imagine a world where toilet paper isn’t available for free because “someone might steal it! we would have to restock all the time! it costs money, you know!” so everyone has to carry a bulky, inconvenient pack of toilet-paper with plastic packaging around. anyone seeing your toilet paper or being aware that you’re carrying it is deeply humiliating and gross though. you’re gonna need to find discreet hiding spots for it, and many people are insecure even opening the packaging for the toilet paper in the bathroom because it means everyone knows you’re experiencing a normal biological function, and that’s embarrassing. for some reason. anyways.

This is impossible and obviously unsafe. Please get mental health help 🫶🏼

Obviously (hopefully) the commenter isn’t serious, but here’s a reminder just in case on why you can’t do that:

A lot of people like to think of breast as just “lumps of fat”, but the reality is that breast tissue is very much connected to you just as much as any other body part is. Removal of this tissue without advanced knowledge as to where the blood vessels, nerve endings, and muscles are would almost certainly have fatal or at least debilitating results. Even trained surgeons occasionally mess up and damage the muscles underneath when performing these procedures.

My genuine advice to anyone who struggles with discomfort from their chest, as someone who also struggled with it for some time, is to work on building muscle in that area. Push-ups, bench-presses, flys, etc. will (eventually) work to make your chest appear broader and more muscular; this combined with moderate cardio exercise to reduce body fat has helped me become significantly more comfortable with how this area of my body looks. It takes work, but in the long run it’s worth it and it’s a much safer option than having major surgery. I know this may not help everyone, but I think it’s important to give less-extreme options a try before going to the most risky. And besides, strength training is good for your health anyway, so it’s really a win-win for anyone who gives it a shot.

i think a lot of people internalized the misogynistic idea that “men are rational and women are emotional” and just went “that’s true… but it’s a good thing!” instead of saying “that’s obviously bullshit and we shouldn’t perpetuate this belief in any form”

“For the first time in my life actions I have taken have had tangible, meaningful effects in the world and I’ve seen how our work as antifascists ripples out into society and changes history. I’ve also seen the quieter but in many ways even more powerful effects of the joy, relief, and strength I can bring people who are scared when I have been willing to confront monsters and bullies. Through the solidarity I have been shown I have also learned how deeply meaningful seemingly small acts of kindness can be, through virtue of which I am alive today. I don’t know if I will survive being an antifascist, but I know I wasn’t really surviving not being one, and in the end no one ‘survives’ at all anyway.”

– stinging nettles, Tough Mind, Soft Heart: Nurturing Solidarity In The Struggle Against Fascism (2019)

tin foil hat on but i told yall “proshipping” WAS that serious

they said “oh just because i like incest and pedophilia in fiction doesn’t mean i support it in real life” and then they said “incest and pedophilia emulation porn aren’t real so what’s the problem” then “incest and pedophilia roleplay are just two consenting adults having fun” and now they’re saying “if you want to rape a child/family member you are the victim actually”

but it’s just exploring dark sides of humanity in fiction guys!

really losing my patience for any ‘feminist’ statement to the tune of 'we need feminism because women fill a fundamentally different and necessary role than men and will be better at doing x y or z’. like actually i think we need feminism because it is an unbearable death of the spirit by inches to exist in a world where you are not seen as a fully realized human being because of a single cultural determination, and because a world that enshrines such things creates systems that are fundamentally sick to the core

Make your own life. In some way. Even if you come from money or you have parental support or there’s someone saying they’re willing to care of you.

Your brain and self esteem needs the satisfaction. It’s a human, adult need to feel some control and not under someone’s thumb and to feel like you own something of your own.

At the moment there seems to be this push to treat having kids and raising kids as a fulltime job - including school age children. I’m not convinced that this is what we need. What I’ve seen from the women in my life is that the issues with being a stay at home mum extend beyond being under appreciated & that participation in the workforce outside of the home is extremely valuable.

There’s a quote that’s something like people complained about their lords being bad before they complained that there shouldn’t be lords in the first place. I’m butchering it but the proper version is in a Redstockings paper somewhere.

Relatedly, I am very skeptical of messaging that treats the outside world as a super scary place for women where you are constantly in danger in part because it incentives women to place a higher value on this kind of set up where they can “be taken care of” than it merits.

This is what patriarchy has traditionally offered to women: fall in line, obey, do your woman role correctly, and you will not have to deal with external dangers and hardship.

Exaggeration of the risks outside and downplaying of the risks inside the family both fuel that narrative

Raising kids IS a full-time necessary job, SAHPs don’t need “appreciation”, they need actual spendable money for the full-time job they’re doing. That’s why being a nanny or babysitter is a full-time job, you see, because new humans need a lot of caretaking.

Men can also do this full-time job.

Well it can’t be a full time necessary job across the whole period of childhood because most of my childhood I had a single working parent who would often be gone for work before dawn and back after sunset.

My work is great and we have new mums come back flexibly, less than full time working from home. Very much chosen.

I also think of a friend who is a mum to a toddler-aged child saying how helpful work outside the home is for her identity and wellbeing. Clearly, she doesn’t find it necessary to be a full time stay at home mum despite dad not taking on that role either.

Choosing a paid full time stay at home parent model is choosing other things at the same time including:

• nuclear family model
• “domestic”/private parent vs external working parent (what makes this model better than even having a 50/50 split on home and external work responsibilities?)

A more socialised model of childcare & education allows a child exposure to more influences, which will be protective of if any of those individually is highly controlling.

How would payment work for a full time SAHP? Is this a flat fee? Is the payment taken away if the SAHP pursues work outside the home? Does it offer ability to seek promotions or move between workplaces in line with ambition? What does this mean for dynamics between the parents, if this is a dual parent household?

What model do you think appeals more to conservative politicians? a “supporting women to stay at home” model or universal childcare? Why?

Five Iran Women soccer players defect with help of police following Asian Cup in Australia

Only a few of the Iranian women are safe after being labeled as traitors by the Regime. Their lives, and families’ lives, are in grave danger.

Keep reading

Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke with five members of the the Iranian Women’s soccer team who were granted visas.

They are currently being protected by the police. An offer of aid has also been extended to the remaining players.

‘Irish men are raping women for money all across the country’

“It is a classic case of women being required to simulate emotions in order to please, then being punished for their fakery.”

Unkind, Victoria Smith, pages 115-116.

“Women are expected to perform wanting it in relation to all patriarchal impositions, as women coerced into being raped for pay are expected to perform wanting it. But this performance wins us no real prize: ‘whore’ is meant to punish women for their compliance in their performance of wanting it. ‘Worse than a whore’—bitch, you could say more succinctly—is meant to punish women for refusing to perform wanting it. The ‘choice’ between whore or bitch, wanting it or not wanting it, is not a real choice.

It is the ritualistic bodily intrusions that reinforce women’s social inferiority in the eyes of men and each other. These intrusions constitute a violent process of ideological indoctrination into the myth of female worthlessness. It can take myriad forms—bodily intrusion in the form of bearing unwanted children for your husband, drugging yourself into a stupor to withstand constant dehumanization, being drugged into unconscious stillness by an expert for the benefit of a doctor who wants to surgically rearrange your features, a male ‘friend’ forcing himself on you, another woman hurting you to make you look more attractive to men, or another woman beating you because that’s the only way either of you can experience sexual arousal anymore. It is the means by which we are convinced to want it, an endless cycle of destroying female power-from-within.”
Detransition, Max Robinson

“Through the porn script, female degradation is granted a context in which it is not just permissible, but in which it must be defended against ‘conservative’ forces. The insufficiently degraded woman - the woman who sees herself as more than an object - becomes aberrant, or even (if one empties the term 'fascist’ of all meaning) fascist-adjacent. This is a perspective that extends beyond sexual relations per se and into political interactions, because it informs men’s expectations of where women should be positioned in relation to them……Normative beliefs about women have always been sexualised to suggest we 'love it really’ whether 'it’ happens to be blowjobs, housework, dependency, pain, or having the life choked out of us.”

Unkind, Victoria Smith, pages 120-121

“I knew that the labelling of women in unhealthy relationships as masochistic—that is, seeking and enjoying suffering—has long been standard practice in my profession and in our culture. This is a convenient but highly dangerous way of attempting to explain why so many women fall into self-denying, submissive behavior with men. In reality, women learn these behaviors early, and are consistently rewarded and praised for them. The paradox here is that the behaviors that make a woman vulnerable to mistreatment are the very ones she has been taught are feminine and lovable. The concept of masochism is particularly dangerous because it serves to justify aggression against women—it confirms that “that’s what women really want.””

Men Who Hate Women & The Women Who Love Them, Dr Susan Forward.

