You cannot argue that a fetus has bodily autonomy because it doesn’t.
Something that cannot live on its own does not have the right to life, because it cannot possibly invoke that right.
It is completely and wholly dependent upon the consent of the person whose body it relies on.
remember, if you disagree with a woman, so long as she’s a radical feminist or cis scum, it’s okay to silence her!!!! it isn’t misogyny, you’re a hero!!!!
- Because trans people are trying to destroy us all by having a word that doesn’t assume cisnormativity.
- Because trans people everywhere are crushing women’s voices and rights through the word ‘cis’ and not, perhaps, genuinely trying to call out actual transmisogyny and transphobia perpetrated by cis people.
- Because a word not even recognised by the patriarchy is doing such a good job for the patriarchy’s oppression of women.
- Because the ongoing fight for trans acceptance and recognition is obviously another tool of the patriarchy, and how dare they try to make society see them as real, living, breathing, ordinary people.
- Because things like white privilege, class privilege, heterosexual privilege, male privilege all exist but cis privilege obviously cannot.
- Because if cis women don’t experience transphobia then the logical conclusion is obviously that cis women have no real problems.
- Because those poor little trans people will also be happier if we don’t have this word any more (it’s for their own good, really).
- Because sometimes, some battles for freedom are just more important than others, and we’re totally allowed to rank these things if we want to (although yeah, sure, they’re kinda intertwined issues maaaybe).
- Because stop it, okay? it’s okay to have a word that means ‘not trans’.
Cis is insulting because it implies that females who are not trans are completely fine with their forced gender role (of submission to men) and socialization. You’re saying that women just love being women! They’re comfortable. It’s whatever. But that’s bullshit.
Males are socialized into masculinity and enjoy male privilege. This privilege and socialization does not disappear once they identify as the opposite gender, a fox, a plant, whatever. It’s still there. The feeling of entitlement, aggression towards females, it’s all there, because it’s been drilled into male brains since birth. Females are socialized into femininity, and thus ritualized submission to males. This places them at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, with males on top.
Women are not fine with being at the bottom of the gender hierarchy. Women are not comfortable being women, because being a woman is more than just having female sex organs, it’s facing sex-based oppression your entire life, from birth. No female is comfortable with that. No one chooses to be oppressed. There is no privilege that comes with being born female and not “identifying” with the opposite gender.
I strongly denounce sending hateful anon messages to anyone, even if they’re assholes like Toni. Let those people marinate in their own contempt, don’t feed them extra material.
Anonymous asked: serious question: if radical feminism wants to do away with gender roles, why is it against agender or genderfluid identities & people who defy all gender expectations/roles? I've tried googling "gender abolitionism" but haven't gotten much, and most of the tumblr links were criticizing it so I wanted to learn about it from someone who promotes it.
interesting question, really.
first of all, radical feminism is out for getting rid of gender entirely. not just gender roles, not just expectations, as gender would still exist and those problems would still likely rise. abolishing the idea of gender and the hierarchy it has created would truly set both males and females free, but radical feminists tend to occupy their time more with spreading on how gender hurts females (which, in my honest opinion, gender harms females worse than males)
the thing is is that the identities of ‘agender’ and ‘genderfluid’ still hold the idea that gender still exists or that it still should exist, which is what gender abolitionism has tried so hard to keep down. creating 1,000 new identities to suit every single person isn’t exactly liberating, and it’s not exactly questioning gender, just more running loops around it.
that, and most “agender” or “genderfluid” people i’ve seen are, at best, gender nonconforming. obviously, this doesn’t make them bad (a lot of radical feminists i know are gender nonconforming too, and i can be considered myself), but these identities are rather… irrelevant, in my opinion, and wouldn’t need to exist with gender being out of the way entirely.