🗡👹

We’ve taken so many steps back for feminism y’all lmao. The way they use this propaganda and lure young girl into making porn. “You can be rich like me if you sell your body to men online!” harms girls.

Most girls selling their body can barely make rent. This girl also bragged about people who know her irl buying her pics. This will end up destroying a lot of young girls privacy, reputation, and if they regret it, congrats it’s online forever. And yes sis....the men wanking to you aren’t going to critizize selling your body.

The fact that women can’t make money, yet selling sex gets them out of debt....shouldn’t that be an indicator that women are at a disadvantage, being commodified, and at the will of males who actually can get positions of power and wealth?

Discouraging girls from going to college, from pursuing a career, and telling them it’s easier to be a prostitute and rely on men giving you chump change because they want to fuck you....very progressive right?

The idea that fear is “holding back” young women from selling their bodies online to get rich is grooming. “Stop being a scared prude!” mentality pressures girls into doing things they may not have been comfortable with otherwise. Fuck this shit.

Good for women to learn early that they’re more valuable naked.

I wonder if this woman in particular, gets more cash because she's working as a pimp.

Her page surely makes her look like one, bragging and putting this idea of easy money in the head of gullible girls.

Yea, actually. The OnlyFans model means that women who recruit get a cut of the profits of the women they recruit.

off topic but sometimes i wonder if these women have ever had a real orgasm with another human being

If you think sex workers "sell their bodies," but coal miners do not, your view of labor is clouded by your moralistic view of sexuality.

Uhm....yes? There’s morals to sexuality, I know it’s a big surprise. I know y’all think that as long a mans dick gets wet that any degeneracy goes, but it doesn’t work like that for me as a feminist. I truly don’t gaf about the coal miners in regards to this conversation. Coal miners aren’t raped. Coal miners aren’t an oppressed sex class. I truly don’t care. Fuck the sex industry :)

How can they not know the difference between rape and menial labour?? Sex must only be with people you're interested in otherwise it's rape. Incentives like money doesn't even matter cause at the end of the day she's probably gagging thinking about the men that abused her for money. Sex work isn't work. It's a form of rape, human degradation and sexual abuse that liberals celebrate. Damn degenerates.

I'd rather be a coal miner personally. And I think if you amassed a large group of male coal miners and asked them how many would want to switch to sucking random men's cocks or being fucked anally by strange men instead of coal mining, a grand total of zero would take you up on it. Why is that?

Why the ffuck do TERFs call trans people "gender fandom"??? Like it or not you have a gender too, bitch.

I don't got a gender i'm too sexy and smart

What even is a gender

It's neurological sex dependent on the amount of grey matter in the brain.

So my nerves could have a different sex than my biological sex?

The amount of grey matter could turn out to be a different sex from the sex of the body, which is why transgender people exist.

It's not nerves, it's grey matter.

So do transgender people have less grey matter?

No.

FtM people have the same amount of grey matter as cis men and MtF people have the same amount of grey matter as cis women.

Interesting. Do you have any studies discussing this?

From what I’ve read, there are few differences between male and female volumes of grey matter when you account for cranial size. So, amounts of grey matter would not predict “gender”

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

If anyone wants more sources I may be able to find some.

Lol I have 2 advanced degrees in neuro and 3 published papers. 1 of which I’m first author on. Do you know what grey matter is? Do you know what white matter is? Do you know the difference?

Also my phone died so I’m retyping this rip

Paper 1:

Acknowledges that humans are sexually dimorphic and that despite the large amount of overlap between the sexes, the brain, like every single other organ in your body, has some sex-specific areas.

No where in this paper does it specific that your grey matters determines the amount of grey matter.

This paper wanted to examine the relationship between sex and brain size on GM volume. Men, on average, tend to have larger skulls and so have larger brains. Note that this has 0 say on general intelligence or the blue whale would be the most intelligent animal on the planet.

After correcting for brain size, the authors found a main effect of sex on overall GM volume in THREE areas, not everywhere. Nothing about this proves your assertion that grey matter volume = sex.

Paper 2:

Acknowledges that humans are sexually dimorphic, same as above. Despite overlaps / commonalities, sex specific hormones do affect things like connectivity, neurotransmitter sensitivities / availability / etc.

