red-swan-theory

[red-swan-theory]

fuck yeah !!!!!!!!!

[red-swan-theory]

Link to animated version

[red-swan-theory]

Slightly animated version on my page

[red-swan-theory]

Link to the animated version on my page

[red-swan-theory]

One of the main things that radicalized me as a young feminist was realizing that while some roles and jobs were "for women", the second there is prestige and power associated with them, they became "for men". Cooking in the home is a women's job, but being a professional chef is a male dominated field. Women are expected to do all the labor of raising children, but the man is the "head of the household". A man with an interest in the arts might be called a "sissy" or "not a real man" or "gay" but it's still straight men who get the most recognition as actors or singers or writers or painters. It makes you realize that it was never about the content of the roles themselves but about power.

[red-swan-theory]

She kept her problems to herself. Others considered her strong and independent. They did not perceive that she was as vulnerable as a spider’s web. Touch it, and it disintegrates.

Higuchi Ichiyō, “Troubled Waters” from In the Shade of Spring Leaves

[red-swan-theory]

when your stomach is really mad at you and you're not sure which one of your fourteen unhealthy lifestyle choices is causing it

[red-swan-theory]

Not Feminism, Just Fatalism: Dissecting Blackpill Ideology

Blackpill feminism isn’t feminism. It is the nihilistic corpse of it. It doesn’t want liberation - it wants resignation.

The core points of blackpill 'feminism' :

⛔ bioessentialist

Blackpill theory claims male dominance is biological - not cultural, not social, just inevitable. Therefore, it also sees female subjugation as biologically hardwired and inescapable. All men are inherently born evil. All women are inherently born victims. There’s no room for transformation, change, or resistance - only despair.

⛔ fatalist

Between seeing the depth of patriarchy and letting it break your spine, blackpill feminism stops at the diagnosis and calls it a cure. It borrows radical feminist talking points and radical feminist theory but strips it of any revolutionary energy. It replaces collective action with emotional paralysis. Instead of dismantling the system, it tells you to rot with dignity.

⛔ separatism as a moral requirement

Female separatism (coined by lesbians in the 1970s within radical feminist circles) is a political and social ideology that calls for women, especially lesbians, to separate from men entirely, emotionally, economically, sexually, and politically, as a form of resistance to patriarchy. According to blackpill ideology, true liberation is only possible by severing all ties with men. Women in heterosexual relationships are complicit in their own oppression. Blackpill feminism doesn’t view female separatism as a political strategy - it sees it as a moral purity test.

⛔ anti heterosexuality

Blackpill theory doesn’t just critique heterosexual dynamics, it declares all heterosexual love inherently impossible, degrading, and delusional. It tells women that if they feel love for a man, they’re brainwashed. If they’re in a straight relationship, they’re oppressed by default. If they long for connection, they’re 'still under the male spell.'

⛔ portraying of misogyny / victim blaming

In blackpill feminist spaces, women who fall in love with a man, have heterosexual relationships, marry, have children - especially male children - are branded as backstabbers and class traitors. Calling women traitors for building families, loving men, or simply surviving within the system isn’t radical. Male violence against women is often argued to be a "deserved consequence".

After unpacking the pillars of blackpill feminism: bioessentialism, fatalism, separatist moralism, anti-heterosexuality, and internalized misogyny, the central failure becomes obvious:

Blackpill feminism is incapable of producing change.

Not just because it refuses to try, but because it structurally rejects the very idea that change is possible. It is a worldview built entirely on stasis, pessimism, and emotional exhaustion, masquerading as clarity.

Let's break down why this ideology collapses under its own weight:

Diagnosis ≠ Liberation

Blackpill feminists often excel at identifying the cruelty of patriarchy. They speak openly about the depths of male violence, the socialization of women into submission, the daily psychological toll of gender roles.

But naming the disease is not the same as curing it - and this is the breaking point.

Blackpill feminism stops at the wound and builds a shrine around it. It turns pain into identity, suffering into doctrine. Instead of using rage as a starting point for rebellion, it turns rage inward and freezes it in place. The only "solution" it offers is withdrawal and emotional numbness.

It offers no political strategy, only personal punishment

Liberation movements require tools: collective action, solidarity, negotiation, resistance, and vision.