Bolding is mine.

top 3 tv pet peeves is how scream-y and shriek-y television makes women. NOT TRUE. not true. women are not wimpy babies. total male propaganda. women are not more sensitive and wimpy than men. the whole women faint at the sight of blood bit of propaganda is especially moronic because women will see more blood over the course of their lifetimes than men ever will. stop making women scream at the slightest hint of danger. somehow male victims or terrified men in tv never shriek and wail. curious.

Yes.

I also think when two female characters contrast with each other, some fans have a hard time articulating how they contrast without reducing it to the old chestnut of “tomboy and girly girl.”

So they look at Elsa and Anna, and because Anna is the warm and affectionate one who dreams of romance, they decide that Anna is the girly girl and Elsa is the tomboy – even though with Anna’s feistiness, high energy, and inelegance, I would sooner call her more of a tomboy than Elsa. But really they’re both very feminine, just in different ways.

Or they call Elphaba a tomboy to Glinda’s girly girl in Wicked, which doesn’t ring exactly true either.

They seem to have trouble grasping that two girls can be completely different from each other yet both feminine at the same time.

Make your own life. In some way. Even if you come from money or you have parental support or there’s someone saying they’re willing to care of you.

Your brain and self esteem needs the satisfaction. It’s a human, adult need to feel some control and not under someone’s thumb and to feel like you own something of your own.

At the moment there seems to be this push to treat having kids and raising kids as a fulltime job - including school age children. I’m not convinced that this is what we need. What I’ve seen from the women in my life is that the issues with being a stay at home mum extend beyond being under appreciated & that participation in the workforce outside of the home is extremely valuable.

There’s a quote that’s something like people complained about their lords being bad before they complained that there shouldn’t be lords in the first place. I’m butchering it but the proper version is in a Redstockings paper somewhere.

Relatedly, I am very skeptical of messaging that treats the outside world as a super scary place for women where you are constantly in danger in part because it incentives women to place a higher value on this kind of set up where they can “be taken care of” than it merits.

This is what patriarchy has traditionally offered to women: fall in line, obey, do your woman role correctly, and you will not have to deal with external dangers and hardship.

Exaggeration of the risks outside and downplaying of the risks inside the family both fuel that narrative

Thank you. I live with a 2 year old. I love her to death and enjoy her presence but raising children is boring and repetitive work. It’s not enough stimulation and variety to satisfy most people- if it’s the only thing they do.

https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/VermontAVcomplaint.pdf

The Vermont child welfare agency is to blame here, but so are all the healthcare professionals who colluded with the agency. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME in every state

The complaint overuses the phrase “pregnant Vermonters” to a hilarious degree, but does eventually acknowledge that DCF is committing sex discrimination

Like there’s a lot going on in the fucked up land of relationship discourse but a sizeable chunk of it is that a lot of people are not friends with their partners and that scares me.

Make your own life. In some way. Even if you come from money or you have parental support or there’s someone saying they’re willing to care of you.

Your brain and self esteem needs the satisfaction. It’s a human, adult need to feel some control and not under someone’s thumb and to feel like you own something of your own.

At the moment there seems to be this push to treat having kids and raising kids as a fulltime job - including school age children. I’m not convinced that this is what we need. What I’ve seen from the women in my life is that the issues with being a stay at home mum extend beyond being under appreciated & that participation in the workforce outside of the home is extremely valuable.

There’s a quote that’s something like people complained about their lords being bad before they complained that there shouldn’t be lords in the first place. I’m butchering it but the proper version is in a Redstockings paper somewhere.

Relatedly, I am very skeptical of messaging that treats the outside world as a super scary place for women where you are constantly in danger in part because it incentives women to place a higher value on this kind of set up where they can “be taken care of” than it merits.

This is what patriarchy has traditionally offered to women: fall in line, obey, do your woman role correctly, and you will not have to deal with external dangers and hardship.

Exaggeration of the risks outside and downplaying of the risks inside the family both fuel that narrative

Make your own life. In some way. Even if you come from money or you have parental support or there’s someone saying they’re willing to care of you.

Your brain and self esteem needs the satisfaction. It’s a human, adult need to feel some control and not under someone’s thumb and to feel like you own something of your own.

we won’t have the “de gendering” of clothing until folks have a collective lesson in dress theory on the “why’s” behind the gendering of clothing. WHY are dresses what women wear? WHY are heels what women wear? WHY do the clothes women wear so often necessitate the use of undergarments that reshape the body? what EFFECTS does this have on the body? HOW does it CHANGE the mobility of the body?

