#goldtxt

[competingaccessneeds]

So why *can't* we have a word for, "adult human female?" Seems like a significant group with lots in common (and lots to talk about.) And why can't that word be "woman?"

[moraysaint]

i feel i can talk more about this here, which is definitely comforting

[competingaccessneeds]

I'll reiterate in its own post that the thing gender-supporters don't understand about their analogies, and why we say they don't work, is that women--female people--are the marginalized class in each of these scenarios. Women having resources set aside from them need it for the same reason as black & native people, or the disabled having their own Olympics, or the general concept of food stamps, or laws against housing discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation; it's not the same as white people excluding nonwhite people from restrooms, or giving special treatment to straight people. The fundamental ignorance that women are the underclass is what leads to this misunderstanding; this lack of a concept of misogyny among the pantheon of bigoted -isms up there with racism, homophobia, ableism, and the like; this idea that we're the privileged group, or that men & women are systemically on equal footing, and that we're choosing to be the aggressors by taking extra and "striking first" (rather than back) when we reach for these accommodations. Because the world is already equal for us, and how dare we want more, aim to better it for ourselves.

[competingaccessneeds]

"What's the harm in letting 'woman' change meaning from adult female human' to clothing and behavior?"

Because what we're left with is dehumanizing.

Because just "female" does not indicate "human." Because just "human" is not female, and pretending sex-blindness is just as bad as pretending racial colorblindness. Because stereotypes, clothing, and roles don't comprise our inner diversity or humanity.

Because we shouldn't be the ones who have to pack up and move.

[competingaccessneeds]

>Be me, getting back into Feminism and trying to philosophize a compromise for natal & trans women.

>Realización.

"Wait. You can't have 'cis privilege' if you're female.

"And because female humans [entire half of the population (with shared experience in material reality)] can't have cis privilege, cis privilege is thus effectively useless as a term, given that there can only be 2 'cis' categories & given the only way 'cis' can be differentiated from 'trans' is predicated on the existence of the sex binary.

>Cis privilege can't be real because female people still don't have it either way.

>MFW

[competingaccessneeds]

You might say, "'Woman' is more than a biological category now, because language changes," but in which direction has it changed, and is it helpful? Maybe keeping 'woman' as referring exclusively to an adult human female is better for that class of people who has been historically exploited on the basis of their sex. Gender is just the side-effect of that, the toxic result. I really don't think we should be celebrating gender, because it inevitably leads to celebrating gender roles.

[competingaccessneeds]

"diversify women's spaces by adding men" okay. diversify the paralympics by adding abled people. diversify affirmative action by letting white people participate. diversify housing programs by letting rich people dip in. diversify

[competingaccessneeds]

It's considered rude and misgendering whether one uses the words, "man," "amab," or, "person with a penis/y chromosome." You'd be indicating that not only is there a coherent, definable oppressor-class, but also who belongs to it. It looks like the goal isn't to stick to inoffensive language; it's rather always been about not pointing out who wields social power and what that power is based on. The whole point is to get rid of the language and ability to perceive and define an axis of marginalization that exists on womanhood, specifically.

[competingaccessneeds]

When you define the "right to not face discrimination" as the "right to dip into a marginalized community's resources as a member of the oppressor class," you have to acknowledge you've just opened up every other marginalized community to the same from their oppressors.

[competingaccessneeds]

Trans women in women's sports -> domination of women's sports -> corporations pour more money into male-born athletes -> women's sports disappear. No, this is not a slippery slope or fearmongering; Yes, this is already happening.

[competingaccessneeds]

The only problem I can conceive of running into by telling men, "Let us keep our sexual selection--it's your own fault you guys are riddled with aesthetic genetic defects like baldness and shortness," is that most of them won't care. The ugliest among them wants access to his own supermodel. The "problem" incels have with their looks has everything to do with the fact that women in a freer world can turn them down. If they each had their own sex slave, they wouldn't fret about their appearance at all. To them, the beautiful thing about a world where women don't have any choice is that they can look any way they want--zero effort, ailments for days--without appealing to our desire (irrelevant, something we're not supposed to have anyway) whatsoever, just so long as they have other means of power to exert over us and rope us into servitude.

[competingaccessneeds]

What kind of "conservative" would go so hard for gender nonconformity, as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and women's rights, the way we do?

[competingaccessneeds]

"Everything should be co-ed."

"Women's sports could disappear."

"Absurd. But, why do we need women's sports at all? Isn't separation of the sexes regressive?"

"I wish. If sports become co-ed, male-born people will outperform female-born people, taking their spots and scholarships (as has been happening.) Soon, no organizations will 'waste' money sponsoring 'afab' people, and instead start selecting for 'amab'-only-bodies, making the claim that they can still be gender-diverse so long as their teams include trans women and nonbinary amabs. Women will be forced to start their own leagues again, and will likely be shot down in this new climate for their exclusivity."

"You're sexist against women for suggesting men can outperform them. Besides, why is the disappearance of women's sports a problem? The difference between men and women is nonexistent."

"We can say it's inconsequential as soon as [a] our bodies really do evolve to be completely the same (they're not--the y chromosome and male puberty give men extreme advantages over women even while the former takes hormones), and [b] society's treatment of female people is no longer different. The question, 'Why shouldn't all sports be co-ed?' may as well ask why women deserve to participate in sports at all, and why sports shouldn't just be a male-exclusive activity/profession. This isn't hyperbole."

"Society doesn't mistreat female people--it mistreats feminine-presenting people only; mistreatment is based on gender."

"So, women who lose against men are just not trying hard enough, and women are to blame for their own mistreatment due to the way they dress?"

[competingaccessneeds]

An underprivileged man does not a woman make, as it is for anyone of any other privilege-oppression combination. They don't cancel out.

[competingaccessneeds]

"AMAB privilege, male privilege, penis-haver privilege, becockened privilege, y-chrome privilege," are all forbidden to acknowledge on the progressive feminist left, but "AFAB privilege" is probably real. /s

[competingaccessneeds]

In addition to the function the term "TERF" serves, the term "crypto TERF" also allows for all other feminist talking points--even those unrelated to issues of gender and trans politics--to be dismissed, forbidden, and vilified.