pustluk:

iloveradfems:

pustluk:

iloveradfems:

surfin-terf:

pustluk:

surfin-terf:

vulvacrat:

brighterthanbombs:

vulvacrat:

brighterthanbombs:

vulvacrat:

pustluk:

radical feminism, 1973: one is not born a woman
trans women: hi
radical feminism, 1979: jesus god not like that

god y’all are so obtuse, this isn’t what de beauvoir meant in the slightest. she meant ‘women are shaped into their social role through upbringing and socialisation’ not ‘women make a conscious choice to behave like their designated social role’. if anything this disproves trans ideology and the whole ‘i’m a woman inside’ argument as it states that passive interactions throughout your lifetime shape your womanhood, not some kind of innate emotional feeling. read a book.

hi i’ve read the entirety of the second sex and you’re very wrong

wait are you disagreeing with me or op i’m so confused

with op!!! sorry lmao definitely with the op. i hate how that quote keeps getting taken out of context

oh good lol

i’ve also studied the second sex extensively, and beauvoir is unambiguously referring to socialization. sorry OP

do yall realize youre literally making my points for me and the saying the exact same things as just about every vein of contemporary trans theory since at least, like, the mid nineties or are u just being…obtuse

i don’t possibly see how any of this is making your points for you. your original post seemed to suggest that the ideology of transwomen is totally consistent with feminist ideas (such as beauvoir’s), and their ideology is not consistent with feminist ideas at all.

With “no one is born a woman” she was referring exactly to GENDER, to socialization, not sex.
Stop lying about the meaning of that quote for your own interests.And, for you, aren’t transwomen born women?

no. every contemporary account of gender created by trans women in the outsider theory community–the only place we’re actually welcome–holds that gender is a fully social process. whether you want to look at material feminism, trans material feminism specifically, trans lesbian feminism, trans separatism, or gender nihilism (a school of thought from outsider theorists that has actually, like, been taught at multiple gender studies departments), every last one of them treats gender as socialized (since, like, 1994)–which you would know if you bothered to engage with trans women versed in theory and hadn’t gathered all your information about our alleged self-conception from buzzfeed articles and pop liberalism’s approach to transness.

moreover, if you’d actually read the work from de beauvoir, you’d remember that the first thing she writes in that chapter of the second sex is this:

[B]elief…in a ‘prehistory’ when women created civilization (because of a biological predisposition) while the coarse and brutal men hunted (because of a biological predisposition) is symmetrical with the biologizing interpretation of history produced now by the class of men….Furthermore, not only is this conception still imprisoned in the  categories of sex (woman and man), but it holds onto the idea that the capacity to give birth (biology) is what defines a woman…By doing this…[n]ot only to we naturalize history, but also consequently we naturalize the social phenomena which express our oppression, making change impossible.

from its inception, the party line of the second wave was that hearkening to essentialist accounts of dimorphic, inherent, mutually antithetical sex reproduces the conditions of women’s oppression. it was only in the late seventies–after the stonewall riots had sparked a huge surge of radical gay and trans activism throughout the decade, after biomedical transition had become a widespread possibility for the first time since the 30s, and after the benjamin standards (the product of a white, heterosexual man and not the vulnerable trans people forced to navigate them in order to receive healthcare) were first published–that radical feminism finally made its mythopoetic appeal to sex essentialism. y’all were so desperate to swerve around us that you inverted one of the core tenets of the second wave and absolutely shattered the feminist movement in the process.

lesbian feminism, central to the second wave up through the early seventies with wittig’s le corps lesbien, was forced into its own vein by the panic around “male alignment” y’all created that disenfranchised gnc women–ultimately precipitating the separatist ethos of the 80s. mythopoetic cultural feminism split from post-structural feminism and started an ideological war that persists to this day. the third wave was finally able to regain some ground when crenshaw introduced intersectionality in 89 and marxist feminism started gaining a broader platform–but y’alls legacy is setting the feminist movement back by at least two decades, splintering a 30+ year old party line into fragments which have still not been reunified, and jeopardizing the healthcare, political rights, social situation, and physical safety of generations of trans women–all because you couldn’t be bothered to understand that your (totally justified! we’re totally with you on this!) objections to the benjaminian concept of transness were the product of a straight white male practitioner and not the generation of trans women his antifeminist, antigay medicalized hoopjumping left traumatized.

Mate, you’re just trying to get me confused.I read the book, I know what she meant, she didn’t made a book focused on women’s social role and women’s oppression as some sort of proof that biological sex doesn’t exist.

Intersectionality is about the intersection of misogyny and racism, NOTHING to do with males.

Your far-fetched language essay is making it very difficult to get your point.Is that your intention? Throwing a bunch of disconected and questionable information around won’t change the fact that the only definiton for woman is human female and that women and men receive different socialization and are given different social roles because of their sex, it is the factual truth.Her point is that women aren’t born feminine, docile, submissive, they are taught to be that way, and if a male presents that way it doesn’t mean he’s a woman.That’s it.

Feminism is and will always be about females, because women are oppressed on the basis of being female, not over some ridiculous concept of gender people identify in and out.Patriarchy is about males oppressing females for our reproductive and sexual possibility to sustain a economic system that is based on heirs and a large working class.

Make your opinion more compact.I’m not willing to read a full bullshit essay.

mate. here is a sparknotes version:

(a) you’re being ahistorical;

(b) your concept of trans women originated with a straight white heterosexual male endocrinologist and his work in the 70s, not from us;

(c-i) your concept of trans women pits the full weight of academia against the self-descriptions of poor, older, mostly nonwhite trans women who have never had the privilege and luxury of stepping foot in a gender studies department;

(c-ii) you haven’t read the work of any trans theorists;

(d) the third wave, initiated by crenshaw, re-shifted focus onto nonwhite, gay, and eventually trans women–something y’all had never thought to do;

(e) you’re apparently unwilling to read so much as 4 paragraphs explaining why (see a) you’re being ahistorical and (see c) your ideology is irrelevant to contemporary trans theory;

(f) you need to remove your head from whatever orifice you’ve currently got it lodged in, generally;

(g) i recommend astroglide.