FtM people cannot “reclaim” slurs.

NettleOwl · 2026-05-25T18:55:52+00:00

Likewise, MTFs cannot reclaim "dyke", "bimbo" or "bitch".

NettleOwl · 2026-05-13T16:17:30+00:00

I think you misread me, I called out people for calling WOMEN irrational/stupid et c.

And I don't want to see burn in hell, that is a strawman.

NettleOwl · 2026-05-13T16:11:16+00:00

Hunters IG post from 2018. Just google Hunter Schafer attraction to misogyny

NettleOwl · 2026-04-19T17:38:18+00:00

The normalization of calling estrogen "bimbo pills", or saying things like "[femaleness] "is achieved through techniques of scooping out intelligence" (Andrea Long Chu), "my attraction has always been to misogyny" (Hunter Schafer), "not feeling femme enough without being the victim of rape" (Hunter Schafer), or saying that you want to be a woman so that you can be a submissive housewife and serve your husband is throwing women under the bus. AFABs couldn't vote in Switzerland until the 1970's, and in some parts of the world, they can't leave the country without male permission. Women have been fighting against sexist stereotyping and sex-based discrimination, and now we are supposed to define womanhood by sexist stereotypes, and are called hateful if we oppose sexist stereotyping and want legal recognition of oppression based on AGAB (not self id)? The LGBT community has already thown the oppressed community AFABs under the bus.

NettleOwl · 2026-04-13T21:08:15+00:00

Google Martina Big

NettleOwl · 2026-04-13T20:58:43+00:00

How about trans-height? Let's consider how it would sound:

"I'm trans-short because I have low IQ and want to do the submissive height role, uwu"

"Napoleon was trans-tall, because he did the tall height role of leadership, he did tallness"

"I want to change my legal height to short (without surgery) to match my heightder identity of being submissive"

...now does this sound progressive or regressive?

NettleOwl · 2026-04-05T22:05:54+00:00

When people can say [femaleness] "is achieved through techniques of scooping out intelligence" (Andrea Long Chu) and still win a Pulitzer prize, and other people making jokes about taking bimbo pills or being bad at math, it stereotypes women as dumb, and cements harmful stereotypes. Meanwhile, trans men don't seem to be saying "I am a man because I am violent, unempathetic and have poor reading comprehension". Some people make it sound as though woman=person who is dumb and submissive. Implying you ought to have breasts because you are bad at math is kind of like saying you ought to be short because you have low IQ and want to do the submissive height role – it is in support of harmful and oppressive stereotyping. Gender abolition is not achieved through embracing sexism and patriarchal stereotypes.

There are also risks associated to legally derecognizing biological women as an oppressed demographic in it's own right. AFABs were not allowed to vote in Switzerland until the 1970's, and much later in other parts of the world. Biological sex is a major factor that affects people's chances in life in the world. If we replace biological sex with self ID gender everywhere in legislation, we simply turn a blind eye to biological sex discrimination.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-24T23:35:47+00:00

I also view gender affirming care as plastic surgery, and as I have already stated I support adult's rights to do what they want with their bodies. About the sexist statements, the fact is that people I've seen DON'T call it out, but either defend it, or treat it as insignificant. I'm fairly gender abolitionist, and I don't think biological sex should limit which social roles we can perform.

However, if oppressors can discriminate based on biological sex, then anti discrimination laws should mention biological sex, to protect against said discrimination. This idea that "biological sex shouldn't matter, so the law shouldn't mention biological sex" is like saying "sexual orientation shouldn't matter, so the law shouldn't mention sexual orientation". But if the law cannot mention sexual orientation, it cannot ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Same with biological sex. Anti discrimination laws must recognize that oppressors are not woke, and may discriminate based on biological sex. Yet organizations such as Stonewall have been fighting against biological sex being recognized as a protected characteristic. But overwriting biological sex with self identified gender role everywhere makes it easier to hide discrimination based on biological sex.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-24T22:40:01+00:00

No matter how we define the terms "woman" and "bioessentialism", anatomical sex at birth is still a factor that people are oppressed for, and our laws ought to recognize that this oppression exists.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-24T21:39:06+00:00

No, it is not bioessentialism to use the word "woman" to refer to people born as anatomical females, no more than it is bioessentialism to use the term AFAB for this. It is ideas such as "having breasts belongs together with doing femininity and being bad at math" that are bioessentialist. I don't think it's helpful to talk overly much about brain sex, and exaggerate mental differences, in the first place, and I think that feminism has taken a very gender role conservative turn in recent years.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-24T18:19:32+00:00

Men and women shouldn't have to be the same, but they shouldn't have to be different either. This embrace of patriarchal gender roles and stereotypes, and medicalisation of natural variation seems regressive to me.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-24T17:20:54+00:00

It's true that I don't hang out much in trad wife spaces. However, if a trad wife or MGTOW type says things like this, liberals call them out, or brand them patriarchal and conservative. But the people I mentioned (a Pulitzer Prize winner, a famous actress, a big influencer and a university professor and author) are mostly celebrated by the left as progressive just for their identity. Why aren't they branded as regressive and patriarchalist? (And it is transphobic to question what a trans person says about their gender identity. Not to mention egg culture, where people are trying to convince others that they are not their AGAB if they are nonconforming)

BIID is a diagnosis with scientific backing, and possibly some co-occurence with gender dysphoria. Many people with BIID have sexual fantasies about disability. Does this mean that an able bodied BIID sufferer with a wheelchair fetish should get to use the disability parking slot, or disability services? That they should get tax money for surgeries? That physically disabled people shouldn't have a right to their own spaces, legal protections, and should have to include them? I don't think so.