Blackpill feminism offers none of these.

It doesn't build anything - no organizing, no community care, no policy vision, no education strategy.

Instead, it enforces moral purity codes:

- If you date men, you're brainwashed.

- If you love men, you're a traitor.

- If you give birth to a son, you're complicit.

- If you want intimacy, you're corrupted.

This isn't politics. It's ideological surveillance masquerading as ethics.

A theory that blames women for surviving patriarchy in the only ways available to them isn't liberatory — it's punitive.

And punishment is not a feminist method.

Its bioessentialism mirrors the logic of misogyny

Blackpill ideology claims male violence is inborn and female suffering is natural. This is not a radical position, it’s the exact same logic used to justify patriarchy for centuries.

“Men are naturally dominant.”

“Women are naturally weak.”

“Male violence is inevitable."

"Female suffering is inevitable."

These aren’t truths. These are the justifications men use to maintain power.

If your theory of feminism ends in agreeing with misogynistic ideas about biology, you're not opposing the system, you're cosigning it with a sad face of resignation.

No liberation can emerge from a worldview that defines women as inherently powerless and men as inherently abusive because it paints change as impossible.

It fails to account for human complexity

Blackpill feminism flattens people into archetypes:

- All men are monsters.

- All women who love men are fools or traitors.

- Only the celibate, bitter separatist is “awake.”

There’s no room for complexity, contradiction, or evolution. No space for women who resist in quiet/different ways. No compassion for coping mechanisms / women stuck in disadvantaged situations. No understanding of how survival sometimes means compromise.

Movements that can’t account for emotional nuance or lived complexity are doomed to alienate the very people they claim to fight for.

No movement built on despair will set someone free

Feminism, at its root, is not just about revealing injustice, it’s about transforming the world and achieve female liberation.

Blackpill feminism does the first, but it fails catastrophically at the second.

It confuses hopelessness for insight, and suffering for clarity.

Real feminist politics demands more than observation, it demands imagination!

Blackpill feminism offers no way forward.

You accept female oppression under the patriarchy, now what..?

Delusional utopianism - the matriarchal fantasy ignores current reality

Blackpill feminism doesn’t just tell women to separate, it dreams of building a total female-only world, a matriarchy where:

- Women never have children, or only female children.

- All male fetuses are aborted.

- Men are eventually "phased out" entirely.

Love, care, intimacy, and survival are achieved without ever engaging a man again.

This isn’t resistance, this is science fiction disguised as theory.

It asks: “Why don’t women just abort all male fetuses?”, “Why don’t women just stop having babies?”, "Why do women not stop partnering with men?"

As if most women even have meaningful access to abortion, let alone the power to build an alternate society in the margins of a collapsing world.

Most women are:

- Fighting for basic healthcare

- Navigating poverty

- Locked in legal systems that punish abortion and make it hard to gain access to sterilization

- Trapped in relationships because of economic dependency

- And just trying to survive another day

How about we solve those problems first before we ask those questions?

This utopianism doesn’t liberate women, it blames them for not achieving the impossible.

The blackpill matriarchal vision isn’t a roadmap.

It’s a coping fantasy for disillusioned chronically-online theorists who no longer live in the present.

It demands radical outcomes while refusing to deal with radical reality.

Liberation doesn’t come from escaping the world, it comes from transforming it and for that to happen, you have to see the world for how it is, in its current state.

Blackpill feminism has no plan for the world as it is. That’s why it will never change it.

Conclusion: Blackpill 'feminists' are not feminists.

'Feminist' blackpill theory aligns perfectly with male incel blackpill ideology. Same core idea: "hierarchies are fixed, you’re at the bottom, cope." It's the horseshoe of despair - left or right, it leads to the same pit.

And don’t be fooled, for all its talk of being "realistic", it’s built on the same bioessentialism feminism fought to deconstruct. "Men are innately evil. Women are innately doomed." That’s not truth. That’s just inverted sexism.

Blackpill 'feminists' don’t hate the system. They just hate that it didn’t pick them.

[red-swan-theory]

TERFs: Patriarchy's Hench(wo)men

So, over the last three days I went into the anthropology of the patriarchy, given that it is not natural, but a fairly recent cultural development. I went into the definition of the term, the development of the modern patriarchal hegemony through colonialism, and into the reason why our modern patriarchy seeks to suppress queerness.

To sum it up once more: from all we can say anthropoligically (so from the study of humanity) is that patriarchy as we know it is a fairly recent development, that has not been around for longer than 10 000 years - at least in any form that we would recognize. It developed probably alongside agriculture in some regions, though it developed multiple times. It is highly likely that before it humans lived either egalitarian or under matriarchy, with the main reason for the prevalence of patriarchy today being colonialism and the simple fact that matriarchy is a low control way of organizing a society, while patriarchy tends to be high control. Hence, matriarchies might be converted into patriarchies, but it is near impossible to archive the same in the opposite direction. Through some means (possibily schismogenesis) the version of patriarchy we live under today developed very strict gender roles that are defined in opposition to both each other and the gender roles of some societies that western colonialism suppressed. Because people with any sexuality outside of alloheterosexuality did necessarily break those gender roles, those sexualities became suppressed.

However, today we will talk about transgender people - and about the simple fact that TERFs (who are not really feminist, and most certainly lack a base understanding of what the patriarchy even is, as we can also see in their need to point out that the issue is "men", not the patriarchy) are enforcing the patriarchy.

Do I believe this will be read by TERFs? No. If anything they will probably reblog this after reading the first three lines, without reading any of the text below, let alone the linked sources.

For everyone else, though: I did my best to provide a lotta sources, for the next time you encounter some of these bullshit claims in the wild.

TERFs Sure Love NeoNazis

Technically speaking, this should be a no-brainer, of course, given how often we see the loudest of TERFs align themselves with open neo nazis. Be it Posy Parker allowing outright neo nazis to speak at her ralley in Australia, or be it the fact that Elon Musk - someone who by now used the Hitler Salute multiple times in the open - so often agreed with JK Rowling, something she never pushed back against. And if I know one thing about neo nazis it is that they are pretty much the opposite of feminists. And before some TERF somehow starts to argue the countrary, might I remind you, that it has been shown again and again, that right-wing ideology leads to not only a higher risk of intimate partner violence, but also a willingness to defend IPV.

I know that talking to TERFs is basically like the fight of Don Quixote against his windmills, given that their base understanding of suppression of women is already wrong. The patriarchal hegemony is not something that men do upon women, but a cultural system that is upheld by a majority of the people within it, while also - and this has been proofen again and again - harming the majority of people under it. The patriarchy is upheld by cis women, as much as it is by men. Mothers telling their daughters to not dress skimpy, as this would invite SV, are upholding the patriarchy, as are mothers, who push for their children to be married. Female HR managers (and keep in mind, HR is a majority female field), who will hire a man over a woman are upholding the patriarchy. Same goes for female teachers, telling their female students a short skirt supposedly distracts the male students, or allowing boys to harass girls to a certain degree on the basis of "boys will be boys".

Patriarchy is not "men suppress women", but "a system suppresses everyone". (And because of this, radical feminism is a BS theory beginning to end, as it is centrally build on the "men suppress women" angle.)

So, based on this, let us talk about how TERFs uphold the patriarchy.

TERFs are Intersexist

I want to start with the one thing that does not get acknowledged often enough: TERFs are inherently intersexist. They will again and again claim there are only two sexes. But there aren't. There are many. Intersex people exist, are highly likely to suffer medical abuse, and are way more likely to develop an identity not congruent with their assigned sex, if they get assigned a certain sex at birth.

I say it again: If I, someone with Swyer Syndrome (meaning: I have XY chromosomes, a "vagina" and uterus, and no working gametes), ask different TERFs what sex I am, I will get very different answers. Some will claim I am male, because I have XY chromosomes. Others will claim I am female, because I happen to be born with a hole between my legs.

I was assgined female - due to that hole - but I identify as male.

But the TERFs' attitude already shows the main issue with the ideology: TERFs do the exact thing that caused patriarchy to develop to begin with. They reduce people to their genitalia, and specifically reduce women to the ability to give birth.

Now, nobody doubtst that this ability to give bith is what caused the patriarchal system to develop (as I explained: patrilnear inheritance can only be ensured if a woman is restricted to only have sex with one male partner), however, it has been a long time since it was the main concern of the oppressive system we live under.

This system instead is very much defined by forcing women and men into strict gender roles, which they have to adhere to. The system expects this strict adherence from both women and men, not just one group, and will punish non-adherence in some ways or forms, though the non-adherence is punished differently depending on who is breaking it. A variety of factors, including (assumed) sex, race, age and social status will play into how "disruptive" the system will consider any non-conforming behavior.

TERFs Spread Misinformation on Gender

For the rare chance that an actual TERF is still reading to this point, I might also point out: no, gender roles are not the same as gender. Gender role is the specific set of behaviors that is expected of everyone of a certain gender to perform - and the normative assumption (that TERFs agree with) is that the gender can be assumed from either the chromosomes, or the genitalia in question. This is however not the case.

The truth is, that as of right now, science does not really understand how gender works on a neurological level. But science knows that it is happening on a neurological level. Mainly due to the harsh transphobia, that leads not only to open public violence against us, but also to again and again legal discrimination of us (like the ruling in the UK), a lot of neuro-scientists, and people working in psychology, psychiatry and genetics are very hesitant to further delve into this question. And I as a trans person absolutely get it. I personally hate the pathologization of trans-ness. But this does not change the fact, that being trans is somehow routed in our neurology and psychology. (Which is to remind you: psychology is also a medical field - when you have mental health issues like a depression, there is something physically wrong with your body, that very likely has created a hormonal imbalance in your brain.)

A very simple explanation here: Most of you will be aware that people who have lost a limb due to illness or injury experience phantom pain or phantom sensation. Basically, their brain does perceive that the limb is still there, as the surgery did not remove all neural pathways. We have seen in the past that also some people who never had had a certain limb because of birth defects will at times experience similar sensations. Which does imply that the human brain somehow has a map of "how the body should be". Which brings me to trans people.

Studies have shown that trans women, who went through bottom surgery (so having their penis and ballsack removed, most commonly with then having a neo vagina of some sort created) experience phantom pain/sensations of the phallus way, way less commonly than cis men who had the phallus removed either for medical reasons or through an act of violence. More recently, there also have been multiple studies that showed, that meanwhile quite a significant number of trans men meanwhile do absolutely experience those phantom sensations and at times even phantom pain of the phallus they were not born with. Now, mind you, the experience of bodily dysphoria (which this is linked to) differs massively between different trans people. I personally have massive dysphoria about my breast tissue, but little to no dysphoria about my crotch.

Sadly so far there is little to no studies about phantom sensations in regards to breasts in either trans men post top-surgery, or in trans women pre-HRT and eventual top-surgery. We know that cis women who had mastectomy have at times phantom sensations related to this, but as I said: there is little to no data in regards to trans people, but the data we have on the "phantom phallus" would make me assume it will be similar. Meaning: quite a few trans women might have it before getting breasts, while trans men will probably not have it post top-surgery.

And before someone comes in here with the BS theory of "autogynophilia", two things: a) trans men and non-binary people are real. b) "Autogynophilia" has been disproven again, and again.

And before someone brings up long outdated studies that seemingly proof "autogynophilia", be aware that homosexuality was similarly pathologized for the longest time - often being grouped with exhebitionism and stuff like pedophilia, and somehow we can all agree that that is bullshit, right?

TERFs Agree with the Biggest Misogynists

So, let's get back to the issue of the patriarchy once more.

The patriarchy is build on the idea to assume a) a sex and gender binary that allows them to build an easy hierarchy, b) assume gender and sex being parallel to one another - which again allows the hierarchy to remain simple, and c) then assign gender roles accordingly. A and B are a needed basis for C to even be applied, and are a basis of the hierarchical structure that patriarchy has been constructed around. And guess what TERFs (and a lot of radfems in general) tend to do? They defend A and B, and let's face it, despite being so outspoken about shaving and make-up, it is quite noticable that not only do most prominent TERFs present quite femme, but often enough also defend heteronormativity.

Which also reminds me of another talking-point beloved by TERFs: the idea of sex-based oppression.

Now, I am not going to doubt that in some countries where the patriarchy is enforced in stronger legal forms than it is in the western hegemony, sex-based oppression is a thing. However, I would also ask you to consider that those tend to be the countries, that not only not recognize transgender people at all, but also at times punish trans "behavior" (so dressing or presenting not aligning with one's assigned sex) with imprisonment or even the death penalty. So, once more I got to ask TERFs: why is it your politics align with the most misogynist countries of the world? The ones that actually enforced sex-based oppression.

TERFs Misrepresent Crime Statistics

Because here is th thing: generally speaking within the Western world, where presenting not in allignment with ones sex is generally legal (even though the UK most certainly wants to change this), sex-based oppression happens, but usually happens in medical contexts. Anti-abortion laws undoubtedly are sex-based oppression. As is the fact that women are underrepresented in clinical research, which leads to misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis in women.

But here is the thing: the fact is, that indeed most people "cannot always tell". This goes doubly so if we also consider intersex people, who often grow up not even knowing themselves what their actual sex is. Hence most oppression against women is directed at anyone perceived as a woman. Trans people who pass will be treated as such. Trans men will be treated as men, trans women as women, as long as you do not force them to basically announce all the time they are trans. (In the latter case, trans women will be treated worse than cis women, mind you. No cis man who is misogyn will go: "Oh, so you actually are a guy! Let's go grab a beer." Chances are, they are more likely to turn violent then - especially given that 30 states of the US still allow "trans panic" as a viable legal defense for violence and even murder.) Intersex and non-binary people will also always just be treated based on the assumed gender.

This is while trans people are a lot more likely to be the target of violence than cis people, especially sexual violence. And while trans men are more likely to be the victim of both general physical violence or sexual violence than the average cis woman (though I will once more point out: indigenous cis women are in fact more likely to experience violence than white trans men), trans women are far more likely to be the target of this violence than trans men. This shows especially in regards to the murder statistics. Most trans people murdered are trans women of color.

This I point out, because TERFs - who clearly have never heard of google - love to tout that actually trans men are way more victimized than trans woman, because of their "sex-based oppression". But yeah, all research very clearly shows the opposite.

Now, again, to also push against that other talking point: trans men still are more likely to face discrimination of various kinds than cis women, so please just leave out the dumb "women only transition to male identity to escape the patriarchy" bs hanging. Just as trans people, men, women, and non-binary, are a lot more likely than cis people in every country to be homeless.

I also would love to show you some scientific data on how rare it is for trans people to be perpetrators of crime, but there is an issue: they are so unlikely to be perpetrators, that there is too little data to have proper stastics on this.

As those statistics all show: if you are trans, you are a lot more likely to experience violence, poverty, and homelessness, than if you are cis, even than if you are a cis woman. This likelihood is even bigger if you are non-white.

Because, again: the patriarchy is constructed on enforcing a clear hierarchy with clear roles. It is the punishment of those who break those roles, that is the main oppressive factor of the patriarchy. I will absolutely agree with women who say that the standard role of the woman is one subjected to violence. Being reduced to a "thing" absolutely is violence. And due to a lot of women not wanting to conform to that role anymore they will experience a lot of subtle "punishment" for it. But the patriarchy punishes those who go against the system more strongly with harsher punishments, so queer people of all colors, and especially trans people, as they break with those assigned roles in the strongest way. As such TERFs are doing the work of the patriarchy by enforcing the gender binary and cis-normativity.

TERFs Spread a Wrong Narrative Around Rape

Then let me talk about another, related bullshit point, that proofs very much how much TERFs actually want to support men who suppress women: the entire "bathroom rape" narrative. Though I am willing to give a bit of understanding towards this one, as women are taught the base narrative this is based on everywhere at least. So while the story is made up bullshit based on something that never happened, this is based on a narrative that is very common in our society: the story of the "public space rape".

Even outside of transphobia narratives connected to this are often spouted - especially in white feminist spaces. You know the one: "As a woman I never feel safe when walking home alone/being alone at night at a parking lot/being alone at night at [insert public space]." I am in no way doubting that women do not feel that threat, because it is the most common story we hear about rape: rape is something that is done to women out of nowhere in a lonely, but public space by a stranger. Quite often this goes along with narratives against minorities. Be it the "gang of Black men raping a white woman" or the "psychopathic guy waiting in a lonely park" or now the "man dressing as a woman going into a public bathroom". Those stories have something in common: the perpetrator is a stranger, the victim is a woman, and there is some reasoning behind it, allowing for a "prevention" narrative. Be it "we need to control [racial minority]", be it "we need to criminalize [mental disorder]", be it "women should not go out alone at night", or the oldie but goodie "women should not wear short skirts".

However: This is not how rape happens in the real world, and those people who actually are feminist do their most to fight against those stereotypes. We know that the vast majority of sexual assaults do not get perpetrated by strangers, but by friends, partners, and family members, or at least someone the victim typically interacts with. They do not tend to happen in a public space, but often in private rooms or offices. The majority of cases does not get reported (often because the perpetrator is a friend), does not get followed up on, and do not lead to a conviction (that mostly because of the patriarchy). We also know that about a third of all women tend to have experienced some sort of SA, though the likelihood is higher if the woman is BI_POC, disabled, or queer (including trans women). As stated above: in the US at least the group statistically most likely to be targeted are indigenous women. They are also the one group that is fairly likely to experience the typical narrative "stranger in an open space", due to the legal issues regarding law enforcement on the reservations.

Ironically, though, we do not even have proper statistics on how often cis men experience SA, or on how common lesbian SA is, as most studies focused on male on female SA. There is some evidence that points to the fact that actually men might have been victimized in this way about 27% - so actually close to the statistic of women (32-35% of all women, depending on the statistic). But we have a lack of data.

On the opposite end however, the aforementioned issue strikes: while I have no doubt that there have been a handful of cases where trans people (no matter whether trans men or trans women) have perpetrated sexual violence, there are so few of them that we have absolutely no significant studies on this.

But the fact remains: no, a rapist is probably not going to wait for you in a public bathroom. Chances are they are not going to wait for you in a public park or in some lonely alley at night either. You are far more likely to be raped in your own bedroom or living room, than anywhere else. If this happens to you, the perpetrator will most likely be a friend, a family member, or even someone you are dating, if not even your married partner.

And even though I know this is dumb, and insignificant "got'cha": why would a man, who is highly likely to get away with raping a woman, go not only through the effort of so much as buying a dress and putting on make-up, let alone actually try to transition with HRT, surgeries, a lot of bureaucracy and so on, highly increasing "his" own likelihood to experience violence in turn?

I am sorry, but nobody can sincerely claim this!

And yes, this is another perspective in which TERFs help the patriarchy. Because the patriarchy loves the narrative of the "stranger rapist in a public place", as it keeps the fault pinned on minorities and the women themselves, rather than dealing with the rape culture that indeed is a thing that exists - just not the way it is described in so many contexts. It is the belief that certain people - mainly cis, influential men - should have sexual access to other people, men and women, they desire.

And before I move on to the last point: The same as with the bullshit claim about bathrooms, goes for domestic violence programs. While this area is not studies very well, we know that trans people are much more likely than cis people to experience domestic violence, both in terms of IPV, and parental/familar violence. This is the reason that trans people make up such a large percentage of homeless people (as mentioned above), and why among homeless youth trans kids are among the biggest groups. Because of this it is essential that crisis centers are open for trans people. Because we otherwise will not survive - and we statistically speaking are in fact less likely than cis people to be violent towards other people there.

TERFs Think Men Are Better Than Women

So, let me get to the last big point: the entire sports narrative.

You know, whenever a non-white, a bit more masculine woman, who might in some cases also be intersex - but not always is - wins in a competition, TERFs will go to the trenches of twitter to proclaim that this woman is actually a trans woman, which in TERF logic is a man.

This, ironically, is probably the clearest example of TERFs screaming: "We love the patriarchy! Please, men, oppress us more!" Because history shows, that the gender-segregation of sports mainly exists to preserve one thing: the male ego, and the patriarchal narrative of men being physically supperior to women. The most recent example of this is the shooting event. This event was usually not segregated at the olympics. After all: why would it be? That was until Zhang Shan won Gold at the Olympics. The event first banned women, before being segregated. And history does show that this has happened several times before. A lot of sports only got segregated once the women started winning. So, no, this never was about equal chances. A lot of athletes know this. And in fact, past sex testing in sport was often opposed by the athletes - partly because it was demeaning, and partly because it often caused sexual violence against the female athletes. But we all know that TERFs clearly prefer adult cis men to look into the panties of primary school kids, to even so much as a pre-pubescent child being "subjected" to the horror of having to do sports with a trans kid. /hj

This obviously is all bullshit either way, given that studies so far show, that after 3 to 5 years of HRT the performance of athletes normalizes to the one typically associated with their gender, often faster for trans men. And this is while there is actual proper scientific doubt towards the common narrative, that the main predictor of sport performance is testosterone.

In Conclusion

TERFs and anyone who wants to uphold the gender binary and pushes for the narrative that helps to uphold the patriarchy. They are in fact the staunches defenders of both the patriarchy and the so claimed rape culture, by further spreading the same narratives that help to uphold those. Most noteably TERFs most strongly align in their believes about sex and gender with far-right groups - groups that generally are well known for their suppression of women. This does show, too, in the political allies that TERFs tend to choose: religious, conservative, if not outright nazi-aligned groups.

Do I think this wall of text is going to change anyone's personal beliefs? No. Because bigots tend to be immune to facts, science and statistics. Otherwise they would not be bigots to begin with. But at the very least I hope that maybe I have provided a handy list of sources for the next time any of you see some bullshit TERF talking points.

[red-swan-theory]

Ao3 does not need an algorithm, you're just lazy

Ao3 does not need a 1-5 star rating system, you just want to bring down authors writing for FREE

Ao3 does not need automatic censorship, it is an archive, therefore anything can be posted

Writing or reading about something illegal does not mean the author nor the reader condones it, if that were true, you could never read a story involving anything negative

Purity culture is ruining fan culture and you all are fucking annoying

[red-swan-theory]

Let's just call this what it is. It's abuse.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended that women are offered painkillers before IUD insertion. Here are just a handful of what women had to say about this news:

[red-swan-theory]

Asagiri is a GENIUS. Shin Soukoku Analysis

Ok so WOW. There’s been a major shift in both Akutagawa and Atsushi in the newest chapter that I can’t even begin to express the importance of! It really ignited a SSKK fire in me, so I’ve decided to finally get my thoughts about their dynamic out into words. This is really long my bad...

As we all know, Atsushi and Akutagawa did not clash well when they first met, AT ALL. They both harboured intense anger towards each other, but why? Why did they hate each other so much?

The abuse Atsushi endured drilled into him that he was worthless, unlovable, a monster etc and he internalised his pain. Atsushi feels a desperate need to prove these statements as false, he feels a desperate need to prove that he is good. To do that, he uses himself as a sacrifice again and again and throws himself around carelessly. He’s so focused on the idea of proving himself that he becomes self-sacrificing to the point of self-erasure. So focused on being the good guy that he doesn’t care what happens to him in the process. He’s reckless and selfless in the most self-serving way.

Akutagawa on the other hand, has come to believe that pain = power and power = worth. The survival of the fittest mindset followed him through the slums so he and Gin could survive, Dazai reinforced this belief again and again with the abuse he put Akutagawa through. Once he was an adult, the belief that pain = power and power = worth was heavily ingrained in his mind and he chases after Dazai as the one who can prove his pain made him strong and worthy. He externalised his pain, and instead of fearing he’ll hurt others, he fears of being too weak to prove his strength and defend what he cares about, even if he has to hurt others to do that. 

Then, these two opposite forces meet and immediately repel…

Atsushi sees Akutagawa as someone who lets their pain define them. He sees someone who leaned into the suffering they endured and embraced it, projecting it outwards onto the world that wronged them. He sees someone who gave up, who let that internal darkness consume them and drive them to hatred. Atsushi sees everything he fears he’ll become in Akutagawa, and it scares him. 

Akutagawa sees Atsushi as someone weak, so weak that it's pathetic. Someone who pushes themselves down and muffles their voice so much that they’re harming themself in the process. He sees someone soft, emotionally expressive and vulnerable, yet despite this, Atsushi is someone who has been chosen. It ignites a rage in him. Atsushi’s very existence threatens the fragile narrative Akutagawa has built to justify his suffering.

It goes deeper than this though. Atsushi and Akutagawa not only embody what the other hates most, they embody what the other hates most about themselves. After all, they’re both human.