Like why does no one even ask why they *want* to dress like that. Where does that desire come from. Because it’s not comfortable. It’s not freeing. It doesnt make you desirable to anyone that will treat you like a human being. Dont you want to be sexual in a human way and not in a sex object way? Is anyone asking them to interrogate these things (maybe a therapist since they’re all seeing them - therapy is not negotiable in these social spaces) or have we all been bullied into shutting that part of our brains off.

being a woman who wants her theoretical kids to have her surname + isn’t open to hyphenations the reactions you get are very entertaining. men will look you in your eyes and be like “That Is So Selfish And Unreasonable. unlike what i want, which is quite literally the exact same thing. but you being a woman makes it icky and freakmode” it’s really funny to watch people turn themselves inside out about how much you’re being sooooo unreasonable by um. desiring something that the average man feels indelibly entitled to

okay so I finished Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861) by Harriet Jacobs, and here are my takeaways, because it was AMAZING and I can’t believe all US students aren’t required to read it in school:

• shows how slavery actually worked in nuanced ways i’d never thought much about
• example: Jacobs’s grandmother would work making goods like crackers and preserves after she was done with her work day (so imagine boiling jars at like 3 a.m.) so that she could sell them in the local market
• through this her grandmother actually earned enough money, over many years, to buy herself and earn her freedom
• BUT her “mistress” needed to borrow money from her. :)))) Yeah. Seriously. And never paid her back, and there was obviously no legal recourse for your “owner” stealing your life’s savings, so all those years of laboring to buy her freedom were just ****ing wasted. like.
• But also! Her grandmother met a lot of white women by selling them her homemade goods, and she cultivated so much good will in the community that she was able to essentially peer pressure the family that “owned” her into freeing her when she was elderly (because otherwise her so-called owners’ white neighbors would have judged them for being total assholes, which they were)
• She was free and lived in her own home, but she had to watch her children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren all continue to be enslaved. She tried to buy her family but their “owners” wouldn’t allow it.
• Enslaved people celebrated Christmas. they feasted, and men went around caroling as a way to ask white people in the community for money.
• But Christmas made enslaved people incredibly anxious because New Years was a common time for them to be sold, so mothers giving their children homemade dolls on Christmas might, in just a few days’ time, be separated from their children forever
• over and over again, families were deliberately ripped apart in just the one community that Harriet Jacobs lived in. so many parents kept from their children. just insane to think of that happening everywhere across the slave states for almost 200 years
• Harriet Jacobs was kept from marrying a free Black man she loved because her “owner” wouldn’t let her
• Jacobs also shows numerous ways slavery made white people powerless
• for example: a white politician had some kind of relationship with her outside of marriage, obviously very questionably consensual (she didn’t hate him but couldn’t have safely said no), and she had 2 children by him–but he wasn’t her “master,” so her “master” was allowed to legally “own” his children, even though he was an influential and wealthy man and tried for years to buy his children’s freedom
• she also gives examples of white men raping Black women and, when the Black women gave birth to children who resembled their “masters,” the wives of those “masters” would be devastated–like, their husbands were (from their POV) cheating on them, committing violent sexual acts in their own house, and the wives couldn’t do anything about it (except take out their anger on the enslaved women who were already rape victims)
• just to emphasize: rape was LEGALLY INCENTIVIZED BY US LAW LESS THAN 200 YEARS AGO. It was a legal decision that made children slaves like their mothers were, meaning that a slaveowner who was a serial rapist would “own” more “property” and be better off financially than a man who would not commit rape.
• also so many examples of white people promising to free the enslaved but then dying too soon, or marrying a spouse who wouldn’t allow it, or going bankrupt and deciding to sell the enslaved person as a last resort instead
• A lot of white people who seemed to feel that they would make morally better decisions if not for the fact that they were suffering financially and needed the enslaved to give them some kind of net worth; reminds me of people who buy Shein and other slave-made products because they just “can"t” afford fairly traded stuff
• but also there were white people who helped Harriet Jacobs, including a ship captain whose brother was a slavetrader, but he himself felt slavery was wrong, so he agreed to sail Harriet to a free state; later, her white employer did everything she could to help Harriet when Harriet was being hunted by her “owner”
• ^so clearly the excuse that “people were just racist back then” doesn’t hold any water; there were plenty of folks who found it just as insane and wrongminded as we do now
• Harriet Jacobs making it to the “free” north and being surprised that she wasn’t legally entitled to sit first-class on the train. Again: segregation wasn’t this natural thing that seemed normal to people in the 1800s. it was weird and fucked up and it felt weird and fucked up!
• Also how valued literacy skills were for the enslaved! Just one example: Harriet Jacobs at one point needed to trick the “slaveowner” who was hunting her into thinking she was in New York, and she used an NYC newspaper to research the names of streets and avenues so that she could send him a letter from a fake New York address

