fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6006 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6006 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[From]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Youtube channel "Hello Future Me"]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Monark]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Across the Spiderverse]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for transphobia/standard JKR stuff]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #858.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes. They equate womonahood to suffering, use gender essentialism and mark everything by the prototypical tradfem white woman standard. No trans person equates femininity to JUST "liking pink, painting nails and wearing dresses." Plenty of them don't even like dresses or wearing nail polish, what the fuck, my dude?

You aren't a feminist. You're a fucktwit who equates womanhood with suffering and being sad and abused. There is no self-love in your gender. Gender isn't narrow. It's a personal fucking experience. You just clearly don't examine yours because why would you? You're the perfect picturesque suffering waif. That makes you a woman.

Also, real feminists fought for years to not be defined by their ability to have kids. In fact, there is no definition of woman that covers every cis woman. Some women are infertile--so not a woman by the standards of one definition. Or do you also stop being a woman in old age? Not all women like dresses or make-up, so that doesn't define a woman. Not all women are XX (seriously, there are perfectly XY people born with functioning vag and uterus--they're rare but they exist). There is no fucking way to define woman that doesn't leave people out and imply they're not a woman. But you fake feminists don't care, because it's all about how much SUFFERING being a woman is.

DA

(The one you said "see below" to, but I also think this is presumptuous nonsense.)

Okay. If none of that has anything to do with gender, kindly define what it's supposed to mean when a trans person asserts that they "are" a woman. Because they have none of the traits that would mark someone as biologically female, and all of the other markers I mentioned, and all the ones I've ever heard as proof that they're "really" women, are regressive stereotypes of femininity.

I find it ludicrous that you're equating "not being DEFINED by ability to have kids" with "therefore, we ought to ignore the fact that some people can wind up pregnant against their will and others can't." Just to pick a very obvious example.

Of course there is no trait that defines only and exclusively women - there is also no trait that defines only and exclusively humans or black people or any other category. That doesn't make them meaningless or terrible.

DA - Anon who said see below:

kindly define what it's supposed to mean when a trans person asserts that they "are" a woman

Ok so. We live in a society, yeah? that is built around this idea that sex determines gender determines roles in society. But as we learn more and more about the human body, we have decoupled sex from gender from roles in society. But there are some people who like specific genders and/or roles in society and would like to live their life mostly in that arena. That is what it is to assert that you "are" a woman.

Take me for example. I am AFAB. I'll say I'm a woman, but I don't perform the role in society and don't give a shit about the gender. I could take it or leave it, but the way society is set up, it's just easier to say I'm a woman and leave it at that. But for someone who is AFAB and LOVES the more masculine gender expression and/or loves the masculine role in society, they will defy the society expectations that I can't be bothered to move away from so that they can be happy with expressing themselves. This is what's known as "being a man".

So that is how we can get to a place where you will have someone who looks like a man, acts like a man, performs the role of a man in society, if you saw them on the street you would think them a man - and they have a uterus.

I find it ludicrous that you're equating "not being DEFINED by ability to have kids" with "therefore, we ought to ignore the fact that some people can wind up pregnant against their will and others can't."

Where the FUCK did that come from? No one has mentioned anything about forced birth. Seriously, that hasn't been part of the convo at all until now. Are you okay? blink twice if you need rescue.

there is also no trait that defines only and exclusively humans or black people or any other category. That doesn't make them meaningless or terrible.

No one has said that either. But your attempts to exclude icky trans people ALSO exclude some women you purport to be defending, which exposes you not as pro-woman or feminist, but anti-trans. Us feminists can see you doing that, and we can see that as soon as we share some trait with someone you don't like, you will absolutely throw us under the bus with them. Feminism is not about trying to protect people who have uteruses, can get pregnant (willingly or not), have breasts, or whatever other gender essentialism you want to define it as. It's a SOCIAL issue, not a biological one. So attempting to define womanhood along biological lines will never be a feminist act.

[ SECRET POST #6006 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject