Decriminalising abortion.

Oh god twitter feminists don’t you realise all your blather about baybeees confers – like it or not – personhood on pregnancies you are not carrying.

Only a pregnant woman can decide if her foetus is “a baby”

Think about it, if a foetus is only a person if it’s normal and healthy, then what are you saying?
And if a foetus is always a baybeee – thus legally a person – then what are the implications for choice, what are the implications for women carrying the desperately unwell and doomed?

A pregnant woman is the only person who can confer personhood. She does not – beyond the control of her own body and pregnancy- do this with legal standing.

Whilst she cannot be forced to carry or abort against her will, the law is clear.
A foetus becomes a baby – a person- upon parturition. Not before.

This has worked well in the U.K. , and the desperate act of self induced abortion we have just seen prosecuted did NOT involve a more than one person, legally or in any other way.
She did not abort a “baybee” no matter how we personally feel about it.
And I am speaking about the subject as one who has been pregnant and birthed, and who has had ethical constraints.

Women who’ve been prosecuted under the OAPA/1861[*which, as far as I’m aware, has not been repealed, thus certain provisions such as against poisoning will likely stand] as inflictors, not as victims.
Just the same way as attempted suicides were prosecuted as inflictors (as in self murder).

In both cases, their victims deserve mercy. If she hand forced RU486 down another’s throat, stealthed it or acted as a back street butcher, that is one thing.
Just as going up to a third party and stabbing them.

But when victim and perp are the same person, we have mercy for **suicide attempts, but not this.

But – as with suicide- no material third person acted here.

Inflicting unsupervised self abortion in such a dangerous manner is akin to attempted suicide, and we can create merciful laws which not only recognise this, but retain the parts of OAPA/1861, which protect women and their foeti against the third party.

If this is impossible, then how did we manage to separate suicide from murder, without decriminalising murder?

And if it is impossible because baby – AKA person – is involved, then you either dehumanise another’s foetus on her behalf – a dangerous thing – or you confer personhood on all foeti, regardless of the choices of ALL pregnant women.

Which is why we do not have foetal personhood in U.K. law. It cannot be arbitrarily granted in law, it has to apply to all. Thus it cannot apply to any.
And forced abortion – whether inflicted by poison, bodily harm, or even consentingly administered by any unqualified third party – will remain illegal regardless. It does not require foetal personhood.

There was no third party here. Just as with **suicide .

What quality has mercy?

• Unconsented medical procedures are illegal,people. This will be no different.
• * And I mean suicide, not “assisted dying” which is an oxymoron within the actual definition of suicide.

Voluntary Euthanasia is NOT legally akin to abortion, and consent should NEVER nullify Jurisprudenctial oversight.

I keep seeing voluntary euthanasia likened to abortion, that if one should remain unlawful due to coercion, so should the other, as they both “kill a person”

Bear in mind this. Foetal personhood did not exist in U.K. law before the 1967 Act. And still does not.

And if a woman is coerced – or obtains a termination outside of the auspices of the act – she remains alive to either seek, or face, justice.
Some of the punitive tariffs being equal those applied to other similar crimes.
Because abortion – even though no person in law dies- remains illegal outside the aforementioned auspices.

Whereas self suicide is not illegal , but may be subject to coroner referral to criminal investigation, if such circumstances such as coercion or abetting are suspected.

One clause in the proposed act, lays out that a voluntary euthanising will not be subject to coroner oversight, thus elevating it above self suicide, factors such as coercion not only brushed aside, but effectively decriminalised.

How can we have laws against coercion re abortion and self suicide, but not voluntary euthanasia- AKA “assisted suicide”?

What does this mean re the implications as regards unlawful abortions – such as ones induced by stealth poisoning- as per the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861?

I seriously do not know.
But it’s a specious and dangerous analogy, to compare a possible crime where there’s a living victim – with one where there cannot possibly be the same, in order to erase the latter as a potential crime, or to remove women’s consent.

But it is clear that it looks as though Leadbeater copypasted her act from Dr Steel’s 1967 Act, without any regard to the fundamental differences between an act which preserves a person to seek/face justice -or go on to have wanted pregnancy, or not- and one which purely seeks to codify an absolute finality as above jurisprudence(see pic) once consent is signed.
Especially when this does NOT apply to any other procedure, including abortion, even when consent is obtained.

And I don’t think it can end well. Consent should NEVER nullify jurisprudence.

Even as a layperson re the law, this proposal terrifies me.

On Princess Catherine, prurient entitlement and its resulting incandescent rage when thwarted.

I don’t understand people, and the questions they feel entitled to ask.

I’m still reeling from the incandescent rage I myself was once subjected to , for refusing to disclose details of someone’s intimate medical care, which an interlocutor felt entitled to ask, without a hint of ikk.

Even though I explained that – not just was refusal a routine matter of privacy and dignity – it was also that a layman might not fully understand it, and, using google, may conjecture up all sorts of lurid imaginings, and then catastrophise, my explanation was labelled a “tirade”.

Even though I assured this person that I would daily update them on progress, and any major developments.

This does not include information on whether the subject was aided in voiding, or what they’ve otherwise output,or how.
Yes, that particularly unsavoury information was also sought.

If anyone reading this feels I was being unreasonable – and while I sure hope their metrics of patient confidentiality, dignity, and advocacy, never become the norm – may I assume they’ll never require someone to protect them from unsavoury curiosity, or uphold their dignity and privacy?

Moreover, will they sign a release form, to that end?

No, I expect not. Nor should they feel compelled to. It is another strata of the concept of consent. I cannot assume anyone’s, or give theirs away.

But to this day, my very banal adherence to fuck1ng BASIC ethics, has resulted in a spiteful and ongoing silence from my interlocutor.

Medical confidentiality regulation are not there to thwart the righteous, nor is consent.
Couching morbid curiosity in the sanitising language of “tHe PUblIck InTERest”- when such matters are down purely to being interested – rather than an issue which may affect societal cohesion, or national and international security, is disingenuous.

If someone of admittedly high privilege is not entitled to medical privacy, then that has implications for us all.

*not the same as silly memes. Don’t get excited now.

On Princess Catherine, prurient entitlement and its resulting incandescent rage when thwarted.

I don’t understand people, and the questions they feel entitled to ask.

I’m still reeling from the incandescent rage I myself was once subjected to , for refusing to disclose details of someone’s intimate medical care, which an interlocutor felt entitled to ask, without a hint of ikk.

Even though I explained that – not just was refusal a routine matter of privacy and dignity – it was also that a layman might not fully understand it, and, using google, may conjecture up all sorts of lurid imaginings, and then catastrophise, my explanation was labelled a “tirade”.

Even though I assured this person that I would daily update them on progress, and any major developments.

This does not include information on whether the subject was aided in voiding, or what they’ve otherwise output,or how.
Yes, that particularly unsavoury information was also sought.

If anyone reading this feels I was being unreasonable – and while I sure hope their metrics of patient confidentiality, dignity, and advocacy, never become the norm – may I assume they’ll never require someone to protect them from unsavoury curiosity, or uphold their dignity and privacy?

Moreover, will they sign a release form, to that end?

No, I expect not. Nor should they feel compelled to. It is another strata of the concept of consent. I cannot assume anyone’s, or give theirs away.

But to this day, my very banal adherence to fuck1ng BASIC ethics, has resulted in a spiteful and ongoing silence from my interlocutor.

Medical confidentiality regulation are not there to thwart the righteous, nor is consent.
Couching morbid curiosity in the sanitising language of “tHe PUblIck InTERest”- when such matters are down purely to being interested – rather than an issue which may affect societal cohesion, or national and international security, is disingenuous.

If someone of admittedly high privilege is not entitled to medical privacy, then that has implications for us all.

*not the same as silly memes. Don’t get excited now.

Womb transplants, and why we must reject the emotive.

So the “iTS tHe SCieNCe” GC milieu are all hair on fire about uterus transplants.

While it’s legitimate to hold it’s an abomination – we may or may not agree – it is not to assert that anti rejection drugs must harm a foetus, or there’s no long term knowledge of the effects of such.

The latter is simply erroneous, as there’s adults out there walking amongst us – who’s mothers had the likes of kidney transplants, for instance – and it’s easily googled.

Uterus transplants are incredibly rare, I can think of only two off bat, both from a donor closely related to the recipient.
And they are expensive – far more so than IVF per Tx – and do not save lives.

So – apart from ethical issues – I cannot see them being provided in the NHS, as NICE would not approve due to the huge disparity between cost and benefit.

And since organ donation – even in the private sector in the U.K. – is heavily regulated, I do not see people being able to buy a uterus in some market type deal, it is illegal.
Much less so any male.

