jk-scrolling

[jk-scrolling]

My stallion makes both sperm and ova. Hot and cold running. Guess he's just a little more special than yours.

If you asked me if I had a pet and I said “yes, I have a stallion”, you know exactly what I am talking about.

I have a male horse. That is his definition. Just a word that describes him based on his sex and his species.

That doesn’t mean that’s ALL I see him as. He could be my best friend, my confidant, and we provide each other affection and happiness. I would groom and clean him, feed him, take him out riding everyday, bond with him. I would treat him when he’s sick - pay thousands of dollars to treat an unjustly or infection. He’s my best buddy and I love him. He is a Stallion, but his definition is not what he is to me.

Other people in the world purchase stallions for one reason and one reason only. To make money and breed. Someone could purchase a stallion, put it through gruelling paces to train it to its full potential, even at the cost of his health. He would be groomed and fed only because it increases the worth of his performance and thus his sperm. The only things he gets is to further his usefulness as either a horse whose actions directly make money, including his genetic material. He is not given affection or love outside of this. If he became injured, he would be put down. This is someone who only treats a stallion as his definition - a male horse capable of producing sperm that can be exchanged for money.

A man is a human male. He is in possession of a Y chromosome(s). His genetic instructions will attempt to create sperm. He may or may not succeed. He will NEVER produce ova.

A woman is a human female. She is only in possession of X chromosomes. Her genetic instructions will attempt to create ova. She may or may not succeed. She will NEVER produce sperm.

I do not see men and women as their definitions. We are people with feelings and dreams and lives.

Some people DO see others as simply a means of reproduction - mostly men in regards to women across the world. Our sex is what we are oppressed by. It is not all we are, it is just that some people want to own us simply for being women - like the stallion. CONTINUING to defining man and woman on the basis of species and sex is important because sex is the basis on which women are oppressed and if we can’t define our oppression and make policies off that then we will devolve.

We have a definition for men. We have a definition for women. This is all that is, a definition.

No one can be both. No one can switch between the two.

[jk-scrolling]

You transparently just want an excuse to talk about your horse.

If you asked me if I had a pet and I said “yes, I have a stallion”, you know exactly what I am talking about.

I have a male horse. That is his definition. Just a word that describes him based on his sex and his species.

That doesn’t mean that’s ALL I see him as. He could be my best friend, my confidant, and we provide each other affection and happiness. I would groom and clean him, feed him, take him out riding everyday, bond with him. I would treat him when he’s sick - pay thousands of dollars to treat an unjustly or infection. He’s my best buddy and I love him. He is a Stallion, but his definition is not what he is to me.

Other people in the world purchase stallions for one reason and one reason only. To make money and breed. Someone could purchase a stallion, put it through gruelling paces to train it to its full potential, even at the cost of his health. He would be groomed and fed only because it increases the worth of his performance and thus his sperm. The only things he gets is to further his usefulness as either a horse whose actions directly make money, including his genetic material. He is not given affection or love outside of this. If he became injured, he would be put down. This is someone who only treats a stallion as his definition - a male horse capable of producing sperm that can be exchanged for money.

A man is a human male. He is in possession of a Y chromosome(s). His genetic instructions will attempt to create sperm. He may or may not succeed. He will NEVER produce ova.

A woman is a human female. She is only in possession of X chromosomes. Her genetic instructions will attempt to create ova. She may or may not succeed. She will NEVER produce sperm.

I do not see men and women as their definitions. We are people with feelings and dreams and lives.

Some people DO see others as simply a means of reproduction - mostly men in regards to women across the world. Our sex is what we are oppressed by. It is not all we are, it is just that some people want to own us simply for being women - like the stallion. CONTINUING to defining man and woman on the basis of species and sex is important because sex is the basis on which women are oppressed and if we can’t define our oppression and make policies off that then we will devolve.

We have a definition for men. We have a definition for women. This is all that is, a definition.

No one can be both. No one can switch between the two.

[jk-scrolling]

Kinkposts are back. Hmm. Making me almost doubt what I was seeing earlier. Wonder if it's a cycle of posting then mass reporting happening.

It's so interesting how the "detrans" tag has gone from being mostly kink posts to being solidly nonsexual detransition posts since the last time I checked it a few weeks ago.

Did you guys decide you were going to take back the tag en mass?

[jk-scrolling]

If you're in the US and you're serious about not having a baby, get an IUD while they're still legal.

[jk-scrolling]

It's so interesting how the "detrans" tag has gone from being mostly kink posts to being solidly nonsexual detransition posts since the last time I checked it a few weeks ago.

Did you guys decide you were going to take back the tag en mass?