This is also only an abstract that does not go into any details about the experiment itself or the results. Did you actually read this? Doubt it.

I have access through work so I’ll sum it up for you:

Men and women, in general, have structural / chemical differences due to their sex that has 0 impact on personality, intelligence, etc. Just like the rest of our bodies, there are parts that are sex-specific.

Paper 3:

Same as above. Only an abstract, deals with the understanding that humans are sexually dimorphic. Has nothing to do with “gender”. I also have access through work, but I doubt you do.

Paper 4:

Exactly the same as above. Acknowledges humans as sexually dimorphic. Next.

Paper 5:

This one makes me laugh. They examined different brain structures of “ male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals not yet treated with cross-sex hormones“ and found that, in general, regi onal GM is more similar to men than women. The only exception was the putamen (I’ll get to that).

The criteria for accepting trans participants was that they had the SRY gene (gasp) and had the intention of taking hormone treatment.

Anyways, women had the largest amounts of GM volume across the board with the exception of the putamen. MtFs and men had comparable GM volume everywhere except for the putamen.  Not sure how this confirms anything about what you’re saying - if anything this paper shows that MtFs are more alike men than women and are different than both in 1 respect.

The discussion at the end also goes to great lengths to say that MtFs were most alike the control males. The authors also acknowledge that MtFs had circulating hormones like men and that hormones have a proven effect on brain structure and connectivity.

They end the paper questioning whether there is also an effect of sexuality on the above as they didn’t test for it.

Tl;dr none of these papers prove what you think they do and in fact one outright disproves it.

Literally the only thing I was trying to prove was that brain sex is real yo.

“FtM people have the same amount of grey matter as cis men and MtF people have the same amount of grey matter as cis women.“

This was categorically proven wrong in a paper that YOU YOURSELF provided

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't quite give shit lol I was asked for sources so I provided an assortment of sources.

This is so sad lmao. You provided sources trying to prove your argument and now that your sources disprove your argument you say you don’t care

Cuz I don't care right now lol. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My passion for this particular argument has run out at this point in time.

If you wanna go yell at someone go yell at @kiss-the-cis or @bizarrolord they're way more fighty than I am lol.

everytime their dumbass "sources" get disproven they act like this asdfgh they don't care about actual facts or research they just cling to anything that will validate their echo chamber even if it has no scientific value

This is my favourite thread from now on what the fuck

Daily feminazi example

op can call me when the office of the director of national intelligence deems detransitioners to be a homeland security threat. until then, this is a false equivalence

(source)

When AbbVie sold Androgel to men, it caused an elevated level of heart attacks in those men. That was deemed unacceptable. AbbVie was successfully sued for concealing the risk from male consumers, who bought into the medicalization of “low testosterone.”

So now testosterone is given to female minors for gender dysphoria.

The children are “informed” by their doctors, so that they can give consent: online, trans boys can be seen referring vaguely to an “increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

In trans spaces, it’s said that “increased risk” only means that all men have a higher risk. All men. It’s just part of being a man.

In fact, “increased risk” means that a trans man develops four times the risk of a heart attack as a woman, and twice the risk of a male person.

At my IC clinic, my doctor doesn’t alert me to the situation. She doesn’t disclose what she knows about the possible magnitude of the risk. She simply keeps advising me that my cholesterol levels are bad now, and my hematocrit (blood thickness, linked to stroke and heart attack) is a bit high for the male range (well above the female range, that my female body evolved to have).

She suggests I eat better, exercise more.

Given how my doctor handles a symptomatic, adult patient, it’s hard for me to trust that anyone is honestly and fully educating the kids, or their parents.

I have contact information for a lawyer who did a class action suit for men who were taking T. He said he was willing to talk to women, transmen, whoever, to discuss whether they would be part of the class. That case is over, I believe, but there could be another class action to address a different kind of T/different injuries. You can contact Frank Froncillo at 1-800-769-4529.

I’m reblogging your addition for anyone who has experienced serious health issues that may be connected to off-label use of testosterone. As for myself, I’m no longer taking testosterone and my hematocrit and blood pressure have normalized. I took T for only three years, and I’m hopeful there will be no long-term impacts on my cardiovascular health.