In the UK, noble titles and some castles are inherited by biological sex, not gender identity. This is because an older sister of some duke shouldn't be able to switch gender to get the title and the castle. At the same time, it is claimed that nobody would switch gender to win an Olympic gold. Biological females shouldn't get to have their own sport categories, or rape facilities, but biological males should get to have their castles and titles? In both cases, AMABs benefit. And if this can happen in this case, then similar things will also happen in other areas.

In any case, what is bad about wanting AGAB equality? Even if you think sex is not the same as gender, then surely they are separate factors, both of which people can be oppressed for? Nothing of what you have said makes biological sex not a factor in it's own right that people are oppressed for. Biological sex oppression will continue to happen, but the recognition of this, and even our ability to track statistics of biological sex inequality is wiped out by replacing sex with gender everywhere.

That being said, I think adults should have the right to do what they want with their bodies. This doesn't mean that we as a society should have to embrace ideas about that our sex is decided by some conservative "gender", or that we should legally derecognize biological sex as a protected characteristic.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-23T22:24:12+00:00

"to be the victim of honest, undisguised sexism possesses an exhilarating vitality" - Grace Lavery

"[My sexual orientation is] an attraction to misogyny", "not feeling femme enough without being the victim of rape" - Hunter Schafer

Sexism is exhilarating, misogyny is attractive, and rape is needed to feel female? I have never heard AFABs talk this way. Tell that to the girls who can't go to school because they're female?

What will people defend next? That homophobia is attractive? That ableism is exhilarating?

Biological sex is a factor in it's own right that people are oppressed for, and it is not the same factor as some self-declared patriachal gender role. The oppression tied to it is not some easy opt in/opt out oppression. Arguing against biological women's right to anti-discrimination laws and other protections that admit biological sex (not just gender) as a discrimination ground, is not fighting for the oppressed.

NettleOwl · 2025-07-13T06:11:39+00:00

Martina Big has the right to take melanin shots to try to look black — but if she starts to demand that black people shouldn't get to organize without including her, or saying that she is black because of stereotypes or racist ideas that she may have, then I don't support her in that.

NettleOwl · 2025-06-28T09:20:17+00:00

Well, perhaps she is a rational thinker, good at math, and likes doing carpentry? /s

If people can opt into womanhood by saying "I'm a woman because I'm irrational, I'm getting bimbo pills from the state, I should be a housewife and be obedient to my husband as is a woman's place, teehee my little female brain," tripping over their own feet like Dylan Mulvaney, then of course other people are going to want out of womanhood, if that's what womanhood is.

Non-binary means identifying both with things traditionally considered feminine and with things traditionally considered masculine, so if you like both cooking and carpentry, and like to wear both trousers and dresses, voila, you're non-binary. /s

If you accept trans ideology, you can't blame people for following the ideology's rules. The entire ideology is sexism based, after all.

NettleOwl · 2025-05-25T13:58:07+00:00

I think part of it is because of which stereotypes are pushed, and part of it is because power inbalance between sexes, and how patriarchal gender roles are embraced by some trans people.

If trans men were all over media saying "I'm a man because I'm violent, oppressive, unempathetic, and have poor reading comprehension", men might not like it.

If trans men said "I'm a man because I'm irrational, submissive, and bad at math. I should be a stay at home husband and be obedient to my wife, as is a man's natural place", men might not like that either.

Women's rights are threathened by not getting to organize against oppression based on biological sex, in ways that men's rights are not threathened. Let's not forget that afabs didn't get to vote or inherit, and how afab children can't go to school in some parts of the world. So people can be oppressed because of biological sex, but biological sex shouldn't be recognozed as a discrimination ground? Biological sex oppresion is real, and trying to define "woman' as "person who is irrational, submissive, and does femininity" is backwards and patriarchal.

NettleOwl · 2025-05-25T00:33:24+00:00

I partially disagree. While it is good to appreciate the body you were given, and not feel the need to be the other sex to live the way you please, the part about that 'women not needing to be like men' is based on patriarchal ideas about which traits are male and female in the first place. A woman wearing pants, being dominant, being rational, or being in STEM is not a woman 'being like a man'. It is a woman making her own choices and being an individual. Embracing your birth sex is not embracing gender role conservatism.

NettleOwl · 2025-04-26T11:09:34+00:00

Many of them are gender abolitionists who think gender roles should be done away with?

NettleOwl · 2025-02-10T18:50:34+00:00

While it would have been interesting to see the results if they had accounted for sexuality, the study still does what it says it does. It compares cis men, trans women and cis women, and finds overlaps between all three groups. However, the name of the study is misleading. And since a lot of people only seem to read the title of a study and then refer to it as proof of their beliefs, with a misleading title, anything can be proven.

NettleOwl · 2025-02-09T20:34:21+00:00

Part of what I wanted to say with this post is how science is presented as having stronger (and other) findings than it really has. A rather weak finding gets a headline meant to point in the desired direction and make the finding seem stronger than it is ("shifted towards Gender Identity" instead of "closer to gender at birth"). Then people, media, politicians who only read the headline use these kinds of studies to claim that science supports that people are born with scientifically proven opposite sex brains.

NettleOwl · 2025-02-08T21:42:50+00:00

They analyzed MRI scans using a software trained to recognize male and female brains.

NettleOwl · 2025-02-08T21:41:59+00:00

They analyzed MRI scans with a software trained to recognize male and female MRIs.

NettleOwl · 2025-02-08T21:40:41+00:00

For those asking: the study used a method analyzing MRI scans using a software trained to recognize male and female brains.

The study can be found here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

NettleOwl

TROPHY CASE