Atsushi was hurt badly, he suffered, and it left a hole in his heart. He’s angry. Deep down he’s hurt and upset and he feels hatred towards all who wronged him, but that anger is what he’s so afraid of. For someone so set on proving his abuser wrong and proving he’s a good person, he hates the anger he carries because he believes it's the very thing that's proving he IS a monster, it's the very thing he’s desperately fighting against. Atsushi sees in Akutagawa what he’d become if he stopped suppressing that anger and it terrifies him.

Akutagawa feels sadness and fear, he has a soft side, he has vulnerability. These are all things that make him weak. He needs to be strong. He needs apathy, indifference and brutality to be worthy in this world, so he hates the softer side of him that he can’t muffle no matter how hard he tries. His humanity is the very thing proving that he IS weak, the very thing he’s desperately fighting against. Akutagawa sees everything that proves he’s weak in Atsushi, but then he sees Atsushi getting chosen and praised for that weakness, which breaks apart the entire system he’s built his beliefs on. It terrifies him.

Here’s where the most amazing thing happens; they start to understand each other. As the manga has continued to progress, we’ve seen Atsushi and Akutagawa understand each other more and more, and care about each other more and more. The more they learn about each other, the more they realise how similar they actually are. The flaws they saw and hated in each other at the start, become things that they accept about one another, learning that they were both just trying to survive. The thing is, while they slowly accepted the things they hated about each other, they were forced to confront and accept those same things about themselves. Throughout their journey, they’ve been learning to love not just each other, but themselves too. <3

For two people who had the belief “I am not enough” carved into their souls, seeing them care so much about each other, so much so that they SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES for each other,

Is a silent reassurement they give to themselves and each other that they ARE enough. That’s what makes their bond so beautiful - they can’t truly see the other’s worth without accepting their own.

So when Akutagawa says this,

He’s finally admitting what his actions have been saying all along. He cares for and loves Atsushi, which subsequently means he’s admitting that he now cares for and loves himself. For the first time in the entire manga, Akutagawa’s will to live shifts from getting Dazai’s approval to Atsushi, but not just Atsushi, what Atsushi has awakened in him. He no longer needs a reason to live, he no longer needs an external strength to keep fighting, because HE is enough, Atsushi is enough, together THEY’RE ENOUGH.

That’s what makes this such a special moment in Akutagawa’s journey. It’s just so beautiful and I’m so proud of him.

Unfortunately we haven’t seen an equivalent in Atsushi… YET… but he's SO close I swear, we’ve all seen his recent growth in the newest chapter,

This scene obviously means a lot, and it has a lot of symbolism towards Atsushi healing, but on top of that…

He’s letting his anger out :) he’s not so afraid of that part of him anymore, he’s already at the point of embracing the part of him he’d feared this whole time <3

Shin Soukoku the soulmates you are! Wow!

[red-swan-theory]

Link to the slightly animated version

Loved making it

[red-swan-theory]

Tagging this with gay fandoms sorry

There's currently a European proposition to ban conversion practice in Europe

If you're European please sign it

If you're not please reblog

Edit 1: Just in case the previous link doesn't bring you where you need here

Edit 2: It's EU not Europe sorry

[red-swan-theory]

Ban conversion therapy in the EU❗

hey guys idk if you're aware but the organization Act LGBT has started a petition to try and ban conversion therapy in the EU, in the hopes that it gets brought before the european commission if it manages to get to 1 million signatures in the next couple of days. for now we're halfway there!!

If you see this and you're from the EU pls sign it I promise it only takes a minute 🙏

Link to Act LGBT's Instagram below where they keep posting updates and share more information on conversation therapy:

https://www.instagram.com/act_lgbt?igsh=MWxndHB5anF2MTlxMA==

[red-swan-theory]

If you’re european and can vote please sign!

In any case, share as much as you can (to friends, family, outside of tumblr if you can!)

[red-swan-theory]

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/043/public/#/screen/home

This is a link to a petition to ban conversion therapy in the EU. It's super important (it's been labeled as torture by the UN!) and it ends on May 17! Please sign it if you can and are willing to give your personal info as they verify everything. If you're not, fine, but please take the time to share it with people who would be willing to. Thanks to everyone in advance!