You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Rant’ category.
Welcome to part 3 of my in depth exposition on why I don’t want to have children.
I. Intro + Stage 1: Initial Shock
II. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part A
III. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part B
IV. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part C
V. Stage 3: The Rebuttal + Wrap up
In part A of Stage 2 I discussed my personal reasons as to why I just don’t want to have kids of my own. Today’s post looks at the practice of breeding on a more global scale. With just a few considerations, it soon becomes clear that many others should be following my example.
They are Fragile
I have never understood how some people consider it a virtue when something is delicate. Delicate means structurally weak. Why on earth do people even bother making thin drinking vessels made of brittle glass when sturdy, droppable, hard plastic is an available alternative?
“Ooh, look how thin the stem is on this wine glass is!”
“Wow, that thing would probably shatter in a strong breeze.”
“You’re right. We had better buy a lot of them.”
On a related note, I am also clumsy. If it wasn’t for my martial arts training, providing some basic coordination and some toughness, I’m sure I would have killed myself a dozen times over by now. A newborn would not have any such training, severely reducing its chances of surviving my attempts at parenting. I have been handed an infant twice, once a sibling, once a nephew. They both happened exactly the same way and were both occasions of great terror and duress. Holding my breath, not blinking, I held it at arms length, my hands rigid, straining to ensure I could not possibly drop or crush them. An eternity passed in the 15 seconds it took for someone to relieve me of the infant. I was mocked, but I didn’t care. We both survived and that was all that mattered. “Oh, you’ll get used to it and you’ll learn. Don’t worry, there isn’t a ‘Self-Destruct’ button you could accidentally push.” They’re right, there isn’t a Self-Destruct button. It’s more like a Self-Destruct mine field. And getting used to it is the last thing I want to do. My guard would slowly be let down. I would begin to think that it’s all ok. Then, due to this relaxed vigilance, calamity will sneak through the cracks and then I’d suddenly be responsible for a newborn falling off the edge of a cliff. No thank you. And even despite all these worries, a floundering care taker is not a child’s only danger.
Canadian stats have 1-2 children in every 25 will be born with some kind of birth defect and 28 in every million it will be fatal. When I see stories of dedicated parents who give up their lives to look after their disabled child in the news or in my life, I do not feel inspired. I feel dread. Nature is so cruel, making these families either chose to abandon the child, which will result in grief, an even worse off child, and quite possibly social ostracization; or they can keep it and endure unimaginable stress and strain on their lives. The ones who make it might tell you that it was hard, but they found a way to make it work. First, red flags jump out and sirens wail, “Survivor bias, survivor bias!” Second, even if these “success” stories are the norm, they are no success to me. I do not want to so completely convolute my notions of a happy life and lower my standards to such a degree that they are no longer recognizable. “Oh, it will just take a shift in perspective”, says The Breeder, as if that somehow makes it a good thing. When faced with starvation, a shift in perspective on cannibalism may be required for your survival. While it is technically better than everyone in the dire situation dying, that does not make it a happy turn of events. Anyone with even the tiniest bit of sense can see that it’s a situation that ought to be avoided, whether or not there’s a lesser of multiple evils.
Not only do they break easy, the care with which the young must be cultivated is extraordinary. Failure to live up to this can result in disastrous consequences for both the parent and the child. There are so many horribly wrong ways to raise, educate, discipline, feed, house, entertain, and engage your child. And everyday, parents everywhere are finding new bad ways to do these things. Quite often the bad decisions are systemic, but sometimes it can be just one bad call. To be a parent is to accept the risk that, as you cannot be perfect, it is entirely possible that, despite all your best efforts, you will completely fuck up your child’s life. There are many days when I feel I shouldn’t trusted with my own well being, much less that of a defenceless child. Perhaps I’m being pessimistic/overly self-critical/paranoid, but even if the odds are of me doing irreparable damage to an innocent life are only 1% of what I imagine, they are still much too high to warrant me having a child.
E) They are Bad for the Environment
It’s fairly simple. Humans are causing climate change, procreation results in more humans, therefore having children harms the planet. Bearing spawn is placing one’s own self-indulgent conceit over the importance of the entire world. That’s right, I’m throwing that ‘being selfish’ charge right back in The Breeder’s face. Just how much do these little bundles of “joy” harm?Here is a link to an article that looks at a study which compares the efficacy of climate change reduction measures. It looks at recycling, efficient light bulbs, going carless, eating a plant based diet, flying less, and having one less child.
The one less child was so massive compared to everything else on the list that it required not only a break in the illustration, but an entirely new scale for the graph. Consider two hypothetical people. Person A flies regularly, drives a gas guzzling car, never recycles, and eats enough meat to make an American blush. Person B never flies, doesn’t even own a car, recycles everything, and is devoutly vegan. Based on that, Person B’s carbon footprint is substantially less than Person A’s. But if Person A remains childless while Person B sires just one offspring, suddenly Person A is doing about 10-15 times more for the environment than Person B. And if Person B has two kids…forget about it. But so strong is the Breeder’s hold on our cultural ethos that the value of not having kids was barely mentioned, despite it being a scale of magnitude more impactful than anything else on the list combined. This level of societal blindness is Bond-villain worthy, as it is truly destroying the planet.
F) They are Going to Starve
Probably not any children I would hypothetically produce, as I happen to be one of the world’s fortunate: not destitute in an industrialized society. However, considered globally, this conclusion is inescapable. One of my favourite books is called “Ishmael”, written by Daniel Quinn. In it, the main characters address the fact that our “advanced” culture still has its myths and what many of those myths entail. The one that is relevant to this discussion is our myth concerning world hunger. Our culture tells us that we could solve the problem of hunger if only we could produce enough food and distribute it to those in need. We have everything from local drives to international organizations tirelessly working toward this end and they have been doing so for generations. Yet, somehow, our planet is still filled with starving people. Are all these caring, giving people completely inept? Are they really so incompetent that with all their numbers and donations that they still can’t make any progress? Not at all. Food production today is staggering compared to what was possible in the past. Food distribution is likewise occurring at an incredible rate. So what gives, Culture? You said that should solve everything. All it takes to unveil this myth of ours is some high school biology.
