machokerr:

radicalvalfre:

machokerr:

parliamentaryinquiry:

afrodyketee:

terfs-hate-women:

radicalvalfre:

kimberlé crenshaw (a black woman) did not coin the the term intersectional feminism for you people to attack black women for not being ’intersectional’ when they wear ”the future is female” t-shirts

This is a true statement. She also did not coin the the term intersectional feminism for you people to exclude trans women from feminism. The future is female, and that includes black females as well as white ones, trans females as well as cis ones.

Intersectional feminism has nothing to do with anything besides race. Ms Crenshaw made her ideology soley because of the exclusion of black women in feminism. Her essay on intersectionality is LITERALLY called “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” You guys took a term made by a black woman for other black women trying to understand the intersection of race and misogyny and made it into something completely different. Intersectional feminism was never about transwomen, disabled women or non-black women. The movement which you support, which is nothing but racism and white superiority, STOLE from a black woman.You know NOTHING about intersectional feminism. Read the link provided, please.

https://isreview.org/issue/91/black-feminism-and-intersectionality

let’s not forget that Crenshaw has said repeatedly that “intersectionality is not about identity, but about systems and power” and if you can’t read that as “ ‘identifying’ as a woman doesn’t take away the systemic power granted to males and in fact a males ‘identity’ means absolutely nothing bc this is about lievd reality” then idk why you’re even bothering to engage with feminism.

trans women are not males and u need to knock it iff with your misgendering bullshit.. we do not benefit from male priviledge, we suffer from being be coercively assigned CAMAB at birth and assumed to be m*le.. our suffering is closer to women’s suffer than to men’s sufering and that’s why exluding us from your feminism is violence

if they’re not male then they wouldn’t be trans women, they would be cis women (female).

people that are perceived as men absolutely do benefit from male privilege.

you aren’t ”coercively assigned” your birth sex and saying so is insensitive towards intersex people [x].

how is trans women’s suffering “closer” to the suffering of cis women? could you explain how issues such as female genital mutilation, abortion, and objectification of the female body are issues faced by trans women? [x]

feminism is for females. this fact is not “violence.”

words like “male” and “female” have gendered meanings behind them so you just misgendered every single trans woman in the world when you called them m*le.. you shold apologize for that right now..

i was coercively assigned CAMAB at birth, reality is not insensitive..

trans women get genitally mutilated, ever heard of circumcision?? we can get our babies trashed without having any say, so we know what abortion is like.. our bodies are a fetish object so i think we’re very well familiar with being objectified.. plus, we get MURDERED for not being cis

if feminism is for females, then it includes trans women.. not doing so is misgendereing and yes, misgendering is VIOLENCE

The problem with this definition of intersectionality is that it focuses heavily on the victims of violence, but is quite exclusionary towards the perpetrators. You can’t prioritise one side of the equation without the other. Brave, identity-fluid males with histories of “violence” such as myself are being told that feminism isn’t for us, and that’s problematic for so many reasons.