You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Radical Feminism’ tag.

Hey folks, it’s election time.  Your MP has to pretend harder that they are listening the people they supposedly represent.  Take the time and send this in.   Courtesy of We The Females.

 

Dear <MP’s Name>

I am writing as a voter in your riding who supports human rights for all Canadians and with specific concerns about the impact of Bill C16 on women’s sex-based rights. 

Bill C16  was enacted in Parliament in 2017 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Canadian Criminal Code in order to provide protection for the transgendered. Unfortunately, C16 does not explicitly protect transgendered individuals but instead protects “gender identity” and gender expression”, neither of which are given precise legal definitions but are instead subjective categories unlike biological sex.

Although sex remains as a separate protected characteristic, the enactment of Bill C16 has led to a massive conflation of sex and gender identity/expression (many women have found that to even discuss their sex based rights as separately protected from gender identity and gender expression leads to accusations of transphobia and bigotry) with the result that, currently in Canada, a women’s status is no longer based in objective biology but on a subjective “gender identity” and/or “gender expression”.

This is misogynistic and continues to have profound implications for women’s’ sex-based rights including the right to sex segregated spaces and activities including prisons, abuse and rape crisis centres, elder care facilities and sports and athletic opportunities. 

Brief examples regarding Statistics Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada follow:

Statistics Canada

As a direct result of C16, Statistics Canada “has revised the variable “sex of a person” as well as creating a new variable “gender of a person”.

Stats Canada states: “The variable “Gender of person” and the “Classification of gender” are expected to be used by most social statistics programs. The variable “Sex of person” and the Classification of sex” are to be used where information on sex at birth is needed, for example for some demographic and health indicators.”

This means that but for an extremely limited purpose, data collection and analysis from Stats Canada is based on the “gender of a person” not their biological sex. 

One of the most egregious examples of this obfuscation is that universal crime statistics in Canada are no longer collected based on sex but instead on gender identity. This has been confirmed by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs and now results in crime committed by biological males who identify as transgendered falsely being recorded as committed by female Canadians. 

Changes such as these also lead directly to wrongheaded policies like the recent announcement by OPP that they will no longer publicly report the sex or gender of either perpetrators of crimes or their victims. All at a time when violence against biological women is epidemic in Canada!


Corrections Canada

On January 9, 2017 Corrections Canada announced a policy for transgender inmates detailing that: “Pre-operative male to female offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in men’s institutions and pre-operative female to male offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in women’s institutions”. This policy was abruptly reversed only days later, on January 13th, 2017, following an off the cuff comment by Justin Trudeau at a town hall. As a result, biologically male inmates (both post and pre-operative) are being housed in female facilities, some with mother/child units.

In response to an ATIP, Corrections Canada has advised that between June 1, 2017 and December 3, 2018, 8 biological males who identify as transgendered were transferred to the women’s system. 7 of the 8 were convicted of violent crimes including murder and sexual assault. The total population of transgendered males in female facilities remains unknown.

Female inmates (who are disproportionally aboriginal, have previously been subjected to violence/abuse and are overwhelmingly convicted of nonviolent crimes) are being housed with male transgendered inmates such as:

  •  Madilyn (formerly Matthew) Harks who was convicted of sexually assaulting girls under the age of eight three times and has been accused of harassment and assaulting female inmates while in custody. Current location unknown but thought to be held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit

  • Tara Desousa (formerly Adam Labucan), a dangerous offender convicted of sexually assaulting a three-month-old baby. While in custody, Desousa assaulted female inmates and a female correctional officer. Currently held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit

With the information I have provided in mind, please let me know your thoughts and position on the points below. Your response will be a very important consideration in my choice of candidate on October 21:

  • What is your position on women sex based human rights as separate from gender identity/expression? 

  • Do you support the rights of women to organize, provide and receive services based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression?

  • Do you support the collection of date for social statistics programs (including crime stats) based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression? 

  • What specific steps will you take to support and promote women’s sex-based rights including the right to organize, provide and receive services as separate from gender identity/expression?