Ecosystems 101 shows us that increasing the food supply of any given species will increase its population. The population will continue to grow until it cannot be supported by the increased food supply. At that point, some of the population will starve. They will continue to starve and die off until they reach numbers that the food supply can support. This makes sense to most people and they easily see how it applies to all species. Except themselves. Culture tells us that we are exempt from these rules of nature, but the harsh truth is, we aren’t. With a global population of 5 billion, there were people starving. So, we made enough food for 5 billion. But this lead to the population growing to 6 billion, and people were starving. Then we made food for 6 billion, so the population grew to 7 billion, and people were starving. Now we’re making food for 7 billion and the population continues to rise, and people are still starving. Throw in some imperialism and global market capitalism to take the problem up a couple notches, and eternal population growth with millions starving is guaranteed. Of course, this cannot go on forever. This is a finite planet and there is only so much food we can produce. What are our options? We could stop trying to produce more food and stop distributing it to those in need. Hunger would then be more in line with all other species. In good years we would grow, in bad years we would die off a bit. This option is obviously less than ideal. Not only is it heartless, it fails original goal of eliminating hunger, and merely manages it. The other option is to stop our rampant breeding. Unlike the need for food, bearing offspring is not necessary for an individual’s survival. If, through birth control, we reduced our population down to a few billion, our current food production would be more than sufficient to feed everyone alive. This also applies to any other limited resource. As competition is reduced, scarcity diminishes. This will be difficult to achieve, considering the grip the Breeder has over the world. But I shall do my part and lead by example. Once enough people follow, we will save the world.
You’re welcome.
G) They are Doomed to Suffer
We are a biased and optimistic race, especially when our biology wants something from us. I already talked about mate selection, but the blinders get turned up to 11 when people think about the future for their offspring. They ignore rates of sexual abuse, mental illness, violent crime, or poverty, despite them having caused untold millions to suffer unimaginably. Any thoughtful person could be dissuaded from procreation just to avoid casting their offspring into a such cruel world. I won’t explain further, as I’m sure anyone who has read this far can fill details themselves. Instead, I will focus only on the big one.
Death.
100% of all people born will suffer from death. It is inescapable. Yet the Breeder doesn’t consider that they condemn every one of their precious progeny to death simply by birthing them. I’ve seen the quote “No parent should have to bury a child” echoed many places throughout art and pop culture, and it betrays this oversight. If it were conscious, this attitude could be expressed as, ‘I’m totally fine with you dying, as long as it happens after I’m no longer around to suffer the consequences myself.’ It wouldn’t surprise me if the parental desire to protect one’s offspring comes, at least partially, from a sense of guilt over the suffering and death they themselves have sentenced their child to endure.
Although I’ve held my position for almost my entire life, I have only just learned of the term ‘anti-natalism’ in doing research for this post. That research had me stumble upon a wonderful little narrative by The Prime Directive in a post entitled, “The joys of existence.” It’s a dialogue between a freshly formed embryo and its creators/soon-to-b parents. When you get a chance, definitely read the whole thing and check out more posts, but for now, here’s an excerpt that opens up the dialogue and relates well to this point on suffering:
parents: Congratulations, little boy or girl! You’re going to exist!
embryo: Oooh, what does that entail?
parents: So many things! You’re going to be sentient, first of all. You will experience pleasure and pain. You will feel a wide variety of emotions, some of which will be augmented by your human intelligence!
embryo: That sounds complicated.
parents: It will be! The human experience is such a complex one, due to our high intelligence combined with our primitive instincts! We are probably the only creatures on the planet that have existential woes!
embryo: …
parents: In fact, we’re creating you to help alleviate some of our existential woes! You will make us feel immortal and significant in the universe, even though we’re not. You will give us a illusory sense of purpose in life!
embryo: Gee, parents, I’m not sure I like the sound of existence.
Spoiler alert: the parents fail to convince the embryo that being born is a good idea.
So now we see that having a child is not a good idea for me, for the child, or for the world at large. In part C, we’ll look at how having a child is not a good idea for one more person. One who’s wellbeing gets far too often overlooked.
Welcome to part 2 of my in depth exposition on why I don’t want to have children.
I. Intro + Stage 1: Initial Shock
II. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part A
III. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part B
IV. Stage 2: The Demand for Answers part C
V. Stage 3: The Rebuttal + Wrap up
In our look at Stage 1, I dismantled a number of reactionary outbursts I commonly encounter when first telling someone I don’t want children. Now we move on to:
Stage 2: The Demand For Answers
Somewhere in their psyche, The Breeder knows that their initial dismissal is not sufficient to explain this aberration before them. Best case scenario, they recognize that us non-breeders don’t deserve the negative labels they reflexively threw on us. In any case, this oddity demands further understanding. How could it be that anyone could go through life not wanting kids? It’s unfathomable! “Tell me,” The Breeder cries, “tell me why you THINK you don’t want children. Perhaps if I get to the root of this delusion, I can educate you and bring you back to the path of reproductive righteousness.” Ok, no one has actually said these exact words to me, and sometimes the person is genuinely curious. However, the power The Breeder has over our culture is immense, and I feel this kind of intention quite often. Regardless of their personal level of self-righteousness, I am almost always asked why.
At this point I usually pause.
I think The Breeder, primed by their initial shock reaction, often takes this to mean that I haven’t thought this through or I’m not certain in this conviction, or some such weakness in my position. This is not the case. I pause because I don’t know where to begin. There are just so many reasons not to bear children. So many, in fact, I’ve divided this stage into three sections. During actual conversation, social conventions coerce much filtering and omitting, but not today. Unreservedly and with filters down, here I will lay them all out: great and small, these are the reasons I never want to reproduce. Now, in part 1, lets look at my purely personal reasons to just say no.
Babies Are Ugly, They Stink, And They Don’t Shut Up
As you might imagine, I don’t usually open with this one. However, it is the most basic and simple of my reasons, so for the purposes of this post, it makes sense to address this first. Now I’m well aware that The Breeder is oft to say things like ’Your newborn is so cuuuuuute’, or ‘it’s absolutely precious/darling’ (in the interest of civil discourse, we can pretend for the moment that I’m using the pronoun ‘it’ purely in the interest of sex neutrality) or ‘Isn’t it a beautiful baby?’.
No. It isn’t.
Babies are unnerving, preformed skin sacks filled with lumpy mush. Their heads are disproportionally large, their eyes bulge, and it creeps me out. “But that’s what a developing baby is SUPPOSED to look like” cries out The Breeder. Well, no kidding. I know that. But just because nature is designed a certain way does not necessarily make it good or beautiful.
Here is a picture of a mother centipede guarding its young. That’s what it’s supposed to look like. Is it cute? Is it beautiful? Hell no! It is the stuff of nightmares. And so it is with babies. *shudders* So why do so many otherwise reasonable people gush over such obviously hideous creatures? I believe it to be a combination of things.
First, there is simply massive social pressure. The Breeder is everywhere continually gushing that babies are cute and precious and lovely and wonderful and overflowing with such adorableness that everyone simply must feel the same compulsion to hug them forever and ever and ever. To deny this when confronted with an ugly baby would amount to denying a huge chunk of our cultural ethos. Any dissenting viewpoint is immediately punished. Cognitive dissonance kicks in and people make themselves believe that the baby is cute.
Second, such an obvious lie needs help. Evolution predisposes us to be affectionate and forgiving to our young. It could be no other way, otherwise no one would bother and the species would die out. In short, biology messes with us to serve its own ends. Consider a related subject, sexual attraction. Whether it be due to libido, desperation, or pubescent hormonal onslaught, there are countless people right now wanting to get it on with less than suitable mates. Not looking for Mr/Mrs Right, but Mr/Mrs Right Now. We all know this can lead to disastrous life consequences, but sometimes people just cannot ignore biology. They find the closest willing partner and go at it. Kudos to those who make it through and/or avoid all these bad choices, but a quick survey of society will find many who are currently being duped. With case after case of bad hook ups ending horribly, one might wonder why it is that biology would drive us to such actions. The answer is simple. Your biology doesn’t give a damn about your ambitions, your desires, your life plan, or your happiness. All it cares about is that you pass on your genes. Gotta replicate that DNA and keep the chain a goin’. So, sure, that dude may have herpes and it may well be that he would never help raise a kid. But, his sperm is healthy so according to biology, he’s good enough. And sure, that woman might make you miserable for the rest of your life, but she’s willing to accept your seed, so biology says this union is A-OK! For a fortunate few, some are able to keep biology in check just enough to fulfill biological urges while also selecting a partner that has a good chance of making our lives easier and happier instead of harder and sadder. That is, success stories are in spite of biology, not because of it. Biology messes with us. The more we recognize this, the more likely we are to spot its deceptions, the more likely we can assess things objectively, the more we’re able to direct our lives towards things that actually make us happy. When we fail at this, we eat the fatty sugary treat, we skronk the attractive yet otherwise useless/harmful lust-generator, and we’re duped into thinking newborns are cute.
Anyway, about two years in, infants start to actually look like humanoids and could potentially be considered ‘not hideous’, if you’re lucky. But if you recall the title of this section, a child’s vicious assault on our senses is not limited to the visual. Oh no, there are much worse and longer lasting evils. Let us now move on to the putrescent olfactory barrage with which spawn assail their parents.
Poop. Somedays answering the question ‘Why no kids?’ is as easy as that one word. Or I could choose one of any number of expressions that take on a horrifically literal meaning when applied to infant rearing.
I can’t believe the shit that parents have to put up with.
I don’t have time for this shit.
This shit stinks!
Shitshitshitshitshitshitshit!
From ‘The Oatmeal’
As far as bodily substances go, there is nothing more disgusting than fecal matter. Our bodies, built to endure generations of scarcity, use up ever molecule of food that it can. It greedily holds on to every molecule of fat, sugar, and protein to use someday, somehow. Poop is what is left when every good and useful thing is sucked out of our nutrients. It is toxic, disease carrying, foul, odorous waste. And for the first few years of a child’s life, the parent must gather, clean up after, and dispose of piles and piles of this vile excreta.
But that doesn’t last forever, only about as long as the ugliness, right? Wrong! Yes, they will potty train, but then they just move on to Stink Stage 2: Dirty. Young children play in anything and everything and have a strong aversion to bathing. While this is the least nasally offensive of the stink stages, it is the most labour intensive. Mess after mess after mess will have to be cleaned. The second a parent tries to take a break, the stench grows and neighbours start to wonder why you aren’t taking better care of your children. After many years of diligently cleaning the little muck-magnets, they finally grow out of jumping into every mud puddle they come across. Just in time for Stink Stage 3: BO. Bodies are going through changes, hygiene regimens need updating, and kids are slow to keep up. This pungent stage is accentuated by sports activities and the inability to do laundry. A perfect storm of perpetual mephitis. The Breeder holds out, thinking that soon (please! soon) their child will learn how to cope with this pestilence of body odour. This hope is in vain, as evident by Stink Stage 4: Chemical Warfare. Whether it be body sprays, colognes, or perfumes, the teenager answer to BO is often to take a quick swim through a gallon of masking agent. As they walk by, the gas cloud is so thick, you almost have to chew the air instead of breath it. While not nearly as vile as the previous stages, the Chemical Warfare stage poses the greatest physical threat to your health. Once the sprays get to critical volume (and they will), the effects on your respiratory system can be crippling. It isn’t until the kid is ready to leave that some of them manage to smell like sensible human being. However, there are many who are not this fortunate, where the child gets stuck at one of the previous Stink Stages and they go off into the world to subject the world to their offensive stench.
Noise follows a similar pattern of trading one headache in for another. It starts with the screaming and crying, day and night, robbing The Breeder of much needed sleep. As it grows, the screaming and crying reduces slightly, but only to make room for all the whining. Whining continues to take over the audio landscape, growing until the crying and screaming disappear entirely. Except, of course, the (hopefully) occasional tantrum where the ungrateful teen goes on about how “I hate you! You don’t understand anything! I wish you were dead! You can’t tell me what to do! I didn’t ASK to be born! AHHHH!” and you realize just how little the child has progressed from infancy.
They are Expensive
I don’t get the spending habits of many people in our commercial society. The need to constantly acquire ’stuff’ makes no sense to me. Personal debt is a monumental problem and many who suffer the worst from this problem seem to be the most blind to it. I have a pretty simple rule that serves me fairly well. If I can’t afford it, I don’t buy it. And I know I’m in no financial situation to handle raising a child. The expense is mind-boggling. Spawn need to be fed and clothed. Like, every single day! That adds up. Then there are the toys, the babysitters, the daycares, the diapers, the cribs, the car seats, the camps, the sports equipment, the piano lessons, the replacing of all your stuff that they will destroy, the dental braces, the glasses and contact lenses, the blu-ray of the most annoying child songs on the planet on repeat, the replacing of all the other people’s stuff they will destroy, the gas to get them to all these costly activities. The list just grows. And so does the child, making each item on that list more costly each and every year. Recent estimates put the cost of raising a child to 18 years old at $250,000. You might be thinking, “Gee, that sounds like a lot”, but you’d be wrong. It isn’t ‘a lot’. It is a gargantuan, astronomical, and unfathomably large sum of money. A quarter MILLION dollars. There are parents all over the place who cannot afford a family, yet they breed anyway. Again, the results are apparent to anyone who looks. So many children growing up in poverty is no way have a happy society.
They are Annoying
Of course, there’s the easy examples. There are legions of parents all at the edge of their patience at any given moment. Dealing with misbehaving and acting up rugrats is both infuriating and exhausting. The Breeder doesn’t even try to deny this one. I’ve heard, time and time again, the totally not-serious (but kinda is), definitely joking (sorta) exasperated outbursts of parents wanting to kill their kids. As it’s a given, I should be able to leave it at that. I shouldn’t have to mention it at all, except that The Breeder has a near Orwellian ability to instantly forget this. Masters of Double Think, they switch from tearing out their own hair in aggravated frustration to revering their brood with enamoured awe in an instant.
But it doesn’t stop there. Even when children are being good, doing what they’re supposed to do, they can be incredibly irritating. Playing children are noisy, unskilled, and require much assistance. Inquisitive children are slow, easily distracted, and pestering. And there’s nothing to be done. Indeed, the proper thing to do is to encourage this type of behaviour. It is better for everyone if they do as much of these things as they can. But to actually endure the process can be beyond aggravating. This is definitely one of the many situations where being an uncle or an aunt is far superior to being a parent. In small doses, when the right mood hits, it can almost be fun to experience a happy child doing happy child things. But it doesn’t take long for it to wear thin. In this instance, I feel parental pride is a defence mechanism. By celebrating every little bit of progress, The Breeder can be distracted from how loud and tedious it all is. How else could they endure?
The Breeder might, upon hearing these first reasons, jump back to some of those initial reactions and think once more that I’m being selfish. However, this presumes that bearing children and enduring all these negatives is somehow a social good. In part B, we will look at how this simply isn’t the case.
Being anti-woo and anti-religion, there are a plethora of conversations that I have over and over again. No, just because he/she/it is invisible does not make appeal to authority valid. Yes, you have to back up your claims with empirical evidence. No, your personal experience doesn’t count. Yes, billions of people can be wrong.
However, there is one topic over which I’ve had to defend my position more times than in all those woo and religious debates combined. I’ve had my views on this topic attacked, ridiculed, and/or dismissed by friends, family, teachers, acquaintances, and strangers alike. It doesn’t seem to matter about their national, cultural, socio-economic, or educational background. People of all sorts are eager to get in line to tell me I’m wrong. Note, I did not say my views were actually addressed by anyone, but more on that later. The point is, I’ve had to repeat myself quite a bit and it’s high time I had a resource to shoo all the naysayers to. So here it is, my most contentious, controversial, and debate inspiring position:
I don’t want to have children.
This really should be of no concern or interest to anyone outside my closest of circles. However, people are usually quite good at interfering with things that are none of their business, and The Breeder is by no means an exception. I repeatedly find myself up against a barrage of criticism and sometimes even hostility in my dealings with The Breeder. These uncalled for throw-downs usually follow three stages, each of which has their own series of common arguments. Of course, depending on who I happen to be talking to, some of these arguments will end up in different stages. And of course, there are variations in attitude, civility, willingness to listen to me, etc. But there is an undeniable and eerily strong pull to the mean when dealing with The Breeder. Society has given everyone the same grab-bag of prepackaged pro-procreation propaganda which most accept without question. As predictably as The Believer will throw out talk of “first causes” and “sources of morality”, The Breeder will devoutly spew out the same arguments from that grab-bag repeatedly, bleating out The Breeder’s maxims over and over again. Each individual will have their own spin, their own prioritisation of arguments, but the core remains the same. Read the rest of this entry »
The RPOJ comes for thee.
Greetings fellow blog travellers, today we have a special treat as we get to look through the looking glass of the misogyny that masquerades as queer theory. Hypocritical, obtuse, with a generous side of bloviation make for a prime field day for the RPOJ. Let’s watch how attempting to justify violence against women, the rewriting of gay history, and making the case for having men in feminism come together in one extruded steaming mass of horseshit.
Let’s begin, shall we?
—–
“There is not a writer from The Queerness who would disagree on how wrong it is to make threats of violence, to use violent words and violent actions. We do not condone those on the Twittersphere who participate in violent words or actions aimed at anyone, and particularly women, who are often the target.”
The higher the goal, the further to fall. I would just like my careful readers to keep this point in mind as we go through this particular RPOJ, because the hypocrisy quickly ramps up to 11 and then manages to increase from there.
“We don’t however believe that the acronym ‘T.E.R.F’ in itself is a violent term. “
Well dayum! See! I told you! It didn’t take long for the hypocritical bullshit to start oozing. Fun fact: ‘terf’ like the term harridan, witch, slut, cunt, whore (et cetera) are all terms used to describe females who have the audacity to stand up against males and defy the patriarchal stereotypes society has mandated for them.
- Just a small window into how the term ‘Terf’ is used – https://terfisaslur.com
- Elizabeth Hungerford remarks on TERF – “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.”
- TERF is used as a label for ‘uppity women’ who do not accept the patriarchal male narrative and normative attitudes.
So, the usage of the term ‘TERF’ is almost always accompanied by insults and threats of violence (see #1). Yet we have this statement:
“‘TigTog’, a blogger coined the term during discussions on a blog post, which if you think about it, really isn’t outside the realm of possibility, “
I could care less about who coined the term. It is being used to target and harass females on the internet and in the real world. Said targeted group – feminists – would prefer not to have to deal with the term. You know, common decency mutual respect that sort of thing. But rather than acknowledge female linguistic preferences – Annette, the author of this hackneyed literary drive-by, would rather attempt to justify the usage of the term.
(skipping prolix and shitty ‘justifications’)
“She’s right, any group identifying word can and will be used against that group as a slur. For example: ‘queers’, ‘gays’, ‘lesbos’, ‘dykes’, we’ve all heard them, we all know what they sound like. “
Precisely. So should we make the case for normalizing a derogatory term? Or perhaps, maybe, just maybe, use the terminology the particular group would like employed. But nah, let’s continue to use slurs for these despicable TERF’s, the faster we can ‘other’ them, the easier it is to hate them.
“Imagine if Katlyn had said “I continue to hate these fucking lesbians what else is new”, or Antonio saying “kill every fucking queer”. It’s not new is it, we hear this all the time. I’ve been subject to a few death threats, and we can see, absolutely, how it can be upsetting.”
Yes. Violence and death threats are bad. Maybe not attempting to justify their usage would be a good thing.
“Without getting into an academic discussion about how violent words are used to silence women and how this is misogyny, lets remember that men aren’t the only perpetrators of this.”
Because the male epidemic of violence against women is sooooo fuuuucking booooring. I mean really, do we have to go over the fact again that the class of males overwhelmingly commit the majority of acts of violence toward the other class of people females the world over, pretty much since forever?
Like fuck, this little tidbit seems to be at the root of most radical feminist analysis of the problems our society faces – maybe one shouldn’t gloss it over and skip directly to personal anecdotes about how mean those evil terfs…err females are.
“In my time as a trans ally I’ve been subject to horrific abuse from cis-het women on twitter, even some cis-lesbians laid into me for standing up for my trans friend’s appearance in Diva Magazine. I’m a cis-lesbian and I’ve been called a ‘misogynist’ and a ‘homophobe’.”
Make no mistake, transactivism is misogynistic and homophobic by nature. Sorry about your luck.
“We at the Queerness firmly distance ourselves from this type of violent language, and we have no time for trolls like this on the internet.”
See, I’m not too sure what you’re referring to, the accurate description of what transactivism is or the use of violent language, of course which terf is a part of. I’m guessing though, it seems like it is only violence when applied to *you*.
“Yet it’s those like this that make it harder for those who are trans positive to defend their trans friends and colleagues, and end up getting lumped in with this group of trolls, because they use one acronym in a more appropriate way than these trolls,”
Discourse with transactivists is almost always fraught with threats and violence. Male resort to violent behaviour when their arguments and ideas are shown to fall short. Nothing new under the sun here.
“So let’s discuss trans exclusionary radical feminists without using the term itself. “
So after 500 hundred feckless words of abysmal pseudo-justification now let’s not use the word that I’m trying so hard to prove is OKAY and JUST FINE for radical feminists.
The term ‘terf’ is either problematic, or it isn’t.
Clearly, for a large segment of the radical feminist population, the usage of terf -whether it is intended to or not (oooooooh, intent isn’t magic is it?)- isn’t cool. Respectful people, interested in furthering rational argument would acknowledge this and move on.
The Our Queerness author quotes Rebecca Reily-Cooper it is one of the few breaths of fresh air in this piece so for interests of my sanity I choose to quote it.
“From writers such as Rebecca Reily-Cooper who states the definition of radical feminism as:
“an approach to analysing the oppression and exploitation of the class of female people by the class of male people. It seeks to uncover and challenge the root causes and origins of that system of oppression, which it labels patriarchy.” RRC’s blog
That’s fine, I can get on board with that.
She states that the term ‘T.E.R.F’ is ‘not a meaningful description of feminist politics’. But different people clearly have a different view of feminist politics.”
Ahhh…thank you RRC. So at least we have a viable definition of what radical feminism is, and what its goals are.
“There were several cis-het radical feminists who sent a flurry of abuse at one of my trans members this year. “
One statement contains the kernel of radical feminist theory, and thus the basis of radical feminist praxis, the other statement contains no refutation or counter-argument – rather mere anecadata – essentially saying those bad feminists were mean to one of my friends – how dare they?!?
This suggests a lack of a reasonable counter argument and no, your feelings are not an argument.
“And there were plenty of LGBTQ+ and cis-het allies who, having read the screen shots from that discourse, would NOT have described those comments and views as ‘feminism‘. They’d have described them as ‘hate speech’.”
Me and my good buddies were offended! Still not an argument. This is the meat of transactivism, right here folks: Accept my personal subjective reality or else!
Sorry (not sorry)! Material reality takes precedence over subjective personal feelings and respecting material reality (biological sex) is not a crime and is certainly not ‘phobic’ in any reasonable way.
“So are both sides as bad as each other ?”
Well no actually, as transactivists online and in person threaten and physically attack women who speak against their particular delusion (see terfisalur link above). Transactivists support deplatforming radical feminists from speaking at public engagements. Transactivists illegally occupy and deface female only spaces.
Yeah, and the radical feminist side…. *crickets*. So no, both sides are not as bad as the other, stop with false equivalencies (side note: attempting to equivocate this male violence with radical feminist’s *CRITICISM* of transactivism is really quite beyond the pale).
” Or can we simply not ever agree ?”
Fuck no. Feminism is the struggle to liberate females from patriarchal structures and normative attitudes in society. Gender – a hierarchical patriarchal concept – exists to oppress members of the female class and must be dismantled, not celebrated.
Why are gender and gender roles a good thing, and how do women benefit from the preservation of traditional gender roles? What exactly does trasnactivism have to say about that?
*Crickets* because transactivsm isn’t a feminist project, it seeks only to promulgate the status quo and continue with the oppressive gender hiearchy that benefits the class of males in society.
“When you appear on a website that lists your twitter handle and allows a single user to block all 800+ of those names simultaneously to avoid abuse, it suggests you belong to a ‘hate group’. “
Because Transactivists (FETA’s – Female Exclusionary Trans Activists, if we like the snappy four letter acronyms) don’t allow criticism of their ideology and have a block list to stop interactions with those who would question it is much more a reflection of the insular, cultish nature of the trans community. You can’t argue with radial feminists because your arguments are shit, so plugging your ears and labelling people ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobic’ are the only plays you have.
No ideology or movement can be free from criticism.
“If you purposefully and deliberately target trans activists and question the validity of trans people’s existence, it suggests you have some prejudice.”
Textbook play here. Questioning transactivism is not debating over their existence. Trans people have the capacity to hold shitty ideas their ideas and those ideas should, rightly, be subject to criticism and rebuttal – especially if they impact other classes of people in society (see members of the female class).
“If you imply that somehow trans women are predators; that there is some hypothetical risk to cis-women from trans women, or simply that you can’t accept them as they are because you: ‘just can’t agree’, and when you dress it up as ‘gender critical’, rather than transphobia, then you probably are trans exclusionary.”
Transwomen – MEN – behave like men. It is not a particularly shocking fact when one adheres to analysis based on objective, material fact.
“If you simply ask polite questions this is different. But lets be clear, the questions: “why do I have to accept them in my bathrooms ?”, and “Are they are taking something away from my definition of womenhood?”, are not very polite, and are entirely dehumanising.”
Men, do not belong in female spaces. Female spaces provide some small margin of protection from the male violence that permeates our society. Natal sex should be the determinant of which bathroom you use.
Why don’t transwomen use the male washroom? Most of them still have the plumbing for it. Let me answer that for you – the very real threat of male violence. Now why should females be forced to put up with that very same threat? Why is the issue of female safety from violence even a debatable issue?
What an opportunity for the trans and feminist communities to come together and name the root of the problem – violent male behaviour (enforcement of patriarchal gender norms)- and make that an issue.
But that choice was not made.
Rather, the choice via dubious legislative attempts, was to make female only spaces accessible to men based on often nothing more than their deeply subjective personal feelings. And that, is a crock of shit, and is rightly being fought against by radical feminists.
The definition of woman is adult human female, the gender-feels of entitled males does not change the original definition one iota.
“Trans women have been at the centre of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement from the beginning, “
Demonstrably wrong, if you happen to be talking about StoneWall. Trans historical revisionism (the “T” was added in the 1990’s) is poor form and a dubious practice at best.
“[…]even the LGBTQ+ community needs to recognise that, and feminism is a good thing as long as it doesn’t trample on human beings on its’ way.”
Feminism, by effective definition, is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy. The misogyny rife in the transactivst movement qualifies it as a force to be struggled against in the fight for female liberation.
“but trans women are right there with you in that fight. Don’t shut them out because of a word, or an acronym.”
Yes, I look to the tranwomen for their bold positions on female infanticide, female genital mutilation, female sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion. I see page after page of poignant prose and argumentation for the advancement of female rights by transwomen….
Oh wait. I don’t.
I see females threatened with verbal and physical violence for not complying with the gendered delusions of men in dresses. I see feminist speakers deplatformed for having a contrary opinion to the trans-cult. I see women only events and spaces subverted because people who have problems with material reality some how think that because they belong there – they should belong there (white male privilege and entitlement at its best).
If your feminism is not working toward female liberation, then it ain’t feminism. Full stop.
Please (*please*), feel free to form your own movements and organizations – but stop co-opting feminist movements and female only spaces.
“When people feel marginalised they fight back, they get angry, if you knew trans people personally, you’d get it. “
Fighting back in tranactivism means harassing, threatening, and hurting females. In other words, standard male behaviour. Feminists know quite well about the capacities of angry men, this has happened before and it will happen again. The tide eventually will be turned in this arena as the struggle for female liberation continues.
“You’d realise that tilting at windmills in this debate is allowing those cis-gender men who are the real culprits, off the hook.”
Something we can agree on, of course my version is without the gender-newspeak because male violence is male violence in whatever guise they happen to present to society.
“Why not educate them to be better men, because predatory cis-gender men don’t need a change in the law to enter a woman only space.”
So we should make it easier (self declaration), not harder for males to enter female spaces gotcha. This simple phrase highlights the vast differences between queer (male-centric) and feminist (female-centric) theory.
Have your queer theory, but know that it mostly represents yet another attempt to keep the female class oppressed in society and that effective feminism is in opposition to it.
And so endeth the RPOJ. :)
Just so we don’t have to play the “no true scotsman” game on the individual level, lets look at the response of Action for Trans Health London has to say regarding the incident where four male transactivists beat up a 60 year old woman.
Notice the nice transition from condemning violence against women, to “WHEN THE TERFS ATTACK, WE FIGHT BACK”. Almost feels like what happens to females when they reject a so called ‘nice guy’s’ advance – the niceness evaporates and is replaced by violence or the threat of violence. Thanks dudes for showing your true colours.
This was to be a debate, with speakers from both sides to discussing concept of gender identity; the fucking peak of what (so-called) civilized societies do when faced with contentious issues.
But it wasn’t it be. The queer regressive left scuttled the event. (screen cap from the New Statesman article)
Fuck your hypocritical queer activism. If radial feminist arguments are shit, then let them say them in safety and security and rebut them and demonstrate why they are faulty, as what we do (or have airs toward) in civilized society. But no, you won’t tolerate debate and move to violence (of the male variety) and your actions speak tellingly of the strength of your position. Your cowardice has been on full display during the September 13th Hyde park incident.
There is no going back now, people are seeing the violence that is transactivism as the cloak of queer respectability has been torn away. Male violence is the language that you spoke on the 13th, as it has always been, but now it is an undercurrent no more.
Females see you, and I hope to christ-on-a-pogo-stick that women who somehow think that including men in feminism is workable, will see you for what you are. (hint:Violent MEN)
It is time for women to reject the queer/trans agenda and the subversion of feminist theory that goes part and parcel with them. Rather, it is time to reform Feminism proper around the notion that Feminism exists for the liberation of females from patriarchy – full fucking stop.
Oh hey, and a recap of all the events in case you missed it.
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/165366518906/oceanlesbian-lesbian-lizards
The RPOJ comes for thee.
It has been way to long since the last RPOJ post. My apologies faithful readers.
Today’s lovely winner is Anthony writing on his blog ‘How to be Happy’ – with the catchy tagline ‘Personal philosophy driven by experience and reason’. My suggestion is to clarify his tagline a bit, I’m thinking along the lines of ‘How to be happy’ – ‘Just get a mirror so you and I can admire the stupid bloviation drizzling straight out of my asshole. ‘
Anthony while explicitly stating that there are no judgments being made, proceeds to glorify and argue (and thus judge) for a host of negative stereotypical roles associated with females. Surprisingly uncommon practice for dudes…
—–
“First of all, I’m fully aware that some men out there date women who are just as, if not more, successful and career-focused than they are. And I think that is perfectly fine. The goal of this piece is to explain why some people act a certain way—not to condemn anyone or state how things should be.”
I’m guessing that your piece is going to be outside the realm of sociological interviews and surveys; thus you will be taking your opinions and generalizing them to men as a whole in an attempt to make your shit smell marginally sweeter. (kinda like focusing on the corn kernels, but that might be a touch on the gross side)
I’m not sure what is worse, dealing with actual dirtbag MRA’s who state their misogyny straight up, or the pseudo intellectual poltroons that try to obfuscate their dire man-wank arguments in bland generalizations and stolid prose.
“I want to address the question: Why are some men (I’d say, more than half) less attracted to women who are very career driven?”
My question is why all the damn covert ops? These are your (thinly veiled) preferences, and in reading your article, it sounds like the ‘ideal woman’ for you is the insipid patriarchal standard woman version 1.0 – Demure, supportive, submissive and preferably pregnantly barefoot in the kitchen while being totally dependent on you and thus a slave your manly whims.
You sir, at your earliest convenience, fuck right off.
*Phone ringing*…
*Arbourist answers:* What are you saying? I’m jumping to conclusions before presenting the evidence?? – oh jebus its so painful to read this shit and deconstruct it.
*Arbourist still talking on phone:* Pulling shit out of my ass? Fine. FINE. Let’s go see what Douche-stick McClown-Nozzle (‘Anthony’) has to say and demonstrate the slightly rancid smell and lousy arguments that typify his MRA’s codswallop.
“Why are some men (I’d say, more than half) less attracted to women who are very career driven? I think lots of women assume it comes from jealousy, insecurity, or sexist beliefs. I’ll try to present a more nuanced explanation, based partly on my own sentiments.”
Manslator: Tut-tut! You women and your frilly pink woman brain judgments. It will take the intellectual prowess(?) of a man to break this hard cookie of a conundrum down and show you how nuanced the answers really are. I mean ascribing insecure sexist behaviour to men is really quite unreasonable. Instead, let’s focus on how women’s actions are making men do bad things, because as we all know women are responsible for what men do…
“Having children has become de-emphasized over the years, but I still believe it’s a strong motivator of serious relationships. After all, it is a natural thing, an ability we share with other animals, and so it’s deeply rooted in our psyche: like the urge to have sex.”
Ah yes, because natural means ‘good’ right? Measles are natural, Polio is natural yet somehow we don’t automatically make that rhetorical jump of Polio (being natural) is good because it is in nature (which is inherently good, somehow.)
Sex is a natural act but, participating in said act are two human beings with feeling and preferences. Some people may not like having sex it doesn’t mean they are unnatural, or wrong, it just means they are autonomous human beings with preferences of their own. Stop moralizing on the basis of what is ‘natural’.
“Of course, if a man plans to have a family, it’s important to him and probably not something he’ll compromise on. Plus, even if he’s not sure, but he might want one, he’s going to want a woman open to the possibility.”
Given a man’s contribution to having children is quite insignificant to the female input involved, finding a woman who wants to endure pregnancy, labour, and child rearing seems like a good plan.
“So, suppose I am interested in kids. Suppose also that I work hard and have a stable career (after all, most successful women are attracted to men at least as successful as them). Then, I would naturally be wary about dating women who have careers that require similar or more effort than mine. The fear is that, once we have children, both of us will be too busy to give them quality time: to make their meals, help them with homework, take them to events, etc.”
You cheeky fucker. You didn’t just dress up the patriarchal notion of women being the ‘proper’primary care givers, with concerns about (what about) the children? Cleaning the
house, cooking food, interacting with children can be done by either sex (*mindblown!*). The notion that women should be the primary care givers and thus expected to give up their personal ambitions to raise your brood is on page one of the ‘How to Patriarchy’ manual.
Hold on. I might be jumping to the worse case scenario here. Let’s wait, and see. Perhaps Professor Dipshit von Clownstick (‘Anthony’) is going advocate for the solution of equally sharing the work between parents or a similar arrangement in which both parties make compromises in order to parent their children.
“You might say it’s not fair to expect the woman to do be the one to care for the kids. But it’s not about fairness, it’s about compatibility. If I want a family, but I have a PhD and I’m doing research everyday and I’m passionate about it, I’m naturally going to look for a woman who has a less demanding job, so someone will have time for the kids.”
Being proved right is going to my head.
Assumption one: Male careers are more important than female careers.
Assumption two: My passion for ‘x’ makes it a physical impossibility for me to take care children.
Conclusion: Anthony needs, not a equal female human being, but rather he needs a Den Mother who has less lofty aspirations and importance in the world. To receive sperm and raise his whelps while Anthony engages in the manly man business of being a real, successful human being.
Also Concluded: I am much in love with ‘natural’ patriarchal stereotypes that place my interests above those who are unlucky enough be born with a vagina.
“And if I meet a girl who’s just as absorbed in her work as I am, I’m not going to hate on her, but I’ll be less open to a long term relationship. I want someone who complements me, not someone exactly like me.”
Because having to do equal time on the second shift is completely unacceptable! I have the man-parts that naturally disqualify me from such unsavoury scut-work. (*near terminal eye-roll*)
“Finally, there is the fear that a career-focused woman will wait before having children, or put her job before her family.”
Oh you mean put her interests first and achieve for herself instead of being the submissive self sacrificing walking womb that you desperately desire. Anthony, your take on the humanity of female-folk seems rather dim.
“Personally, I find women who place their personal material success before their family life unattractive. Again, I am not judging them; it is just how my attraction works. And I believe a lot of men (and women) feel the same.”
Men place material success ahead of their family all the damn time. In some places in the world, where your patriarchal (wet-dreams) stereotypes are not as strictly enforced, I’m deeply sorry (not sorry) that you have to deal with these uppity women and their notions of autonomy.
Also, was I not totally right on scrying that “a more nuanced explanation” would equal -“pulling my own sexist stereotypes out of my ass and generalizing them to look more palatable”
Boom.
“As I said, it seems common that successful women like men who are at least as successful as they are. The problem is, men with intense jobs like someone who balances them out, not someone exactly like them.”
Manslator: I want a domestic servant and someone who prioritizes my needs over their own.
“For example, imagine I’ve had a long day doing research, and I’m a bit stressed. I’d rather come home to a wife who could ask me about my day and have a meal ready and diffuse my stress with a carefree attitude, than a wife who had an equally stressful day and wants to vent about it. “
Because women should not talk about their stress, man-stress is much more important, because men say so.
