lady shady !

extreme-irrelevancy:

I wish there was a simple way to say:

“I support people with body dysphoria changing their bodies in ways that make their lives more comfortable, but I am wildly against erasing the meaning of female and replacing it with completely identity based definitions, particularly while females continue to be oppressed on that axis.”

ataulfomangos:

Dang reality!: on-reflection: nextyearsgirl: nightfallsforisaac: nextyearsgirl:…

on-reflection:

nextyearsgirl:

nightfallsforisaac:

nextyearsgirl:

nightfallsforisaac:

nextyearsgirl:

nightfallsforisaac:

[CUT FOR LENGTH]

radical feminism includes gender identity in definition! so your analogy means very little????

and okay i get that choice thing a little more but it still seems like a roundabout way of erasing race based privilege  i’ll have to research more on that.

Which definition, exactly?

I’m really not sure how acknowledging the privilege required to hold a certain analysis erases race based privilege.

according to you and other radfems and myself, radical feminism is by definition intersectional. well by definition intersectionality includes gender identity  according to Susanne Knudson it includes all “axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality.”

Gender identity is a post-modern concept intended to legitimize and prop up the gender hierarchy by “redefining” and yet reifying gender roles, which are the patriarchal tool used to oppress females as a sex class. Radical feminism is rooted in gender abolition, and thus requires that we do not perpetuate concepts like “gender identity” which are inherently harmful to females.

While intersectionality requires us to realize how gender non-conforming people are targeted for oppression, it also requires us to realize that it is because of misogyny and homophobia that they are targeted, not because “gender identity” is itself an axis of oppression.

no. no one is subscribing to gender roles. as i said before, i identify as a female but i don’t subscribe to gender roles??? you can queer gender roles while still identifying as a gender.

obviously we have differing opinions on this and the reason i liked radical feminism is because it was inclusive but okay

You can’t, though. “Queering” gender roles is still legitimizing gender roles, is still implying that they are a naturally occurring thing and not an oppressive social construct. You can’t have “gender identity” without “gender roles,” because you need to have a default in order to rebel.

Bolded for emphasis.

(Source: grrrlfever)

ataulfomangos:

nextyearsgirl:

nightfallsforisaac:

grrrlfever:

reblog if you’re a radfem

(i wanna follow more of you xoxo)

just a lonely intersectional feminist trying to explore radical feminism without being a total cissexist, transphobic, racist shit lord.

You might want to start with tempering some of those pre-conceived notions then.

Radical feminism is inherently intersectional. Crenshaw probably has nightmares about the ways her theory has been hijacked. Intersectionality is a legal theory meant to address the shortcomings in how courts address multiple axes of oppression. Crenshaw sought to develop a theory that would allow black women to seek recourse for both racism and misogyny, not to apply feminism to every group under the sun.

“Cissexism” is such a stupid concept. The idea that your genitals and “your gender presentation” (read: the gender role you’re thrust into based on sex) should align is actually a mechanism of sex-based oppression — that is, it abuses gender non-conforming women and men just as much as a person who transitions, if not more, since most people looking to alleviate their sex dysphoria aim to blend in so they can go on about their lives whereas most of us non-conforming folk will never, ever win within this system. Gender is a system of oppression, not a way of identifying. It’s stupid to call radfems “cissexist” when we’re actually rallying against the same thing, just with terms that actually address the root of the issue instead.

I sincerely do not understand why people assume radical feminist theory is inherently racist when third-wave theories erase whiteness as an axis of privilege by propping up choice-based rhetoric that inherently requires privilege in order to be a viable mode of action.

Hope this helps!

subterraneanscum:

ready-set-takeoff:

Revolutionary Combustion: Thank you.

calliowong:

So. It’s been a while since I’ve written you all, folks. As far as I know, this will be the last update letter I will write you.

I guess this is it, for now. There’s no chance I can go to Smith College, as the administration has returned my application without reading it not…

THIS is why it is so frustrating for feminists to be lumped into one group. if you’re a feminist but don’t understand trans issues, like, what??

seriously, there are some straight rich white males I know who are MUCH more important to the movement than radical anti-male transphobic “feminists.”

“senior sociology major. colorado college.”
oh, that explains a lot
but lol nonetheless

sexnotgender:

ghagiel:

rcphoenix:

My stance on Smithgate is that if the Smith college community comes together and decides to open itself up to any woman-identified individual, as opposed to how it is currently (female only), that would be fine. If the students and staff decide they would rather be a mixed space as opposed to female only, more power to them. What shouldn’t be happening, however, is pressure raining in from non-community members that just have a problem respecting female only spaces; there is nothing inherently bad about female only spaces. 

I don’t understand. Isn’t the current pressure on Smith college due to the fact that they reject pre-op or non-op trans* women from applying? Trans* women count as female, and therefore don’t violate a female only space…

Unless I’m being really basic and missing something here?

Yeah, you’re missing the way gender is assigned at birth by *sex.* Sex matters because it determines whether girl or boy socialization will be piled on top of you from *birth.*

rcphoenix:

I don’t understand why we can’t have many different kinds of spaces. Spaces for females only, spaces for WBW, spaces that include transwomen as well as spaces that are only for transwomen, etc. Any halfway decent thinking person can recognize the importance of respecting WOC-only spaces, spaces just for women of different abilities, lesbians, etc. 

So why is it so goddamn evil to demand a little space for females to gather without any male presence involved?

nextyearsgirl:

I am continuously amazed that this website has a community that will defend a male living as a man’s right not only to call himself female and a woman, but his right to lecture on how trans men aren’t allowed in safe spaces because they “take advantage of them” and no one calls them out, no one even makes a peep about how fucked this is, everyone else just nods along and clucks approvingly.

But I say I support female only spaces and get days of asks and dedicated hate blogs about wanting to look at strangers genitals, dozens of people trying to worm their way around by coming up with hypotheticals and what ifs, and of course slurs and insults.

And yet the first group also denies they have male privilege. Right.