Thank-you for earliest response,

<Your Name>

The VPS is not allowing both UBC and the VPL to participate in the parade because both institutions allowed controversial speakers to hold events at their venues on the basis of free speech. However, the VPS deems both speakers—anti–SOGI activist Jenn Smith and Feminist Current founder Meghan Murphy—as discriminatory and transphobic.

The terms ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ get thrown around quite a bit these days.  I think it is important to note that as of late these concepts are becoming more of gatekeeping ritual than anything else.  Quashing and silencing critical opinion in the name of diversity is chillingly ironic, but it is happening and the latest example is in Vancouver with their Pride Committee.  I applaud David Cavey and his decision not to attend pride due to the totalitarian stance they are taking toward the Vancouver Public Library.  Vancouver pride actively tears at the laws and practices that have allowed events like Pride to actualize, I imagine because ideological purity is more important than the base principles of a free and democratic society.

What was the Vancouver Public Library’s crime?  Hosting an event that featured Meghan Murphy as a speaker.  Honestly, Vancouver Pride can take the expressway to ‘go fuck yourself’ at this point.  If your ideology requires the silencing and deplatforming of feminist critics then exactly how strong and just are the arguments that support your cause?  Not allowing your critics to speak is bullshit and is indicative , in my opinion, of an misogynistically incoherent set of beliefs.

In the Feminist Current Tonje Gjevjon writes:

“In Vancouver, federal Conservative candidate David Cavey announced he wouldn’t be marching in the city’s Pride parade this weekend after the Vancouver Pride Society (VPS) banned the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Public Library from participating. Cavey has marched in the parade in the past, but took a stand in favour of free speech, challenging the VPS decision to ban UBC and the VPL for allowing speakers who challenge transgender ideology to book space for events. In a press release, Cavey stated:

“As publicly funded institutions, both are obligated to ‘host’ whomever wishes to rent their property — within the limits of the law. They don’t necessarily agree with the speakers. But to punish them for following their obligation to respect free speech, the exchange of ideas and intellectual freedom, is plainly wrong…

…We encourage other political leaders and campaigns to join us in taking a principled stand on behalf of UBC and the VPL on inclusiveness, free speech, intellectual freedom, and diversity of opinion and refuse to march in the parade unless its organizers reinstate these respected local institutions.”

He was promptly accused of “transphobia” by Nicola Spurling, a member of the BC Green Party.

When it comes to Pride, everyone is expected to join in, whether they want to or not.”

 

 

 

   Let’s take a peek at what goes on in conversations where transactivists are talking about feminist ideology.  This is a comment that has quoted another, and thus the OP are in italics.

Watch how quickly it goes to into la-la land.

I. On Circularity and Bigotry

Andreas Avester says

“I have actually said that ‘man = adult male human’ and ‘woman = adult female human’ are the current meanings as determined by common use.”

That’s a circular definition. Words “adult” and “human” might have clearer definitions, but how the hell do you define “male” or “female.” For example, I’d say that a trans woman is female.

“But the alternative is to use ‘woman’ to mean ‘person who matches / willingly embraces female cultural expectations’ or perhaps ‘person who considers themselves to be a woman’. The former I reject on the grounds that it necessarily requires and maintains cultural expectations placed on the sexes, the latter on the grounds that it is self referential and thus meaningless.”

When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.” Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman. If instead you chose a list of other criteria, your definition would end up being bigoted and discriminatory. You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”

Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”

When we classify the human species, we do so along the lines of physical sex.  Someone has a the big gametes and someone has the small gametes.  This delineation exists independently of what any human thinks about it.  It also happens to be one of the major axis of oppression in the world, because if you happen to be the XX, or the large gamete bearer, you are given the short end of the stick.  This is because most societies in the human sphere are patriarchies and spend a good deal of social capital in controlling female bodies and female reproduction for the benefit of the male class.  This social discrimination is based on your immutable physical sex.  No amount of attempting to ‘identify” out of your sex class will work.

Let’s look at the first paragraph.  A bad start already.

Man = Adult human male

Woman = Adult human female

These definitions are concise with no circularity at all.  Circularity comes into play with transactivist definitions of the word ‘woman’, as their standard reply goes something like this:

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.  (But what is a woman? – note the circularity)

I’ll need to quote specifics here:

“When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.”

