Vampfacing - No Men Are Women

"I don't feel like a girl" "I don't feel like a boy"

There isn't a specific way to feel as a girl or boy. Patriarchy has been forced to us how we're supposed to "act" in order to fit the patriarchal standard. Anyone can be feminine or masculine, anyone doesn't have to be feminine or masculine, it's okay to not "fit" in a gender stereotype. The point is we're not supposed to, we're just humans.

Current queerness activism is off its rocker and needs an entire overhaul. I couldn't figure it out from the beginning.

"Let them pee!" was pretty good, actually, I did fall for that one, an emotional appeal that people could relate to, but they just couldn't keep the lid on the AGPs hateposting their erections in the ladies rooms and getting their sex crimes splashed all over the internet, all the while insisting that it clearly had never happened and never would, and was paranoid pearl-clutching.

And No Debate? People said that like it was a normal thing to say in political debate, and not a huge red flag.

And using a word as loaded as genocide to describe stroke-of-the-pen lawmaking? Really ill-conceived.

Transphobiaaaaaaaaa! worked for awhile, until there was only one thing left that wasn't transphobic, which was lesbians having sex with men, and now does it mean anything? Other than 'you're not doing what you're told'?

Not just those language problems, either, the academics took the idea public that words about women don't really, on any meaningful level, define anything, and there's nothing about a woman that makes her a woman, and pointed at clownfish and shrugged smugly, like a reproductive capacity of a fish meant that women had been mistaken all along in believing we were women.

And then there was the shitshow of 'bonus hole' and 'non-men attracted to non-men'. That was an own goal. Now WPATH is chucking cis-supremacy around like that means a single thing.

The whole affair has been an utter shambles from start to finish. Just staggering from one PR disaster to another, constantly doubling down, and consistently revealing motives that look pretty indefensible, like begging for blockers and hormones for children, or they will harm themselves, while adult trans identities are valid just by saying so, and that women should participate in sports, contact and otherwise, with men, and be locked up in prison with them.

Queer Theory doesn't care about women, or know anything about women, just like Michael Foucault. It doesn't even respect women enough to answer our questions about seizing our rights.

Back to the drawing board, QT. Maybe get a talking gecko.

It is a deeply anti-female movement, it hates that women talk back, protect their kids, and analyze its ideas. So please keep doing all of that.

Baffling. Madness.

the word “woman” was bad to describe us, so people said “female”. the word “female” was bad so people said “afab”. the word “afab” is now bad too (“talking about afab experiences is transmisogynistic”), and you apparently shouldn’t talk about the experiences of “people with vaginas” only, either. 

discussing “radical feminism” was bad, so people said “feminism”, but that was bad, too, so people just talked about “misogyny”, but that was a “terf” dogwhistle, so people talked about “gendered socialization” but that’s a transmisogynistic discussion framework, apparently. So where do you go next?

It’s not that the words were offensive, it’s that the power they gave to women to exclusively discuss ourselves and our problems effectively and accurately was. It’s a silencing tactic. We could call ourselves anything as a sex class and it’d still be offensive that we found solidarity. You can’t talk about, find community with, or protect women if acknowledging sex is banned, and you can’t talk about women’s issues if acknowledging sexism is banned. 

We talk a lot about how it’s homophobic to tell lesbians that they need to be open to dating males.

But by focusing on on how harmful this is to lesbians, we leave bisexuals behind.

Many trans people have an attitude of “If lesbians/gay men don’t want me, at least bisexuals do.” And that’s just not true, and not fair to bisexuals. It leads to a culture of expecting bisexual women to be okay with any configuration of biological sex, hormonal status, and body parts.

Bisexuals are therefore framed as a group of women who are supposed to be available as a potential partner for anyone who wants them.

So it’s not just homophobic, it’s part of rape culture. Because it aims to teach (mostly) women that they’re not allowed to form their own feelings about their sexuality and their attraction. It teaches women that their sexuality isn’t for them. Their sexuality is a political statement, and there is a right and wrong statement to make.

The fact of the matter is that no one has to date someone they’re not attracted to. No one has to try to develop attraction for someone they’re not innately interested in. No one has to “examine their preferences” when it comes to who they want in their bed. This includes bisexuals.

Yes, women standing up for ourselves does lead to a lot of lonely mtfs who can’t get dates. No, that is not women’s problem.

This affects all of us, but it affects bisexuals in a unique way that’s worth talking more about.

in fandom, "who's the top and who's the bottom" is heteronormativity to the highest degree. it is quite literally a progressive, "queer" way of asking "who's the man and who's the woman in the relationship?"

the top is always the more masculine one, big and strong, owning the bottom, doing the penetrating. the bottom is always the more feminine one, referred to as "wife," "princess," "babygirl," being owned by the top, being penetrated. and 9 times out of 10, this top/bottom bullshit is in reference to a M/M pairing— you want a traditional heterosexual couple but you're so incredibly misogynistic you can't even bear the presence of a woman even if she is being degraded, so you make the "bottom" take her place.

i don’t give a fuck if men feel like they’re being excluded from feminism. it’s not meant for them anyways!! something this app needs to understand is that activist movements like feminism, black liberation, lgb rights NEED to be exclusionary so they don’t get derailed. feminists are expected to be the universal mommies to men and cater to their interests. i don’t want to babysit men into caring about women. our collective goal should be to free women from patriarchy, you know? that thing that MEN CREATED??

exclusion of women from spiritual leadership (priests, pastors, imams, pandits etc.) is an explicit message that women are not fully human. women are not worthy to lead because they are inferior and deficient. they need a man to connect them to god, god did not make them equal with men

it isn't just about having female voices at the pulpit, it's an ideological foundation on which religions build their sex-class system. exclusion of women from leadership is a statement about the place of women. it encourages men to oppress and commit violence against women. it degrades the self worth of women until they learn to accept their abuse as divine. spiritual exclusion is how religions codify female inferiority as the will of god and it leads directly to real harm against women

i really like the definition of “adult human female” because it says “thats all it is. its not femininity, makeup, submissiveness, softness, anything. all it is is biology. the rest is up to the individual”

Yeah these people don't seem like transmisogynists to me or anything