Woke™ professor: *spots a gnc woman in their class* well folks… let’s go around and tell everyone our pronouns!

Last week I had an acquaintance “check in” with me that my pronouns were still she/her.

I was wearing shorts with unshaven legs.

And this is how women, especially lesbians, are being coerced into transitioning. I have heard several accounts of gnc women saying everywhere they go now people ask them if they are trans, when they are going to transition, why don’t they transition, etc. It also implies they will be more accepted of they do, because clearly people are bothered with them not being. It’s a devastating combo

“Queer justice not gay rights” Seen on a straight man that identifies as a lesbian. Trans is homophobia

I invite you all to look into the concept of “astroturfing.” it is a method of creating fake grassroots activism, actually backed by money and corporate interests. the trans right lobby is an astroturf movement. that’s how they’ve been changing laws and gotten the mainstream to support them so fast over the last few years.

Teen Vogue has a trans writer, who also writes for playboy, calling JK Rowling a hag and telling a 16 year old lesbian to choke on a dick. Teen Vogues response? To block the 16 year old  

Trans identified men are a million times more privileged than females and I will never believe otherwise because the truth is written in stone.

which is extra gross since it literally feels like he chose that last name so if people try to search him up, they wont find anything relevant to him

I think part of why there’s suddenly so much “confusion” about what a woman is, is that it’s much harder to argue philosophy than policy. Because, you know, whether the people saying ‘female’ is such a nebulous concept really believe it or are just being disingenuous, they can certainly derail any conversation they’d like.

You can spend years in a philosophy class debating about the metaphysics of a chair, but if your boss tells you to purchase 100 chairs and you purchase 100 couches, you’ll both know you’ve done something wrong. 

But how do you argue something as basic as a definition with someone determined to ignore reality? If you hold up a pear and insist it’s an apple, insist the dictionary definition of ‘apple’ is incorrect, how do we advance in our discussion? If I relent and agree to pretend a pear is an apple, how do we discuss the differences between the two? If I hold fast, then you’ve stymied the discussion; we cannot make decisions or share opinions if we each believe the same word has two different meanings. You’ve created a language barrier within a single language! Defeated words’ very purpose! Blocked communication before it began!

Just think: every word in this post has a precise definition. If it didn’t, this post would have no meaning. And if this post made you angry, then know you already understand its basis. Just think: with no method of communication you could neither agree nor disagree with the ideas set forth, so, otherwise why would you be angry? 

I wanted to share this with my tumblr followers because this is not getting nearly as much attention as it should, and I believe this is telling about the state of so-called “radical feminist” and related activism around preserving sex as a legal category and fighting the excesses of modern transgender and queer activism. A woman in Australia involved in “gender critical” activism, who has written about the conflict between transgender activist goals and women’s rights, decided to perform an experiment where she posed as a newly gender-ideology-skeptical man on Twitter named “Jack” to see how he would be received by both the gender critical community as well as transgender activists and allies seeking to argue with skeptics, compared to women who speak about these topics. The woman expected she’d be received better as a purported man than she had by herself, but she couldn’t have predicted that within 24 hours:

You can read the rest of her account of her experiment at the link above. Notably, while she was harassed far less for her opinions, could engage in respectful argument with trans people and their allies, and was only blocked by one prominent transgender activist, “Jack” did receive a 12-hour ban on day three for telling someone to “play in traffic, fuckwit” and the account was shadowbanned in several ways (something the author attributes to the enormous amount of traffic generated by “Jack”).

I want to share this because this demonstrates a classic form of undermining feminist activism– prioritizing the oh-so-rare and special “male feminist” over women and their work and voices– and “radical feminists” who engage with gender critical activism often think they are specially immune to it. “Jack” did receive some pushback for his already-notable role in the community as a man, but there were hundreds of people willing to share his naive voice and opinions.

Many people skeptical of transgenderism, gender transition and treatment, the medicalization of gender, or transgender or queer activism love to share the stories and voices of those who just “peaked”, those freshly emerging from believing wholeheartedly in the claims of trans or queer activists or those “normies” who did not understand what the fuss could possibly about. While it can be cathartic to know that not everyone is fooled and that it is possible to change your mind about gender identity politics, compulsively sharing these stories and prioritizing the relief we feel when we see others coming out of it over the hard-won expertise of women fighting in the trenches for years, some of whom have paid enormous prices for their outspokenness (particularly detransitioned women), it devalues the participation and knowledge of female activists.