Really? Is it bigoted to call people with brown hair a member of the class of people who are brunettes? Is the term ‘blonde’ bigoted for describing people with lighter yellowish hair?

It would seem that Andreas is fucking allergic to material facts.  Please also consider the notion that facts do not care about your feelings Andreas, especially ones that give rise to the fatuous reasoning on display here.

“Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman.”

Categories exist. Human sexual dimorphism exist.  You can’t handwave this away because of your personal feelings on the subject, furthermore after you misidentify an actual definition of what a woman is, you make a shitty analogy and end with a circular argument.  Jesus.

“You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”

Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”

Ahhh…yes, yes you can.  Adult human female works great.  Also, newsflash, categories are not fucking inclusive.  Otherwise they would not be categories.   Calling a box of apples and oranges -“apples”- is nonsensical.  But here, here is the power we give to males and the male power of naming in society, because of male gender feels we are at the stage now where we have rules in place to call a box of oranges and apples ‘apples’ because the oranges *REEEEALY FEEL* like they are apples.

Delusional fucking insanity.

 


II. On Gender, Sex, and Material Facts.

“TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.” I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be. If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination. Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”

The amount of wrong packed into these paragraphs requires them to be picked apart and responded to piecemeal, but its good(?) to see the entire thought first.

“”TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.”

Radical feminists do oppose gender stereotypes, they are norms and expectations that are corrosive to the females and males that have to live with them in society.  Furthermore, gender is a system that works to disadvantage females in the social sphere and lessen their contributions to society solely because they are female.

Oh another bullshit genderist term you are going to run into quite frequently is AFAB or AMAB which stand for “A Female Assigned At Birth” and “A Male Assigned At Birth”.  This is linguistic fuckery because the sex of a newborn child is observed at birth, nothing more.  Genderists/Transactivists like to play these word games in attempt to cast doubt on material reality and to bolster their unsupportable arguments.

The line that radical feminists draw is one based on biological material fact, you are born in the vast majority of cases either unambiguously male or female.  Humans cannot change their sex, and this is the line -based on fact- that is drawn.

“I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be.”

But you are a woman. Your female sex was observed at birth.  Renounce all you’d like, but that doesn’t change your sex.  It can’t happen.  This is the crux of the matter right here, Andreas prefers male pronouns, and considers themselves a guy.  And you know what?  That’s fine.  However, expecting others to play along with your delusion is not fine, especially to the level of reordering the laws of society (as what has happened in Canada) around your personal subjective gender feelings.  To this, you can fuck right off, deviating away from running society based on the world of fact and into personal gender subjectivity is not good for society as a whole.

So Holms is not insulting and abusing you, he is just not going to participate in the fantasy you have woven for yourself.

The last sentence is particularly telling as it is an admonishment to let people indulge in the toxic gender stereotypes to whatever degree they wish.  You do you, be the best stereotypical male you can be.  What you do not get to do is silence radical feminist critique of gender and the harmful patriarchally approved stereotypes it proscribes for men and women, especially the criticism that transgender ideology reinforces patriarchal stereotypes.

“If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination”

No.  Most radical feminist would suggest that being gender non conforming would be the state of affairs that would be most preferable.  Gender and its prescriptions are all bad, just being you is much better, regardless of your sex.  This is another part of the tangled web of transideology, it so very individualistic, to such an extent that most of its adherents are blind to how group dynamics work in society and, more specifically the ineffectuality of individual solutions to fix societal problem.  So yeah, radical feminists would categorize you as a female and therefore to be included in the feminist movement.

Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”

Feminists do oppose gender discrimination.  How does playing along with your personal gender-feels = discrimination.  The rest of the world is under no obligation to join you in your Topsy-turvey view of how gender works.


 III. On Narcissism

 

Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.” Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. TERFs consider trans men to be women. They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.

“If you meet someone, a cursory glance is almost always accurate — a surmise on incomplete data is not a bad start. In those instances where the person says otherwise, I’m not particularly wedded to the idea of calling someone what I believe them to be over their protest, even if I privately think of them as man/woman.”

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way. Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity. Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”

“Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.”

Facts still don’t care about your feelings.

“Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. “

So, naming biological reality is ‘abuse and discrimination’.  Also, ironic as in the very next sentence a prescriptive sentiment on how one is supposed to be a feminist.  This is self serving narcissism at its very core.  My identity and beliefs are sacrosanct and you all out there had better comply.

Fuck. That. Noise.

“They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.”

1.  We will continue to call ‘trans-men’ women, because it is reality.

2. We shall continue to fight for female liberation from the patriarchal strictures of society, so sorry you’ve gone full handmaiden for the gender-gods, but so be it.

3.  Which rights specifically are you talking about?  The ‘right’ to control how others perceive you? The ‘right’ to demand others fall in line with your subjective gender-identity?  No, thank you, not today my gender totalitarian friend, women shall not take the knee to gender-feels, not today.

“Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way.”

Totalitarian thought control is never a good look.

“Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity.”

We’d have to take a look at the qualities that make up an asshole and see if Holms fit in.  You know, checking out the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion… kinda like biological sex informs the role we are forced into in society.  How Holms identifies is irrelevant to what Holms actually is, because Holms’s subjective feelings on the matter may be unreliable.

To summarize, in gender-feelz land if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then obviously its a (identifies as an) ostrich.

“Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”

Yep.  Pretty much.  Because society is about interactions between people and outside of repressive forces, these interactions are a two way affair.  Get used to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol.

  From Truth Dig’s article by Janice G. Raymond and H. Patricia Hynes:

 

“In the 1980s, Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, along with a dedicated band of radical feminist activists, launched a courageous and groundbreaking civil rights ordinance against pornography. Dworkin, in one of our favorite passages, wrote:

The creative mind is intelligence in action in the world. … The world is anywhere that thought has consequences. … Creative intelligence is searching intelligence: it demands to know the world, demands its right to consequence. … Women are not supposed to have creative intelligence, but when they do they are supposed to renounce it. If they want the love of men, without which they are not really women, they had better not hold on to an intelligence that searches and that is action in the world; thought that has consequences is inimical to fettered femininity.

This insistence on consequence, this attempt to make things real for women, is what Dworkin was most reviled for. She dared to think that she could transform her insights and intelligence into legislation that could help provide some legal means of redress to women who had suffered from pornographic violence. When FACT, the so-called Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force, attacked the anti-pornography legislation that was supported by many women’s groups, neighborhood organizations, women in prostitution, survivors of sexual exploitation, lesbians, ethnic and civil rights organizations, and by the hundreds of women who risked public exposure and harassment testifying on behalf of this legislation, the personal and political attacks on Dworkin escalated.

When violence against women can be rationalized or, more to the point, marketed and valorized as “sex,” common agreement falters. Prostitution and pornography are the not-so-popular issues of violence against women, continually depoliticized and reduced to private choices. The endorsing of pornography and prostitution, especially from progressives and champions of women’s human rights—those who should be radical feminist allies, those who should have been Dworkin’s allies—is inexcusable.

When a woman works against pornography and prostitution, her reputation is destroyed, like the women who are exploited in prostitution and pornography. The latter are branded as sluts, whores, hookers, hoes and tarts, while the former are cast as uptight, anti-sex, extremist, fundamentalist, right-wing, conservative, moralistic, anti-feminist, and against a woman’s right to use her body in a self-determined way. If she is a writer, she gets censored from many publications that would be a natural outlet for her work. Rather than they, it is she who is portrayed as censorious and an opponent of free and progressive speech. In contrast, the pornographers and pimps are garlanded as human rights heroes and defenders of free speech.”

 

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 817 other followers

Progressive Bloggers

Categories

October 2019
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle

femlab

the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Teach The Change

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby

SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL

A blog in support of Helen Steel

BigBooButch

Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian

RadFemSpiraling

Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy

Emma

Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Easilyriled's Blog

cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress

HANDS ACROSS THE AISLE

Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution

fmnst

Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

violetwisp

short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

Trans Animal Farm

The Trans Trend is Orwellian

Princess Henry of Wales

Priestess Belisama

miss guts.

just a girl on a journey

writing by renee

Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights

RANCOM!

Happily Retired

freer lives

A socialist critique of gender ideology

Centering Women

A radical feminist page made for women only

radicalkitten

radical Elemental feminism

yumicpcake

A fine WordPress.com site

%d bloggers like this: