One Major Misconception Libfems And Trans Activists Hold About Radical Feminism And Gender Criticism

One major misconception libfems and trans activists hold about radical feminism and gender criticism is they believe our opposition to their ideology stems from our inability to accept trans identities, nonbinary identities, any gender identity that isn’t “cis”.

In their view, we are the cis-privileged cissexist overlords who want to exterminate trans people and/or forcibly convert everyone into being “cis”, like we are, because we can’t tolerate difference and diversity. They think we only care about our “cisters” and want to force everyone into traditional gender roles. They think we believe what we believe and say what we say because we’re close-minded bigots who mindlessly hate people of other gender identities, just like racists mindlessly hate people of other races. They think blind hatred is the reason why we aren’t “inclusive” like good feminists should be.

From where they’re standing, this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Look at those terfs all standing over there being comfortable with their assigned gender! Look at those terfs using female pronouns and never getting misgendered and having womanhood handed to them without having to work for it! Look at those terfs posting vulva art and fetishizing vaginas, look at them loving their bodies and not feeling deep hatred toward their secondary sex characteristics! Look at those terfs with their cis privilege having no idea what it’s like to feel like you don’t belong in your body, or to feel deep inside like you’re just NOT the gender everyone says you are! Look at those terfs being evil gatekeepers and enforcing the idea that penis=man and vagina=woman because they think everyone should be cis like them!

In trans activist world, using trans activist logic, this conception of radfems is valid and internally consistent.

The problem is the basis of trans activist logic is fucked up and wrong.

You know those elementary logic puzzles that go “If some smeerps are blorgnorts and all blorgnorts are priptaps, all smeerps are priptaps. True or false?” - just because something is internally consistent within its own rules doesn’t mean it has any value or any connection to reality at all.

The reality is not that we’re all happy “cis” women enjoying our “cis” privilege and hating trans people just because they’re not like us. The reality is we REJECT the entire artificial narrative that leads to classifications like “cis” and “trans” in the first place. We call ourselves “she” not because we feel like women deep inside our souls, but because of the biological FACT of our bodies. Some of us suffer from severe dysphoria, some of us identified as trans and thought we were men for years, and NONE of us are comfortable being forced into the female gender. But we understand that how we feel about “she” doesn’t change the fact that that’s what we are. None of us chose our pronouns. Our pronouns just…are.

And when we tell them we don’t hate trans people, we hate gender, they take it as an attack on their personal identities and their very sense of self. When we tell them sex and gender are different things, they say biological sex doesn’t exist. When we ask them not to call us “cis”, they’re baffled because in their minds there’s cis, there’s trans, and there are the various flavors of nonbinary, and that encompasses the totality of the spectrum of gender identity, and everyone HAS to have a gender identity because it’s Just! So! Important!! in their world. How could anyone not define and treasure their individual gender identity? It’s what makes you who you are! And they just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that we reject gender altogether. A genderist’s thought process goes: those AFAB terfs say they’re women, they aren’t trans because they don’t use “he/him” and they’re not nonbinary because they don’t use “they/them/ze/hir”, so what could they POSSIBLY be besides cis? Why are they asking me not to call them what they are? Oh, I get it, it must be a trick to deny their cis privilege so they can keep enforcing cis supremacy and oppressing trans people!

It’s a very simplistic and primitive worldview. You won’t follow the rules and respect the demarcations of my inclusive and diverse gender spectrum? It must be because you’re cissexist and bigoted and hate trans people. There can’t be any other reason. You’re just jealous because transwomen are prettier than you!

The trans cult is SO invested in the gender story and the immense importance of gender and identity politics that to them it’s just not possible for anyone to think any differently. The very premise of their ideology is false, but that’s the framework from which they interpret everything, including the beliefs and motivations of the evil gatekeeper terfs. They box themselves in with their beautiful unique identities and they literally CANNOT conceive of anything outside their own false axioms. Because to them, gender is a universal truth. The idea of not believing in gender isn’t heresy or blasphemy, it just…doesn’t…make…sense. Might as well not believe in bananas or bears or gravity.

It’s like religious people who insist atheists and agnostics (or even people from other religions) must hate god because they’ve been corrupted by the devil, and the only reason someone wouldn’t follow YOUR dogma and worship YOUR god…is because they’re under the influence of YOUR devil, YOUR dogma’s particular conception of evil.

Their little brains can’t handle the idea that god isn’t real and neither is the devil. And neither, for that matter, is gender.

I don't think it's quite right to say that "nature is intrinsically patriarchal", nor that physical strength equates to dominance. Bonobos are one of the apes most genetically related to humans, and they're known for being matriarchal, or at the very least gender-equal in lower ranks, and their males are larger and stronger than the females, too.

