not because they’re women. Lots of TERFs are GNC, WLW, and don’t feel lots of connection to either cis-ness or woman-ness, which is another reason the picture of them as right-wingers a.) is oversimplistic and b.) means the message goes right over most of them because they dismiss us out of hand when anti-TERF activists assume they’re really ‘cis’, because lots of them feel they don’t benefit from cisness the way other ‘cis’ women do (they do, obviously, but they can’t see it because sex and gender and sexuality are all tied up together in weird ways that changes from society to society). It also makes lots of young, impressionable WLW scoot that way because they feel that society, and men specifically, are preying upon them. They pass around stories about trans women who maybe don’t pass very well and are arrested for sexually predating upon women to say all trans women are autogynephiles who want to rape women and lesbians, specifically. That’s where all that bathroom stuff comes from… TERFs are genuinely afraid of trans women that don’t pass well because they are genuinely terrified of men, and then trans women that don’t pass are basically men in their eyes, and thus the only reason they could want to be in women’s spaces is to rape them and hurt them. Lots of TERFs have histories of sexual violence with men, and use that to excuse their hatred of men and, by extension of their warped worldview, trans women. It’s fucked up, and obviously requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics to come to these conclusions, but… that’s what they think lol. Lots of rhetoric about raping lesbians, which I can’t really comment on because I’m bi, and thus don’t know what it’s like to be a lesbian and also never had a problem with dating trans women anyway. Lots of rhetoric about ‘bihets’ and opposite-gender-partnered bi women being traitors and ‘choosing’ men etc etc
Which leads me to the fascism. TERFs are inherently fascist because they hate men. I know lots of feminists get accused of ‘man hating’ but TERFs really do, and they are genuinely terrified of them and see them as threats. Lots of the most popular 'fuck men’ posts, no matter how good the post is, come from TERFs. There’s a reason political lesbianism is something that gets tossed around bisexual and heterosexual TERF circles, and it’s because eschewing men is seen as something VERY admirable. TERFs treat men the way that other fascists treat their target group. Some people in the alt-right/KKK are tolerant of self-hating black people, and similarly, some TERFs are tolerant of men and trans women–you’ll even find trans women and trans men and even some non-binary people (talk about cognitive dissonance) in TERF circles, and TERFs (just like the alt-right) love to point to these people as proof that they’re not REALLY fascist.
TERFs also like to say that they don’t want trans people dead, and lots of them probably don’t, actively, want trans people dead. again, this doesn’t matter; they support and hide and protect the ones that do, and their rhetoric and the things they want to achieve do that whether they say they want it to or not, and they know this, but their allegiance to female-ness and sex-based oppression is simply more important. they’ll say this, more or less, in their 'women first’ kind of rhetoric. it’s just dog whistling for 'men and trans women’s lives are worthless
The whole reason they hate trans women is because they think of them as men who are infiltrating feminism, which is, in their eyes, very, very bad. TERFs disagree about how bad this is–some TERFs think trans women are more of a threat than cis men, and some TERFs think cis men are the bigger threat, but because TERFs and trans women have more points of contact (because TERFs think they’re leftists, and thus infiltrate leftist spaces) and because TERFs are, by and large, cis women who oppress trans women, they’re able to do waaay more damage to trans women than they’d ever do to cis men. Also, cis men are TERFs oppressors and thus are able to oppress them. But that feeling of 'men are bad, men are inherently violent, men are inherently rapists, men are inherently, naturally evil and women are inherently, naturally good’ is what makes them so keen on gatekeeping trans women out of womanhood, because they’re rightfully afraid of men, but think the only thing that separates trans women from cis men is aesthetics, because, again, their understanding of sex and gender is extremely lacking.
The reason trans men are rejected is because they’ve basically rejected womanhood. However, TERFs don’t hate trans men and most would gladly accept them into women’s spaces before trans women because to them, a vulva is what it means to be a woman, and lots of trans men have that, so…
So my point in all of this is that I think it obfuscates how TERFs operate, how they infiltrate leftists spaces, and that they ARE fascists to call other forms of fascists speech 'TERF rhetoric’ or to draw parallels between TERF rhetoric and other forms of fascist rhetoric. The whole thing about failing to realize how oppressive and how bigoted something is, I think, comes from an inherent lack of understanding of what fascism is. People really don’t understand what it is, especially young people–and Tumblr is very, very young.
I left TERF-ism because I’m black, really. I couldn’t stomach watching black trans women dying, and I didn’t really see how they were hurting feminism or infiltrating womanhood. All I could see was those women’s victimhood and I couldn’t be a part of that anymore–but even after I stopped associating with those people, stopped reblogging and liking their posts and stuff, I agreed with them, deep down.
It was two things that made me realize, intellectually, that I was wrong, and not just dislike their methodology but disagree with them on a fundamental level.
1.) understanding what fascism was. I knew that other leftists thought I was a shitty bigot, like, obviously TERFs are aware that other leftists hate them and want them dead, but that just makes them feel more oppressed, honestly. The conversation I heard that made me realize I was a fascist wasn’t anything about TERFs, but it was about the definition of fascism and the definition of politics. The speaker defined politics as, basically, the way we decide who gets to live and thrive in our society, and who in our society is an acceptable target for violence and whose lives are disposable. The speaker said that leftists think that everybody gets to live and thrive, everybody except for people who would try to deny other people that same freedom, aka, fascists. And the only thing fascists have to do to be able to live and thrive in a leftist society is to stop being fascists, which they can do at any time. Fascists, on the other hand, think that the only people that get to live and thrive in society are people like them. White people, able-bodied people, straight people, whatever it is. And there is no way for people that are caught outside of that to ever become white, straight, cis or able-bodied. So fascist ideology is inherently violent. And it wasn’t until it was explained that way that I could easily sort through what was 'fascist’ and what was 'non-fascist’. I could use that to measure up my anti-racist activism… not fascist. LGBT/queer rights? Not fascist. Disability activism? Inherently leftist, actually. But TERF-ism? There was no way for men or trans women to ever be entitled to live and thrive in a TERF world, which made me realize that TERFs are inherently fascistic. I didn’t want to be a fascist, and fascism sucks, and doesn’t make any sense, and is cruel and harmful. So, that was what really made me do a 180, intellectually, about TERFism, was seeing the parallels between what fascism definitionally is, and what TERFism definitionally is, and how one can be defined by the other.
2.) Second thing that made me realize, intellectually, that I was wrong about gender was reading about science and biology. TERFs have a very elementary understanding of those topics, but honestly it’s hard to get them on that. Feminism is a social science, and lots of TERFs find it pretty easy to just avoid any scientific information that doesn’t mesh with their idealogy already. It’s not surprising, I’m sure, to find out that the graph of “transphobic shittiness” and “doesn’t know jack shit about biology” is a straight line. Lots of TERFs are smart, educated, etc. But about biology? Not so much.
I personally think the best way to point out how TERFs are fascists is to draw parallels between what fascism definitionally is, and how TERF ideology and rhetoric is literally exactly that. Lots of TERFs are Jewish, poor, wlw… so drawing parallels between TERFs and anti-semitism, racism, classism or homophobia doesn’t resonate with TERFs or TERF sympathizers, and people that hate TERFs already know TERFs are fascists. Things like anti-semitism, racism, etc etc… that’s not really TERF rhetoric, anymore than it’s racist rhetoric or homophobe rhetoric. All fascists are going to share some common rhetoric because they’re all fascists. TERFs don’t think of themselves as fascists, though. They think of themselves as leftists, so saying “TERF rhetoric sounds like anti-semitism” isn’t convincing to TERFs because they don’t think they are anti-semites or racists or homophobes or whatever, and they don’t see the similarities or parallels, and if they do they shrug it off or attribute it to something else.
That being said, I think it’s important in leftist spaces to point out language specific to that community that mirrors TERF rhetoric. One, because that is probably the canary in the coalmine about how bad this particular ideology is, and two, because TERFs hide in those spaces.
Again, my point isn’t to say what you said was wrong or bad or even that you shouldn’t do it. I don’t think it’s my place to say how trans women interact with TERFs, and besides, I think you’re factually right–TERFs and anti-semites say many of the same things because it’s all fascism. My point is only to give you what I think might be more effective tools in how to engage with TERF, TERF rhetoric and other spaces where TERFs might be lurking.
Besides discussing fascism and biology specifically, making it clear TERFs aren’t welcome in leftist spaces is ENORMOUSLY EFFECTIVE. TERFs complain, bitch, moan unendingly about how unfair it is that other leftists don’t want to play nice with them. Every single leftist that runs a stim blog or an anti-racism blog or a discourse blog or whatever, all of them, they ALL need to just put in those “if you’re a TERF/radfem don’t interact” disclaimers because it really does help break TERFs apart and keep them from feeling comfortable. This is effective specifically because so many TERFs are leftists-other-than. Spoonie TERFs, TERFs of color, lesbian/bisexual TERFs, they all want to seek out resources in these spaces, and they really can’t see why they’re excluded and trans women aren’t, and honestly, it was something that really bothered and hurt me, and that’s a good thing. It made it honestly just… not worth it. I wasn’t willing to lose other wlw and other black people to keep being a transphobic piece of shit.
Pointing out how transphobia specifically harms women that are oppressed on other axes as well is also helpful. Seeing how much your chronic pain and disability and neurodivergency affected your ability to access resources as a trans woman made me realize how much I was hurting spoonies and other ND people by being a TERF. It makes it hard to push out trans women when they are your allies in other spaces, and when it’s clear the oppression you share together is worse for them because they are also oppressed for being trans. That is probably the #1 thing, emotionally, that hit me, was realizing how much I was hurting not 'trans women’, because TERFs don’t give a fuck about them already, but how much I was hurting black people and ND people and disabled people and queer/LGBT ppl who also just so happened to be trans, because you can’t adequately address racism or ableism or homophobia without addressing how transphobia intersects with them, too.
The attack against TERFs should be two-pronged. Destroying their power in leftist/SJ spaces by pushing TERFs out, and by pointing out how language people use INSIDE communities (not how TERFs sound like other fascists, but how leftist language can come from TERF sources and echo TERF rhetoric, and to be extra-vigilant and wary of those spaces and the people, rhetoric and ideology that come from them) can be TERF-like. Also, again, reminding TERFs who do exist on other axes of oppression that they CANNOT adequately address those forms of oppression without acknowledging that transphobia hurts trans women uniquely. And the second prong is actually convincing individual TERFs, but I think that’s not a job for trans women to do, that’s a job for other cis people to do. And it doesn’t ever involve specifically talking to or with individual TERFs, which I’m sure you know. Discourse just feeds them. But pointing out how their rhetoric is inherently fascistic, and sharing as much correct information about biology and sex and gender as possible, is the best way, I feel, to convince individual TERFs. Not that, again, I think that’s really necessary, but it can certainly feel good and it disrupts them greatly to lose theorists and rhetoricians from the community. It’s also important that if an article is written for the explicit purpose of convincing TERFs, then it needs to be as TERF-friendly as possible, in that it shouldn’t be written with the air of educating a bigot, because bigots don’t think they’re bigots, not usually. If a TERF reads an article about biology and feels like it’s a vehicle for talking about trans people and gender theory, they will dismiss it out of hand. But if it feels like it doesn’t have an agenda, but the facts presented don’t mesh with TERF rhetoric and TERF information, then it CAN plant a seed that starts to grow cracks in the ideology, and start people asking questions.
Mostly I want to give you hope, and let you know that TERFs are bigoted, transphobic shitstains, but they’re not a lost cause, and the problem is not insurmountable. They’re also generally powerless outside of leftist/social justice spaces. They can be very loud and very aggressive and very virulent. They are extremely unpleasant and it can be very hurtful, I imagine, to be rejected by 'feminist’ women for not being a 'good enough’ woman. But 1.) TERFs don’t own the concept of womanhood, society does, and I think society has made it clear that trans women are definitely women. So, like, on that note, honestly fuck what TERFs think, because what they think is wrong. and 2.) they can change their minds. they can be defeated. they can be scoured away to a corner of the internet so small, it exists only as proof of how tolerant a society we have.
Anyway this is what I have to offer–information that, maybe, not being on the inside of their weird, freaky little cult, you didn’t have before, but now you do. Do with it as you will! Have a beautiful day, Sam, as beautiful a day as you are :)
[END]
Simply put, this is the best takedown of TERFs and their ideology that I have ever read, and honestly, this should be mandatory reading for any and all trans allies.
I have so much I want to say right now because wow, but I’m going to keep this short.
I have the advantage of having a friend - one of my closest, dearest friends - who used to be a TERF (not Nonny, I assume). I am flipitant about TERFs because little of this is new to me and when I encounter them I simply block them after a little snark. No platform and all that.
But there are a few points that stunned me because I never connected them. And oh my gosh are those connections important.
I especially appreciate the points you made about intersecting axes of marginalization. It is easy to forget that TERFs are people to, with valid needs for support. I think conceptually I sort of danced around those ideas but they never fully resolved into something I could articulate.
Thank you so much for taking the time and energy to write this. You are an absolute gem for doing so and I really appreciate it.
- Sam
This is amazing information. Nonny, you’re amazing and I really appreciate you sharing!
This is absolutely consistent with everything I’ve seen on hundreds and hundreds of TERF blogs.
So is this: “Not all exclusionists are TERFs, but all TERFs are exclusionists.”
Literally, the way I find people for my block list of exclusionist TERFs is to go to any TERF blog and do a search for asexual, ace, or aces.
At this point, the only time I don’t find out they’re an exclusionist is if they’ve made their blog unsearchable. They are never inclusionists. The only reason there are hundreds of them on my list, instead of thousands, is that I haven’t had the time to post an updated list in about a year.
I found one, once, who had long ago reblogged something positive about being ace, and hadn’t engaged in discourse. That was as close as it has ever gotten.
The part of the post that kills me is the whole explanation of how the best way to fight TERFs is to point out “how leftist language can come from TERF sources and echo TERF rhetoric”….
“and to be extra-vigilant and wary of those spaces and the people, rhetoric and ideology that come from them”.
Because consistently, over and over, transfem inclusionists have done this. Pointed out, over and over, the ways that exclusionist language echoes TERF rhetoric. The places where it comes from TERF sources. And transmisogyny-exempt inclusionists have signal boosted this message, over and over.
And the response from exclusionists, 100% of the time, is to either mock the examples, or say that they’re fine because in THIS case they make SENSE, or usually, just yell, “How dare you call us TERFs when some of us are trans!”
It’s one case where people, both cis and trans, dig their feet in and refuse to fight TERF infiltration as long as it supports their supposedly-unrelated cause. (although maybe this is why I have seen so few trans women exclusionists?)
I’ve seen it in the radfem-but-not-a-terf community too. I’m sure it happens elsewhere.
A lot of mainly TME people will do literally anything to avoid examining this stuff.
I want to say, though, that I disagree that TERFS are powerless.
TERFS are often very willing to compromise with and advocate for right wing bigots so that laws that hurt or even kill trans people can be passed. They prey on and brainwash young wlw and newbie feminists to get larger numbers. They work in Women and Gender Studies classes and teach their rhetoric to students. Etc.
I think thinking of them as some loud but harmless force on the internet is a huge mistake. They have quite a bit of power, and a lot of influence, and ignoring that and not taking them seriously enough as a threat could be incredibly dangerous.
I’ve seen people say we shouldn’t bother fighting TERFS because they can’t /actually/ harm trans women, and that’s simply not true.
TheTerfs.com is a great, though triggering, resource on ways TERFS have done plenty of harm to trans women and how dangerous their ideology can be.
If you really want to call them fascists, which I’m not sure I’m fully comfortable with, then you should know fascism isn’t powerless and can be very deadly if not taken seriously. If we want to stop TERFS, we need to be honest about the threat they represent.
Other than that, this post is good. And I hope everyone reads it.
Fetuses do not have rights. They’re not sentient, they’re not conscious, they’re not self aware. Even if they did have rights, nothing would give them the right to use another person’s body without that person’s permission. Actual born human beings don’t even have that right.
That’s because of this great thing called “bodily autonomy.” Bodily autonomy is basically the right to your own body, to decide who/what uses it, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood or organs, etc., even if you’re dead.
Fetuses do not have this.
Pregnant people do.
So if a pregnant person does not want a fetus using their body, guess what? The fetus can’t use their body.
Even if the fetus had all these rights as well (they don’t) it wouldn’t matter. Because it’s the fetus using the pregnant person and the pregnant person has the right to deny the fetus that use. It’s the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy that matters.
Don’t give a pregnant person less rights than a corpse.
They made their choice when they chose to become pregnant. The child deserves to live.
I don’t think most people seeking elective abortion chose to become pregnant.
In fact, I’m not sure anyone can actively choose to become pregnant.
Sex = pregnancy. Don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant.
You can get pregnant even if you don’t have sex, you can have sex and not get pregnant. You can get pregnant without deciding to have sex. Deciding to have sex does not mean you decided to get pregnant.
Yes, the one adult gave permission to the other adult to have sex with them.
That would also constitute permission from the mother to the child. assuming for just a moment that OP isn’t a complete idiot with her “body autonomy” argument
Consent to one thing is not consent to another, and consent is not transferable from person to person. Consent must also be continuous and given freely. Even if you believe consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the pregnant person could still revoke their consent, even if they had sex wanting to get pregnant. Unless you think consent cannot be revoked?
I think that grown adults know what causes children and that just because it’s inconvenient doesn’t mean that they get to change their mind . If you want to play, be prepared to pay
First, not only adults get pregnant. Plus, sexual education is inconsistent and can be lacking depending on the place. There are people that don’t even know condoms (or any other method of birth control) are not 100% effective, let alone that having protected sex could result in having a child. I believe there should be better access to affordable (free) and reliable methods of birth control, as well as better and more comprehensive sex ed courses that cover, among other things, all choices available regarding sexual intercourse and reproduction.
Second, reducing a person’s reason for getting an abortion down to an “inconvenience” is trivializing. It doesn’t matter if the person doesn’t want to be “inconvenienced,” they shouldn’t have to be “inconvenienced.”
Third, they do get to change their mind. At whatever time, for whatever reason. The pregnant person must consent to the fetus using their body for the entire pregnancy, otherwise their right to bodily autonomy would be violated.
Finally, this whole “pay” for “playing” thing shows you regard pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for having consensual sex.
No, most of the people who chose abortions see it as a punishment, that’s why they feel like they have a right to kill a baby. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons for it, I am saying that it is far too casual. I’m not saying a mothers life is less important than a baby’s, I’m not saying incest shouldn’t be a reason along with rape. I am saying that most grown adults know what they are doing, the baby didn’t make a choice.
Do you think a person shouldn’t be able to get an abortion if they had consensual sex, and that they should be able to in the case of rape or incest?
I don’t believe in abortion at all, but I understand that some instances are traumatic and abortion should be an option. But no, I do not believe that if you forgot your condom, or it failed snd now your life is inconvenienced that you should be allowed an abortion.
Most of the time we are talking about consenting adults who choose abortion in order to stay out of trouble, or not change their life, and at that point I believe the child has the greater claim
So you do think a person should be able to get an abortion if they were raped?
I do believe that if the woman can’t bring herself to carry the child of her rapist, it should be an option.
considering that rape and incest make up less than 4% of all abortions, yeah I will take a 96% reduction in abortions
Why do you think a person has the right to get an abortion if they were raped?
I don’t think it’s a right for someone who’s been raped to have an abortion I believe it’s a medical necessity.
Ok, then why is it a medical necessity? Why should the person be able to get an abortion?
Because rape is a terrible and traumatic event and sometimes the idea of carrying the child of your rapist is more than even a strong woman can handle. Which is completely different situation than oh my God look I’m pregnant now I have to put off college for a year or so what are my parents going to think Or sure this guy is nice to have had a date but I don’t think I want to have a baby with him so.
Also in the case of rape or incest it’s an event that was forced on the mother, she had no say in it, she didn’t decide for that to happen. Where is the other instances she knew what she was doing she went into it with her eyes open and the idea that hey I’m going to do this and one of the consequences is I could get pregnant.
So a person should be able to get an abortion because it would be traumatizing/difficult for them to be forced to stay pregnant with their rapist’s child?
That doesn’t sound like a medical necessity, that sounds like they have the right to get an abortion because it would be wrong to traumatized them.
No, it sounds like they were raped, against their will, and most times violently so no it’s not traumatic because they have to have a baby. It’s dramatic because they would constantly be reminded of that violent event in their life. That being said I would still encourage even the victims of rape and incest to carry the child to term if she could and give it up for adoption.
(That’s still not an abortion performed out of medical necessity, btw.)
So you would consider it traumatic for a person to be forced to have sex but not traumatic for them to be forced to stay pregnant? Why?
A person should be able to get an abortion because they were raped, why? What’s your entire argument? What gives them the right to abort the fetus? Would their rights be violated if they were forced to carry their rapist’s baby?
Because in most instances them becoming pregnant was their choice. they went into it willingly. They knew the risks of the actions they were taking. Forgive me if your life is inconvenienced at that point because you did something and it didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to.
That’s not an answer to any question I asked. We’re talking about abortions in the case of rape, you’re talking about consensual sex.
You are trying to draw a correlation between the trauma of a rape and the trauma of having a child I’m just pointing out that these two instances came about because of completely different circumstances
It’s almost like they would both be traumatic. Notice how you said “trauma of rape” and “trauma of having a child.” They would both be traumatic, as both would be forced on the person. They didn’t come about because of completely different circumstances, one could occur after the other (you could be forced to have sex and forced to stay pregnant) or they could not (you could have consensual sex and be forced to stay pregnant).
Either way, you have yet to present an argument as to why abortions in the case of rape are acceptable. Do you have one?
You keep throwing around the word ‘inconvenience’. Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever gone through that? It’s far more than an ‘inconvenience’. The drive thru taking too long and putting me potentially late for work is an ‘inconvenience’. A child making me physically unable to keep down any meal of the day, sucking up my nutrients and making me go through every emotion in the span of three hours and then putting me out of work for two or more months at the rate of 50% of my paycheck IF I’M LUCKY ENOUGH FOR THAT is a HELL of a lot more than an ‘inconvenience’. That would push me and the child I ALREADY HAVE back into poverty and we’d likely lose our house. But yeah, pregnancy is totally an ‘inconvenience?’ Fuck off.
I only used the “trauma of rape line because that is what you were implying. what you want to overlook is that in the case of rape and incest the action or actions were forced on that person. in the case of an accidental pregnancy, it wasn’t. they made choices, they decided to do what they did and a baby was the result. I don’t believe that a baby should pay for your willing actions.
If you don’t want a baby, get protected, with the knowledge that it ISN’T 100% effective, or don’t have sex. it really is that simple. choices were made, now it’s time to own up to it and deal with the results. That baby wasn’t involved in your choices, but you were. and that baby shouldn’t pay because you made poor choices.
@exodusvonengel
I keep using the word inconvenience because that is how an unwanted pregnancy is viewed by a lot of people. wow, babies have to be nourished…who knew? oh wait, you did. So why in the hell did you do something stupid like getting pregnant again if you didn’t want another baby.
wait, babies are expensive? WHAT?!?! shocker, maybe you shouldn’t do what causes babies without a plan to take care of them.
so what you are telling me is that you are too lazy to be responsible and it’s just easier to kill a baby. Gotcha.
I would tell you to Fuck off, but you would probably end up with a baby and want to kill it.
Since you’ve avoided the question yet again, do you just not have an argument for why abortion is acceptable in the case of rape?
personally, I’m not 100% convinced that it should be, but I am pragmatic enough to realize that other people see it that way, so I am willing to take a long view and work for anything that reduces the total number of abortions.
Ok, so you believe it should be accessible because other people believe it should?
Lazy. Yeah, I’m lazy. I’m lazy for having a baby at 16 because I decided that abortion wasn’t right for me, and I’m lazy for having fought and clawed my way to a comfortable, lower middle class way of life now that he’s almost ten. I’m totally lazy for not wanting the possibility of having another baby at this point to put us in a homeless shelter because I, as a woman, dared to enjoy having sex a few times a year, while on birth control. I’m lazy for working 48 hour weeks to keep a roof over my goddamn head and not wanting another child to force me out of that.
My already born, living, breathing, video game playing 9 year old is more important to me to keep up than another baby who is none of those things. If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow, that my birth control failed, I don’t know what I would do, but abortion would be very high on that list. Because I’m too lazy to risk putting my son into poverty. Because I’m too lazy to have to try and continue working that 48 hours a week when I could barely make it through nine months of high school when I was pregnant before.
Fetuses do not have rights. They’re not sentient, they’re not conscious, they’re not self aware. Even if they did have rights, nothing would give them the right to use another person’s body without that person’s permission. Actual born human beings don’t even have that right.
That’s because of this great thing called “bodily autonomy.” Bodily autonomy is basically the right to your own body, to decide who/what uses it, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood or organs, etc., even if you’re dead.
Fetuses do not have this.
Pregnant people do.
So if a pregnant person does not want a fetus using their body, guess what? The fetus can’t use their body.
Even if the fetus had all these rights as well (they don’t) it wouldn’t matter. Because it’s the fetus using the pregnant person and the pregnant person has the right to deny the fetus that use. It’s the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy that matters.
Don’t give a pregnant person less rights than a corpse.
They made their choice when they chose to become pregnant. The child deserves to live.
I don’t think most people seeking elective abortion chose to become pregnant.
In fact, I’m not sure anyone can actively choose to become pregnant.
Sex = pregnancy. Don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant.
You can get pregnant even if you don’t have sex, you can have sex and not get pregnant. You can get pregnant without deciding to have sex. Deciding to have sex does not mean you decided to get pregnant.
Yes, the one adult gave permission to the other adult to have sex with them.
That would also constitute permission from the mother to the child. assuming for just a moment that OP isn’t a complete idiot with her “body autonomy” argument
Consent to one thing is not consent to another, and consent is not transferable from person to person. Consent must also be continuous and given freely. Even if you believe consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the pregnant person could still revoke their consent, even if they had sex wanting to get pregnant. Unless you think consent cannot be revoked?
I think that grown adults know what causes children and that just because it’s inconvenient doesn’t mean that they get to change their mind . If you want to play, be prepared to pay
First, not only adults get pregnant. Plus, sexual education is inconsistent and can be lacking depending on the place. There are people that don’t even know condoms (or any other method of birth control) are not 100% effective, let alone that having protected sex could result in having a child. I believe there should be better access to affordable (free) and reliable methods of birth control, as well as better and more comprehensive sex ed courses that cover, among other things, all choices available regarding sexual intercourse and reproduction.
Second, reducing a person’s reason for getting an abortion down to an “inconvenience” is trivializing. It doesn’t matter if the person doesn’t want to be “inconvenienced,” they shouldn’t have to be “inconvenienced.”
Third, they do get to change their mind. At whatever time, for whatever reason. The pregnant person must consent to the fetus using their body for the entire pregnancy, otherwise their right to bodily autonomy would be violated.
Finally, this whole “pay” for “playing” thing shows you regard pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for having consensual sex.
No, most of the people who chose abortions see it as a punishment, that’s why they feel like they have a right to kill a baby. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons for it, I am saying that it is far too casual. I’m not saying a mothers life is less important than a baby’s, I’m not saying incest shouldn’t be a reason along with rape. I am saying that most grown adults know what they are doing, the baby didn’t make a choice.
Do you think a person shouldn’t be able to get an abortion if they had consensual sex, and that they should be able to in the case of rape or incest?
I don’t believe in abortion at all, but I understand that some instances are traumatic and abortion should be an option. But no, I do not believe that if you forgot your condom, or it failed snd now your life is inconvenienced that you should be allowed an abortion.
Most of the time we are talking about consenting adults who choose abortion in order to stay out of trouble, or not change their life, and at that point I believe the child has the greater claim
So you do think a person should be able to get an abortion if they were raped?
I do believe that if the woman can’t bring herself to carry the child of her rapist, it should be an option.
considering that rape and incest make up less than 4% of all abortions, yeah I will take a 96% reduction in abortions
Why do you think a person has the right to get an abortion if they were raped?
I don’t think it’s a right for someone who’s been raped to have an abortion I believe it’s a medical necessity.
Ok, then why is it a medical necessity? Why should the person be able to get an abortion?
Because rape is a terrible and traumatic event and sometimes the idea of carrying the child of your rapist is more than even a strong woman can handle. Which is completely different situation than oh my God look I’m pregnant now I have to put off college for a year or so what are my parents going to think Or sure this guy is nice to have had a date but I don’t think I want to have a baby with him so.
Also in the case of rape or incest it’s an event that was forced on the mother, she had no say in it, she didn’t decide for that to happen. Where is the other instances she knew what she was doing she went into it with her eyes open and the idea that hey I’m going to do this and one of the consequences is I could get pregnant.
So a person should be able to get an abortion because it would be traumatizing/difficult for them to be forced to stay pregnant with their rapist’s child?
That doesn’t sound like a medical necessity, that sounds like they have the right to get an abortion because it would be wrong to traumatized them.
No, it sounds like they were raped, against their will, and most times violently so no it’s not traumatic because they have to have a baby. It’s dramatic because they would constantly be reminded of that violent event in their life. That being said I would still encourage even the victims of rape and incest to carry the child to term if she could and give it up for adoption.
(That’s still not an abortion performed out of medical necessity, btw.)
So you would consider it traumatic for a person to be forced to have sex but not traumatic for them to be forced to stay pregnant? Why?
A person should be able to get an abortion because they were raped, why? What’s your entire argument? What gives them the right to abort the fetus? Would their rights be violated if they were forced to carry their rapist’s baby?
Because in most instances them becoming pregnant was their choice. they went into it willingly. They knew the risks of the actions they were taking. Forgive me if your life is inconvenienced at that point because you did something and it didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to.
That’s not an answer to any question I asked. We’re talking about abortions in the case of rape, you’re talking about consensual sex.
You are trying to draw a correlation between the trauma of a rape and the trauma of having a child I’m just pointing out that these two instances came about because of completely different circumstances
It’s almost like they would both be traumatic. Notice how you said “trauma of rape” and “trauma of having a child.” They would both be traumatic, as both would be forced on the person. They didn’t come about because of completely different circumstances, one could occur after the other (you could be forced to have sex and forced to stay pregnant) or they could not (you could have consensual sex and be forced to stay pregnant).
Either way, you have yet to present an argument as to why abortions in the case of rape are acceptable. Do you have one?
You keep throwing around the word ‘inconvenience’. Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever gone through that? It’s far more than an ‘inconvenience’. The drive thru taking too long and putting me potentially late for work is an ‘inconvenience’. A child making me physically unable to keep down any meal of the day, sucking up my nutrients and making me go through every emotion in the span of three hours and then putting me out of work for two or more months at the rate of 50% of my paycheck IF I’M LUCKY ENOUGH FOR THAT is a HELL of a lot more than an ‘inconvenience’. That would push me and the child I ALREADY HAVE back into poverty and we’d likely lose our house. But yeah, pregnancy is totally an ‘inconvenience?’ Fuck off.
“Reblog and add at least one person who needs more love.”
Oh…is this making another round again? You people do this on purpose just so I hand out love yes? °u° Fine! Seconding @araglas1989 (and back at ya) aaaaaaaaaaand adding…*rubs hands together*
This is so sweet. I would like to second @syrenpan; I’ve only known you for such a short time, but you are always so kind. Thank you. Also, I’d like to add @annaturaldisaster, @blitzywing, @bossuary, @mandromeda and a certain lurker who doesn’t like the spotlight very much, but has always been a true friend, inside and outside of tumblr.
I am way too lazy to write her whole story here so I’ll just talk a lil about her @vava-chan-take-over-the-world it’ll certainly feel redundant from what I told you but at least you can see her design and the stuff related to it now
It’s one of my gemsonas/gem OCs?. She’s a natural Opal (ref took from this and this pictures) and a huge nerd. She’s actually pretty toll but I failed at drawing her height. She’s a pacifist and kind of against Yellow Diamond/The Diamonds in general but still under their rule at the moment but always far from Homeworld so it’s ok. Her weapon are cissors, she can change their size but she usually keeps them at a regular size. Back on Homeworld, she owns a huge library with books she collected but also her own research since she’s a scientist (botanist?) Her mission is to collect data on the fauna & flora of each planet she’s sent to.
On her design, on the left it’s a younger version of Opal, in the middle it’s her currently but without her lab coat (and without her glass lenses so you can look at her beautiful eyes) and on the right it’s her, you guessed it, with her lab coat. She wore pink glasses because of symbolic reason before but changed for green ones when she reformed. Speaking of glasses, they can project the contents of all the books in her library (but cannot access the Internet :( ) Her freckles-thing glow in the dark too.
I forgot what else I wanted to say so quick note on her colors: see the little dots of colors on the left? That’s her color so you can easily draw her. See the little bright colors? That’s her gem’s colors. Her freckles/thing in her eyes are only the pink/yellow/green though. Her glasses are either the pink or the green at 25% opacity.
If you wanna see more of this cutie check the tag “gemsona cuties” there shouldn’t be much when I post it but there’ll be later