“Also, if I am naturally a very busy person, it will be hard to schedule quality time together if my partner is just as busy.”
JFC. I haven’t looked at any more of Anthony’s blog, but I can bet he’s also an egalitarian, at least as far it means – “I get to do what I want as my boundaries are sacred, *you* on the other hand, are going to have to schedule yourself around me and the other inconveniences of adult life.
“I can’t generalize, but I can say that in my limited experience, on average, I’ve found women who are more career focused to be harder to get along with.”
Really? I just can’t see it. Women who have to put up and compete against misogynistic men in the work place don’t have time for your vacuous patina of woman hating pablum?
Shocking.
“I think some women have experience with men doubting their competence, and so they react by always trying to prove themselves, even to men who aren’t trying to start anything. “
Just wow dude. You have no idea do you. It seems like you’ve talked with, or at least talked at with women and the point they were making grazed you as it flew over your head. Everything in patriarchy that women do is called into question. Women usually have to work twice as hard, just to stay even with their male counterparts.
Perhaps just for instant exercise that withered area of your brain that is in charge of empathy and imagine what it would be like if you were not in the default category of male human, that your competence was questioned at every turn.
Might make you a little defensive and quick to react no?
“It makes a guy constantly on edge because he is afraid she will start an argument.”
Getting called out on your shit isn’t a pleasant experience. Oh my fair summer child, the patriarchy is strong with you.
“Also, in my experience, successful women can be more likely to find faults in their partner and be critical, rather than accept him as is.”
Having standards and not putting up with his shit – ’tis a sin according to Anthony. Of course women acting like full human beings and not submissive birthmares seems to put all the bees in Anthony’s bonnet. Women with high standards and low tolerance for bullshit seem to be quite literally Anthony’s kryptonite. Tough cookies to you Anthony, but believe it or not females are fully human beings with similarly important dreams and aspirations that, *gasp* may not centre around what a dude wants. :)
These are not good for women and men in society, let’s do our best not to replicate them. No thanks to Anthony mind you…
“Every single time I hear a transactivist or MTT person call us ‘cis’ or ‘cis privileged’ as a woman I am going to assume that they think the following experiences of being a woman privilege us:
The number one greatest industry in the world is the buying, selling and trafficking of women and girls for sex trade.
Every year, millions of little girls and babies have their genitals mutilated, stretched and cut for the benefit of men.
Girls who have been raped by men all over the world are encourage to marry their rapist instead of press charges against them.
If you are a woman, you are instantly to blame for any sexual violence or domestic violence you ever experienced either by characterological blame or situational blame.
Millions of girls each year are victims of forced marriages to older adult men. Women still don’t earn as much as men in the same jobs as them.Women are expected to look and act a very specific way else be cast out in every sense of that phrase. Women are objectified and dehumanised through porn which is ALWAYS filmed from the perspective of the man and has been filmed by men for men ever since filming began.
Women are still minorities in STEM jobs and academic positions. Women are still minorities in boardrooms and in government parties.
One of the most lucrative medical industries in the world is the cosmetic surgery of women to look more like fucking porn stars (boob jobs, vaginoplasty).
Research into medicine and health has always been done on men and male animals and has never before actually been tested on female species or female humans – so all medical research findings are assumed to be the same for women despite us being completely different biologically. When medical research actually included women, it has exploited the bodies of women of color. Examples include James Marion Sims who used slaves as guinea pigs, unnecessary hysterectomies done on poor black and Puerto Rican women to give doctors in training a chance to practice their skills, The Tuskgee Syphilis Experiment, and the Henrietta Lacks story.Women have been historically sectioned and locked up in asylums and mental health centres for showing emotions or for stepping out of their gender roles.
Women are still being oppressed all over the world by their cultures and their religions which are a tool for a patriarchy. Women have to battle the ‘Oh she’s just a stay at home mum, nothing to add to society’ bullshit versus the ‘oh she works all the time so she’s a bad mum’ bullshit. Women who work are constantly being shown as taking on significantly more home duties than male partners despite also working full time – they are still doing all domestic duties too.Women in serious pain in a hospital are significantly less likely to receive adequate pain relief or the right care because gender roles taught doctors and nurses that women are more emotional and sensitive to pain so are probably exaggerating symptoms.
Women are the ones saying to each other ‘let me know you get home safe’ or ‘text me when you get in’ – MEN are not doing that with each other because they don’t have to think about personal safety.
Black women in slavery were used, raped, trafficked, beaten and repeatedly impregnated and used as ‘breeders’ for slave owners. Chinese women for hundreds of years have been encouraged to wrap their feet to make them as small as possible for the pleasure of men (specifically a male emperor). Women who do not conform to gender roles are seen as deviant and deserving of harm in all societies.
In China, over 200 million baby girls were killed as newborns or in infanticide/female abortion because they were not BOYS under the 1 child policy. In Africa and all across the world now, girls are being abused by breast ironing which is the use of hot rocks to pound, massage or beat the breast tissue of prepubescent girls to stop the growth of breasts for a number of extremely misogynistic reasons (shame on the family, to prevent them being raped, to prevent men getting them pregnant too young).
Women are shamed for their menstruation in all cultures, all countries and all religions – periods are seen as nasty and gross despite being the only thing keeping the human race reproducing. Women have not been equal members of society (and still aren’t in many respects) for the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.
We haven’t chosen to be women.
We haven’t chosen to be discriminated against and oppressed our entire lives.
We want liberation from gender roles and patriarchy.You decide you feel like a woman, demand that everyone colludes with you, claims to be the ultimate oppressed class, won’t use ANY male facilities and force your way into female only spaces and then claim it’s women who are the problem. You make up a fucking term to elevate the privilege of women so that you can Trojan horse feminism and womanhood.
Let’s be clear here, there is no fucking way that women could ever infiltrate men’s circles and spaces and cultures and movements the way men are currently doing under the banner of ‘transactivism’. Second, look at the way transmen are treated and look at their communication styles versus transwomen. Transmen are not the ones threatening to make us suck their dick on twitter. Transmen are not launching campaigns about wanting to be able to access male facilities. Transmen aren’t aggressively trolling men and forcing men to change all of their language and discourse and biological facts.
You know why?
Cos they were socialized as women using all the oppressions above – and they would never have the class power to force men to accept them in the way transwomen are currently forcing women to accept them.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…