The reason we would return to the violence of the past if we were to strip away modern protections is because patriarchy is already ingrained in our lives and we haven't experienced anything else. If humans were wiped out and they evolved again, they might initially evolve to be female-centered again, as they did the first time. Or they might not, it's impossible to say unless the exact same factors that led to the evolution of humans in the first place were recreated.

I don't think there's anything about society that "simply arises from nature", everything is a product of multiple factors. I don't see why we should accept misogyny as "a natural inclination" when it could simply be considered a consequence of the fact that, when the population growth which resulted from the successful social organisation started endangering the species who suddenly needed more food, men's physical strength was a more useful skill when humans started fighting for resources. Perhaps if there were more resources, or less people, there would have been no need for the aggression brought about by the need for survival and societies would have evolved more peacefully, without the constant wars men are so fond of, and then gender equality would have been just as natural.

Or perhaps the end result would have still been the same because men would have still started wars the moment they found out another settlement had something they didn't and refused to trade. Or perhaps not, because if women were still in charge at that point, they would have been more likely to initiate peaceful trading with other groups and less likely to start conflicts if faced with rejection, and eventually, without the need for survival interfering, human consciousness would have evolved to a point where they didn't feel comfortable attacking other humans for resources they didn't necessarily need. Regardless, I don't think patriarchy (or any kind of oppression, for that matter) is our natural state as animals.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS2cJ2a62/

This one of hers is very interesting… hmm, I have a lot of conflicting thoughts …

Radical feminism acknowledges the existence of the 2 sexes, and how the differences between male and female humans created patriarchy.

Men were able to use their physical strength and the advantages of not having to endure/ survive child birth to create systems of oppression.

But at the same time, there were quite a few pre-agricultural revolution societies that were matriarchal, with men hunting large game making them vulnerable and easily lost to the tribes… so hmm.

Nature definitely plays a huge role in patriarchy and how it’s the oldest oppression, and how every culture around the world currently oppresses women: but is it our natural state as animals? I don’t think so… I need read more on the subject tho, it’s very fascinating!

some of you have ‘identities’ that deserve to be invalidated. some of them are unhealthy, actively hurt disenfranchised groups, or have no basis in material reality. the overbearing identity politics that exists on the internet, this whole postmodernist idea of ‘I say it so I am!’ is completely irrelevant when we’re considering actual oppressions within societies/cultures. it is meaningless.

I saw a post once on here saying ‘some of you deserve to feel less valid’ and I have never seen anything truer. some of you need to get your self-indulgent heads out of your asses too and consider that the entire world doesn’t need to alter itself due to ~your feelings~ and if you think it does, maybe your feelings/identity/whatever are the problem here.

I want women to challenge the messages we internalise about how it’s so virtuous for us to put ourselves last, to sacrifice our own needs for the good of others. I want to see an end to the ideal of the self-sacrificing mother, who exists to serve her husband and children. Women deserve to put our own needs first and live full and happy lives on our own terms.

“what oppression do women face? what rights don’t they already have?” let me explain something very simple to you. having laws that permit women to have jobs, divorce men, abort, or kill in self-defense is literally 25% of the battle. why? because of infrastructure and societal bias.

for example, it is technically illegal to rape (legislation) yet few rapists are ever convicted and even if they are, their sentences never match the crime. why? for one, it’s hard for girls and women of challenging socioeconomic backgrounds to access services or resources like rape kits or information on how to seek legal assistance; and in the course of this, the police men are likely to sexually abuse them as well, resulting in more trauma and reducing their chances at seeking justice (infrastructure). even if a woman were to get a job (and the law doesn’t allow discrimination), if the social bias is that she can’t perform well, she is still less likely to be hired. if she is hired, she is more likely to be underpaid (read up on the velvet or pink ghetto).

government (legislation and judiciary) are reflective of social consciousness. they may agree with the rights of women (sometimes) on paper, but whether or not they are meaningfully enforced is completely up to those with the most socioeconomic power, which, for now, is largely still men (in that men maintain most of the wealth, property, and high opinion in a populace, they also control most popular metanarratives via religion, education, pornography and entertainment which means they largely control public perception). because men in patriarchal society keep their resources to themselves and seek to elevate only themselves. racism can be illegal, and still rampant, in a country. so it is with misogyny and homophobia.

if men hate women in a system that has long been organized to benefit them, a few legislative changes won’t automatically change that system. it has to be altered structurally and socially as well.

and that takes a whole lot more fighting