why are uteri so op like the majority of the month they have no attack power and then their critical attack charges and the body lends it a hand by raising its hit percentage and i dont know who programmed this bullshit but they fucking suck

You know what animal is super badass?

The Virginia Opossum, North American Opossum, possum, tlacuache, tacuachi, tlacuachi.
Didelphis virginiana.

Dudes, this furry creature is from South America but now lives all the way from Costa Rica to Ontario. They are nocturnal, cat sized, and the only marsupial in North America. They have the most teeth (50!) of any mammal in North America. They have opposable thumbs on their back feet!

People are general really rude to these adorable trash babies but that’s bullshit, yo. Do you know how many ticks they kill? Over 95 PERCENT of ticks that land on them! They fight Lyme Disease on the daily! They are also super resistant to RABIES!!!

These DISEASE FIGHTING SUPER SOLDIERS are also resistant to SNAKE VENOM so they’re snapping up copperheads and cottonmouths left and right!

If that isn’t enough for you, they have 2 vaginae, 2 uteri, 2 ovaries, and 13 nipples! How awesome is that?!

Still don’t like opossums? Fight me, bro.

Re: “allosexual”, “allosexism”, and the “grouping the oppressed with their oppressors” argument

(This post is a draft from a couple months ago, but it’s still more or less relevant and I still more or less agree with all of it, so I’m going to post it.

Sorry in advance about how absurdly long this post got. This is a thing that’s hard to talk about without a lot of qualifying language.)

So, okay, I’ve been thinking about this for some time, and I was finally able to come up with a single case where I have to concede that the “grouping people with their oppressors” argument is valid:

TWERFs define misogyny as “~female~ oppression” - as in the oppression of dfab people / people with uteri / people with vaginas / whatever.

This is inherently wrong and oppressive, because the corollary is that trans women - by nature of their birth assignment and anatomy - benefit at all from this arrangement. That’s not the case. They don’t get a scrap of benefit.

As an example, a trans woman is as “privileged” by anti-abortion legislation as a cis woman without a uterus for any reason would be: that is, she isn’t at all. Meanwhile, trans women are affected by misogynistic stereotypes just as fully as cis women are, as well as having to handle oppression of their own.

Therefore, the class “people with vaginas” or “people with uteri” is useful for clinical purposes, or for any similar descriptive purpose; but you can’t really construct a coherent privilege/oppression dynamic with it if the corollary is that “people with penises” are privileged.

This isn’t at all to say that trans men and dfab nb people are privileged by things that are meant to oppress cis women, either. The only people benefited by such measures are cis men.

(Analogously, the only people uniformly benefited by cisheteronormativity are those who are capital-S Straight: those who are cisgender; perisex; exclusively heterosexual, exclusively heteroromantic, and non-ace-spec, without any missed items.)

This isn’t exactly comparable to the case with “allosexual”, but it demonstrates that there are serious problems possible when one takes a descriptive term and uses it to construct a privilege/oppression dynamic.

That said: I believe that it is possible to construct a theory like “allosexism” without requiring the existence of a discrete “allosexual” class - a way of describing the structural phenomena without implying a strict privileged/oppressed power dynamic.

For instance: I’m demisexual/demiromantic. I’m not strictly “allosexual”, but it’s entirely possible for me to make not-grey aroace people uncomfortable along the same lines that the term “allosexism” describes. It might in some cases be internalized [whatever term we’re using, if not “allosexism”].

It therefore might be useful to think of it as a parallel to compulsory heterosexuality - and it is, in large part, which makes this doubly useful. People oppressed by the institutional paradigms can still have internalized toxic ideas from those structures and can require some time to unlearn them, although the people more thoroughly vested in these structures might be steeped more deeply in toxic ideas, and it wouldn’t benefit them as immediately to examine them. “Allonormativity” perhaps comes close to describing this - as close as anything we currently have.

Alternatively, it’s also possible that we could restrict “allosexual” and “monosexual” to being strict descriptive terms, without the power dynamic implied at all.

A similar construction to a version of “monosexual” and “allosexual” constrained to descriptive use is the term “allistic”: there are people who don’t clearly meet the criteria for being autistic who are also not allistic, i.e. autistic cousins.

That said, the existence of autistic cousins - and people who are oppressed for their neurotype for unrelated reasons entirely - is the reason the term “allistic privilege” isn’t really a thing (even if it is well-established that autistic people are oppressed on the basis of being autistic).

There is the potential for harming people on the grounds that they don’t identify “correctly”, i.e. autistic cousins who don’t really feel that affiliated with the autism community; people who don’t make their status as autistic people clearly visible to observers; etc.

This is a kernel of merit in the argument that “allosexual privilege” makes assumptions about people’s private lives that don’t necessarily bear out: by using that terminology, we are necessarily assuming that anyone who doesn’t visibly and readily identify as a-spec (asexual, aromantic, grey-ace, grey-aro) is instead allosexual. Among those people will inevitably be the people who have been harmed directly by allonormativity in addition to broader cisheterosexism.

What we could perhaps get the most utility out of, therefore, would be a set of terms for these two functions that “allosexism” and “allosexual” serve separately, but which do not imply affiliation with each other, or a privileged/oppressed dynamic, in the same way that “allosexism” and “allosexual” do.

Simply telling people not to construct the term “allosexual privilege” seems not to be sufficient: if people (especially young and/or less-informed people) are given both ideas, they will stick the two together like pieces of a kit naturally. This isn’t really anyone’s particular fault; it merely represents a shortcoming in the terminology that wasn’t correctly anticipated or thought through at the time it was introduced.

This is an important conversation that we ought to be having. Unfortunately, it can only happen once we agree that everybody who has a place in this discussion ought to have a seat at the table to begin with.

It’s also important to note that this post is in the spirit of actually constructing alternative terminology in the cases where people have had problems with the originals. The conversation we ought to be having is, “if this word / concept / system doesn’t work, how can we create a replacement that actually meets the needs of marginalized people?”.

Instead, the message I keep seeing leveled at ace people is “your needs are wrong, and you cannot have this conversation until it is pre-approved and flawless”, which is destructive and invalidating.

It has always been pretty clear that the people saying those kinds of things are acephobes / arophobes, and aren’t willing to engage in a good-faith discussion over this, because we’ve been seeing attacks on the basic validity of the ace spectrum - which is something that would really need to be a given in order for this conversation to take place.

using the whole “if mental illnesses were treated like physical illnesses” analogy is so boring and, quite frankly, wrong because physical illnesses, especially in women or people with uteri related diseases, are constantly treated like jokes so i dont want to hear it.
i’m both severely mentally ill and physically ill and they both come with their own individual challenges, stop pitting them against each other with your awful analogies