[jk-scrolling]

Trans people (as well as the people you call TRAs) don't believe you because we catch you lying about things we know more about than you. When you have an agenda on your sleeve, and when we catch you lying ONCE to support that agenda, when we catch you supporting your stance with sources that are known to be trash, nothing else you say on that matter will be believed.

[jk-scrolling]

Self-declared radfems will be like "I'm not a fascist, I just laugh at their jokes and use their slang and believe their beliefs."

[jk-scrolling]

[jk-scrolling]

I do wish that "oppositional sexism" was a more commonly known term. It was coined as part of transmisogyny theory, and is defined as the belief that men and women, are distinct, non-overlapping categories that do not share any traits. If gender was a venn diagram, people who believe in oppositional sexism think that "men" and "women" are separate circles that never touch.

The reason I think that it's a useful term is that it helps a lot with articulating exactly why a lot of transphobic people will call a cis man a girl for wearing nail polish, then turn around and call a trans woman a man. Both of those are enforcement of man and woman as non-overlapping social categories. It's also a huge part of homophobia, with many homophobes considering gay people to no longer really belong to their gender because they aren't performing it to their satisfaction.

It's a large part of the reason behind arguments that men and women can't understand each other or be friends, and/or that either men or women are monoliths. If men and women have nothing in common at all, it would be difficult for them to understand each other, and if all men are alike or all women are alike, then it makes sense to treat them all the same. Enforcing this rift is particularly miserable for women and men in close relationships with each other, but is often continued on the basis that "If I'm not a real man/woman, they won't love me anymore."

One common "progressive" form of oppositional sexism is an idea often put as the "divine feminine", that women are special in a way that men will never understand. It's meant to uplift women, but does so in ways that reinforce the idea that men and women are fundamentally different in ways that can never be reconciled or transcended. There's a reason this rhetoric is hugely popular among both tradwifes and radical feminists. It argues that there is something about women that men will never have or know, which is appealing when you are trying to define womanhood in a way that means no man is or ever has been a part of it.

You'll notice that nonbinary people are sharply excluded from the definition. This doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them, it means that oppositional sexism doesn't believe nonbinary people of any kind exist. It's especially rough on multigender people who are both men and women, because the whole idea of it is that men and women are two circles that don't overlap. The idea of them overlapping in one person is fundamentally rejected.

I think it's a very useful term for talking about a lot of the problems that a lot of queer people face when it comes to trying to carve out a place for ourselves in a society that views any deviation from rigid, binary categories as a failure to perform them correctly.

[jk-scrolling]

jk rowling is so #girlboss and supports all of us women 🥰✌

[jk-scrolling]

JK Rowling is trying to sue people for sharing a screenshot of this tweet that she liked where somebody defends the Taliban.

Now I'm only showing this so people know what not to share. Please spread around the fact that JK Rowling doesn't want that screenshot to be shared so people know not to share it!

[jk-scrolling]

Maybe non TERF feminists and trans people should use the /j tag more for TERFs' sake. I keep seeing things like the following:

I had thought that they were pretending to take obvious hyperbole and absurdist wise cracks as indicative of sincerely held activist beliefs because it gave them an excuse to whine about how TRAs have really gone too far this time and they must be stopped. You know, like Fox News pundits often will with random jokey tweets.

But like they're not flinching. Maybe this is just a sincere failure to get it.

(To be clear, this isn't a plausibly deniable way of calling TERFs autistic. Some of the wittiest people on this site are autistic. I think it may be that they give feminists and trans people so little credit for intelligence and critical thought that they think they're incapable of cracking jokes. Which, having talked to them, seems to come from a failure to believe that other people can have the same information you do and come to a different conclusion about what it means or make a different choice than you'd have made without being stupid.)

[jk-scrolling]

So, JK Rowling liked this post but is now sending C&D letters to people who share the screenshot.

Anyways, common terf/gc mindset.

[jk-scrolling]

You know, if ten percent, fifty percent...well, as many people as wanted to transition decided to transition, I think that would be great actually. I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.

[jk-scrolling]

You know what? Sick of hearing about social contagion. "Why are all the kids trans now?" It's the Alex Jones chemical that makes frogs gay. Sorry, conversion therapy is pointless in these circumstances, all these people have been exposed to the gay frogs chemical and they've been mutated on the cellular level, so there's really nothing to be done except allow them to transition in whatever manner and degree they're comfortable with.

Throw in that the gay frogs chemical leaches into the groundwater through fracking, and maybe we can even get action on climate change out of it.

[jk-scrolling]

amazing

[jk-scrolling]

There seem to be a handful of accounts on radblr who have the jaunty, freewheeling tumblr funnyman personality down pat.

I wonder if they hang out on radblr so they don't have to compete.