But being skeptical about gender topics is not just “returning to common sense”; it involves extremely careful thought about misogyny, lesbophobia, the institution of psychiatry, how gender roles are enshrined in law, the history of the medical apparatus, and so on. For some reason we entrust your Average Joe as a bearer of “sense” far more than women with direct experience of the harms of transgender medical and legal processes, older lesbians who have witnessed massive changes in the gay community and its activist priorities over decades, feminist organizers with many years of experience and expertise in the history and practices of oppressive forces, and so on. A man “seeing the light” after weakly supporting “those trans people” or a conservative man who claims he’s “never been made a dupe” is held up as both a novelty (although men willing to say shit about trans people have never been rare or interesting) and an authoritative, substitute mouthpiece for the opinions of women too scared or tired to fight for their right to even merely observe what’s going on.

I hope reading this woman’s experiences with her experiment emboldens more women to speak out on their own behalf, support the voices of other women, and quit using men’s half-baked appropriations of their own thoughts as a means to have efficacy in this world and confidence in their own power to see reality.

The author can be found @ripleyschoice on Twitter, and on her blog, linked above.

like aside from the very obvious..... hormone treatments are tested on us. surgeries are tested on us. there was a post a few months ago about a new form of vaginoplasty that had been "previously tested on cis women with incomplete vaginal development", something dyadic people didn't catch but multiple intersex people immediately recognized as MRKH... an intersex condition.

participants in testing the technique included both adults and minors -> intersex children underwent experimental surgery techniques to refine them for broader use.

i am telling you this is not symbolic. this is not metaphorical. intersex people are literally, not figuratively, the guinea pigs on which doctors refine their gender assignment skills. you cannot understand how gender is constructed without knowing and recognizing that it is LITERALLY through the regular waiving of our human rights that medical professionals refine their means of assigning gender, determine the boundaries of 'male' and 'female' in arbitrary ways that specifically delete us from rational existence. you cannot understand gender without looking at the bodies used to craft its blueprints.

A true icon, Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old when she represented Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade. She is still the youngest person to have ever argued a case in the Supreme Court and won.

JK Rowling is back at it again 💞

Can anybody make this article accessible? I really want to read it

Thank you so much @marroncheri for adding the full article :)

Surprised at the wide age range of the women here. Thanks for sharing the article!

anyway just gonna say this so people know

fuck nazis, conservatives, and just anyone from the right. I do not support you. I do not agree with you. my blog is not a safe space for you.

There’s a post going around in promotion of Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Just the title should be enough of a warning that this is a rightwing book but apparently on tumblr it isn’t and since it looks like OP has blocked me, I’ll just reiterate that its publisher is Regenery, a far right press, and Abigail Shrier is a Trump-defending, anti-Black Lives Matter exploitative concern troll. This book is getting free advertising from ‘gender critical’ ‘feminists’ and lesbians when the right have used the similar damaged narratives against lesbians and feminists. The right cares only that it can use Shrier’s book to seduce women into their own anti-LGBT/anti-feminist craze and strengthen parental rights over the rights of children and teens (including rights to sex education, birth control, and abortion).

“alt right” type modern white supremacists online recruit from people who see themselves as outside the mainstream with a strong criticism of the status quo (gun rights, preppers, doomers, whatever); radical feminists are another group outside the mainstream with a strong criticism of the status quo, so radfems online are one of their target groups. they don’t have to approve of feminist beliefs to see the value in spreading their ideas as far as possible. the overlap between radfems online and the far right isn’t a natural allegiance, it’s something the far right manufactured on purpose, unfortunately with help from a lot of women identifying as feminists, and it’s something that a lot of white radfems have been seriously derelict in actively guarding against. it’s not even in the interest of white feminists (esp lesbians....) to reinforce this overlap. the pedestal the racist far right places white women on is dependent on them occupying an incredibly narrow womanhating role. but we’re so much less immediately, direly affected by it than women of color/jewish women that the fact that it’s anti semitic and racist is more significant than that it’s a self defeating behavior

Maybe pronouns really are a distraction 💀

you got that right