I don’t wanna give away the book, because even though it’s an autobiography, it has a strangely thrilling plot. But these were some of the points that made a big impression on me.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl also inspired the first novel written by a Black American woman, Frances Harper, who penned Iola Leroy. And Iola Leroy, in turn, helped inspire books by writers like Nella Larsen and Zora Neale Hurston. Harriet Jacob is also credited in Colson Whitehead’s acknowledgments page for informing the plot of The Underground Railroad. so this book is a pivotal work in the US literary canon and, again, it’s weird that we don’t all read it as a matter of course.

(also P.S. it’s free on project gutenberg and i personally read it [also free] on the app Serial Reader)

update!!!!

So Harriet Jacobs’s brother was named John Swanson Jacobs, and in her memoir she’s like “btw my brother ran away too.” But we don’t learn a lot about him.

Well, guess what? John Swanson Jacobs wrote a memoir, too. And it was rediscovered. Recently. It was published in full for the first time since 1850 last year, in 2024.

Harriet and John Jacobs both ran away, but they lived very different lives. Harriet Jacobs took a more “typical” path for a Black abolitionist of her era: She asked a white abolitionist to take the credit for her book, since otherwise it wasn’t going to get published/read (it was only proven in the 21st century that Harriet herself wrote it).

But John Swanson Jacobs?

He gave all of America the middle finger, became a sailor, traveled the world (the Caribbean, England, Russia, Ukraine, Thailand, India, all over), then ended up in Australia and got his memoir published in a newspaper in Sydney, where he didn’t need white people’s “permission” to publish it, didn’t have to accept the indignity of having a white editor, and didn’t need to pretend that he wasn’t really the author of his own book.

He called it The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots, referring to the 600,000 slaveowners living in the US.

Like, whoa.

The historian who discovered his memoir,,and wrote a biography on him, describes him as a man with “apocalyptic intelligence.”

It is so cool that this book exists. And it kinda sucks because I just know if it’d come out in 2020 people would have been all over it, but I haven’t seen it in any bookstores. I got my library to stock it; maybe you can request it at your library, too.

The new edition is annotated by Jonathan D. S. Schroeder, the historian who found Jacobs’s memoir in an 1850 Australian newspaper. He recommends–and I do too–reading Harriet and John Swanson Jacobs’s memoirs back-to-back, and the annotations in Six Hundred Thousand Despots highlight parts where the siblings’ books corroborate or differ from each other’s accounts, something I’m personally enjoying a lot.

The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots

So yeah. Our only extant fugitive slave narrative written by a world-traveling sailor who told all of America to fuck off and went to live his life. Very very cool book. 10/10 recommend.

to the olympic judges and also gods of sport who keep making it so that female athletes from the usa are way more successful than the male ones: thank u and keep it up

USA women stunningly outperforming men in Olympic medal count

“According to Nick Zaccardi of NBC Sports, it will be the sixth consecutive Olympics, both winter and summer, in which Team USA has achieved a grander total of both overall medals and gold medals in women’s events than in men’s events. The streak extends all the way back to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro.”

Marvelous ❤️

I feel like the obvious explanation here is the US’ college sports funding model encouraging more women to compete in sports than in other countries?

I could be missing something?

you’re totally right title ix is absolutely the single biggest factor. awesome law. in fact many female athletes even for other countries also competed in ncaa sports. not all olympic sports are widely available in the ncaa, like rugby and curling. but we have a very strong culture of women’s sports across the board

title ix is also unquestionably the reason for the uswnt’s total dominance at the women’s world cup. we’ve won half of all the women’s world cups ever. and there are a staggering number of ncaa athletes on other national teams as well. this is totally tangential to your point. it’s interesting bc ppl are saying the rest of the world is starting to catch up to uswnt. to an extent that’s true, we’re not as dominant right now as we used to be and certain countries like england and germany are starting to get bigger and stronger club based development for women’s soccer. but at the end of the day everything is totally dwarfed by the massive decentralized development engine of us college sports scholarships. that’s why us men’s soccer will probably always suck, hardly any men’s soccer in the ncaa. and while other countries love basketball, both the women’s and men’s us national teams continue to spank.

we’ll see how the new nil laws affect this. brand new factor shaking things up

it’s very difficult to have a productive conversation with somebody who finds great comfort in being a martyr. every single criticism of their actions (not them as a person!) somehow ends up a personal insult, an implication of their worthlessness and evilness. you have pointed out that the thing they did/said is bad for xyz reasons, and that’s the same as pointing out that they are a bad person who is always bad. obviously, the latter interpetation them greatly; nobody likes feeling like a bad person. coincidentally, however, being so hurt by your criticism allows them not to reflect on their words/actions and keep doing the thing you were criticizing them for. rinse and repeat until they’ve exhausted you, coming out of the discussion feeling even more perfect and tortured than they did before.

White men who blame male violence on immigrant men are interesting bc for one thing they’re wrong but additionally it’s like. Well it’s true that if an immigrant man never came to the US or the UK or Germany or whatever that he would not be abusing women there. But presumably he would be abusing women in his home country, and I’m not really sure how that’s an improvement

I’ve seen this on here too where implicitly the scope of feminism is only what happens in wealthy countries. Immigration is relevant only as “to” or deportation, never “from” except for how that predicts the traits of people arriving.

to the olympic judges and also gods of sport who keep making it so that female athletes from the usa are way more successful than the male ones: thank u and keep it up

USA women stunningly outperforming men in Olympic medal count

“According to Nick Zaccardi of NBC Sports, it will be the sixth consecutive Olympics, both winter and summer, in which Team USA has achieved a grander total of both overall medals and gold medals in women’s events than in men’s events. The streak extends all the way back to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro.”

Marvelous ❤️

I feel like the obvious explanation here is the US’ college sports funding model encouraging more women to compete in sports than in other countries?

I could be missing something?

Separately because the specific example isn’t really the point: everybody I think at this point understands that when the explanation for women’s absence from a job/field/role is “women are stupid” or “women are weak”, that’s sexism and gender essentialism.

I really wish it was as well understood that, in fiction and real life, when the explanation is “women are too smart to bother” or “women would be Too Good at this if they did it and then where would we be” or “women are too busy doing other more important things* to bother” that’s sexism and gender essentialism as well. Especially - extremely especially - if the thing they are allegedly too smart or potentially good at or busy to do is one that gives access to wealth, influence, and/or power.

See also: “oh the administrators/secretaries/low level staff (mostly women) actually run this place”. Okay but do they control the budgets though? Are they able to make important decisions without anybody else’s sign-off though? Are they paid commensurate to this alleged power though? Well, are they?

*double if the “more important things” are domestic labour or care work but I assume we all know that.

oh my goddddddddddd

me when i do not know what the patriarchy, misogyny, or femininity is

women 100 years ago should have just stopped being feminine so The Patriarchy™ (evil nebulous spirits) wouldnt have known who to oppress

@gendiebrainrotreceipts

yeah i just generally will more readily accept a story with no male characters than one where the male characters add nothing and are shoe-horned in or they serve no narrative purpose. like why do men have to be included in stories at all, it just seems unrealistic to expect to see men in everything

I just read “Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity, expression, and/or role does not conform to what is culturally associated with their sex” in a university textbook.

So every single gender non-conforming person is trans? Women who don’t perform femininity are trans? All men who wear makeup are trans? That’s what “expression” is.

And what about not conforming to roles? Is Malala trans because she wanted to go to school in a culture where a girl’s role was to remain uneducated? Are stay at home dads trans? Are female CEOs trans? Are all same sex attracted people trans?

The definition of what “trans” means has been expanded so much, and it’s come to basically just mean “anyone who doesn’t conform to rigid conservative gender roles”. That is regressive! We need to get rid of these cultural norms altogether, not enforce them by categorising people based on them. Ffs.

Another example:

“Transmasculine and gender-diverse (TMGD) individuals are those who identify as male, nonbinary, or otherwise gender-nonconforming and were assigned female at birth.”

Seen in: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026.01.036

So I guess the radfems who consider themselves gnc are transmasc.

However in the reference that goes to we have this:

“Gender Nonconforming: A person whose gender identity differs from that which was assigned at birth, but may be more complex, fluid, multifaceted, or otherwise less clearly defined than a transgender person.”

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/03/FB1

So a gender nonconforming female is transmasc but NOT transgender? Even though we are told that the gender identity doesn’t match sex which would seem to make them trans according to the transgender definition they use?

“I’m just a girl” okay. I’m a woman.