Not for a long while, so we have years to oppose such.

But as with objections as regards pharmaceutically induced mle galactorrhea, we must refrain – google first – and approach the subject from an accurate and scientifically robust stand point, and refrain from religious adjacent sounding language.

The latter can never lend credibility, any more than flinging words round such as “pus” or telling teens their father is a “peedoh” and “prevert”.

*I mean as a feminist I have issues with the whole fertility industry. Apart from the fact it’s medically a high risk set of procedures – such as ovarian overstimulation- it often fails, at great financial and emotional cost. And egg donors have suffered embolisms and died.
We cannot donate blood for coin, but women’s reproductive abilities have a price?

Such an industry not only breaks hearts and kills, but reinforces the paradigm of full womanhood being an absolute inseparable from motherhood.
I know of women put through great pain because of that, esp after miscarriage or failed IVF. It’s rancid and no feminist should support that, esp if we reject language such as “uterus havers” “birthing people” or (UGH) “breeders”.
If we reject that language, we must also reject any paradigm which places the value of womanhood into similar reductive tropes.

And don’t start me on surrogacy. From babies in the rubble of UKraine and Nepal – their “rescuers” leaving the mothers to rot in that rubble – to the babies rejected due to sex or disability, I despise the whole gosh darn shebang. It’s people trafficking. Ends/.

And Just Like That, middle aged women are creepy men. Or how to tell a script was written by a man.

You know what’s really annoyed me about the scene in And Just Like that, whereby middle aged women ogle a teen boy in a high school?

It’s not that that has literally never happened. It literally hasn’t .
Anymore than there’s women with restraining orders keeping them away from staring at school kids/boys.

The tsunami of sexulised acting out toward even female staff – in schools – is not being enacted by mothers and daughters. In corridors. As if nothing is going on.

It’s not that there aren’t women who’ve been involved in paedophilia. There have been. It’s very rare and always seems to be at the behest of a man they’re trying to keep, but it has happened.

It’s that those women are portrayed as no better than the types who do stare at school kids. The whole thing is written to present the female gaze as no less predatory and overt than the male.

I mean it can be. At The Chippendale’s etc. but those are adult men.
And no, I’m not going into the structural differentials between them, male strippers at a hen do, and lap dancing.
Suffice to say one wonders how many male strippers have found themselves “unable to escape” due to the knowledge that if they try, they will suffer a maim?

What’s flipped my switch is that it was written by a man, projecting onto women, how men behave – and do so without an iota of self awareness – and people are capering about like gibbons as if women really are ogling teenage schoolboys, up and down schools everywhere.

As if a man writing essentially male pattern characters/reality.
“Ugh women are just as bad look look”

Yes sure there’s women who abuse positions of power and trust, and – to their victims – they’re just as bad.
But where’s the female PC Couzens? Where’s the female Yorkshire Ripper?
Where are the German industrial units full of cubicles containing trafficked Eastern European men, barely making rent?
Where’s the lesbians/bi womwn killing their female partners at the rate of two a week?

Of course the scene is repulsive but it’s not got ANY foundation in reality, and I don’t know any women who’ve laughed at it.
The fact we are not laughing should be enough, but we have to go about performing revulsion as if such a thing was a thing, in case anyone thinks our stony silence equates to the same accepting shrug at men “being men”- at things which ARE things – innit?

Meanwhile, everyone still be shrugging at Game Of Thrones, thereby unwittingly proving that male violence remains banal.

While women have to perform gratuitous nausea at something we’d never do, instead of being allowed – AGAIN – to express nausea at the lie, and to turn our furious faces upon patriarchy and demand he cleans his own house, prince of lies and filth he is.

Misogynist myths and the phenomena of “gender critical” feminists uttering the same as the pro-birth right. What’s going on?

I can’t help but wonder about the timing of so called feminists positing that abortion is harmful to women, using hyperbolic rhetoric such as “abortion is a violence, a desperate form of violence inflicted by a woman , first of all, herself”. See pic.

And including comments such as “women do not have choices when they cannot choose to be penetrated”

First off, the former is hyperbolic. While some women may feel violested by the need for an abortion, esp one they did not want or anticipate wanting, such language plays into not the narrative that mn are ultimately responsible, but that it is a female crime(and must be stopped).

And what of women who choose to be penetrated? Whilst that full sentence implies penetration as to mean unplanned pregnancy, words have meanings.
Penetration is just that, nothing else, nothing more.

Or is a rape which does not result in a pregnancy not a penetration?
Is being heterosexual “choosing” to be penetrated [impregnated, by implied meaning] by mn and – if so – are het women complicit in this “violence”, having made themselves pregnant?
And – the latter being the case – does this imply that het women know what they need to do, to avoid that violence?

I wish I hadn’t seen – after Roe Versus Wade was struck – rhetoric and posts which suggested exactly that. That all women needed to do was keep their knees together.

From feminists. Sounding exactly like Amy Coney Barrett and her ilk. Feminists.
But I did and I am and I will no doubt see more, on social media and in politics.

Back to violence. I can see there may be an intention behind the assertion, to imply that mn inflict this.
But that’s not what’s exactly said, and words have meaning.

The assertion that “liberal” feminists play down this “violence” , “treat it lightly” order that mn “can continue to demand their prerogative “

Again blames women. YES it does.

No feminist on the planet takes abortion as anything less than a DEADLY serious matter.
This assertion that some feminists gad about treating abortion as some inconsequential matter – so they can carry on enabling mn to exact their droit de seigneur[the traitors] – is not very far removed from the RW trope that women who support easily accessible contraception and abortion , are simply promiscuous, vacuous, “Sluts”. Collaboratrises, no less.

No feminist I know plays down the subject to benefit mn.

I will not call abortion a crime against women- rather than address what crimes may necessitate it’s need.
I will not accuse women of self inflicted violence. I will not insinuate het women as harlots who need just cross their legs , lest they be simply getting what they asked for.
That they’re enabling mn, thus exonerating the mn in question.

I don’t want to sound EXACTLY like ACB and her ilk, when women are STILL fighting for repro autonomy all over the globe, and when women are STILL dying in their millions worldwide, for want of access to that.

I am NOT pro choice so mn can get their ends away. You’ve got to be a total fule to imagine they’d stop exacting their aforementioned ‘droit” to penetrate if women – or girl children – couldn’t avoid unwanted birth.
That evidence provided by the occurrence of a pregnancy, or arrival of a baby, would be a deterrent.

I’ve news for you, there’s cemeteries, riverbeds, lake beds, convent gardens, rubbish dumps – and countless more locations – littered with the revenants of women, girls, babies and foetuses.
Giving witness to the fact that mn have never cared whether or not there’s evidence of their crimes.

Kindly stop that misogyny right there.
Especially when women in in a number of industrialised democracies – who assumed repro autonomy was a done deal – are now finding out again what it’s like to be told they have to be on the brink of death, before Drs feel legally safe to evacuate miscarriages.

Can we talk about repro violence without laying it at the feet of feminists, and calling that feminism? Can we not link arms with the right?

As to het women “knowing” “what they need to do”?

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

And I’m not sure what Renata Klein is trying to do when she peddles oft promulgated RW myths as regards mifepristone, or the abortion pill (as RU 486) is colloquially termed

“The magic remedy that we keep hearing about, from the National Women’s Health Network to Elisabet Warren and VP Kamala Harris, is “pill abortion.” Proclaimed to be “safe and effective,” it can be obtained via a telehealth consultation, with pills sent in the mail.
Such messaging is misleading and dangerous. The Supreme Court has removed access to safe abortions, but “pill abortion” exposes women to serious adverse effects that should not be dismissed as individual mishaps. RU486 (Mifeprex) and PG (prostaglandin) abortion often results in incomplete terminations that must be followed up by a vacuum aspiration, or otherwise it can lead to sepsis and the woman’s death.”

Ehttps://4w.pub/pill-abortions/?fbclid=IwAR3I0c-nCGFHR9fkwwmN8O_NMDAt9koMWmerOZXQAozVX_41F4E78HGpqMo .

This medication has been used – and proven safe – for the last 32 years, in the U.K.

But to imagine it’s wholly coincidental to the RW – anti feminist/anti woman – infiltration of so called “gender critical” circles, with their often equally genderist view of “what a woman is” , would be naive at best.

Abotion is not a maim, or the tool of the “het handmaiden”, nor is the het women the source of all her own woes.

But if you’re aligning the actual collaboratoratrises, the women who oppose choice, vaunt traditional families, utter incomprehensible patriarchal myths about what mn will and not do, if they cannot avoid pregnancy in women , because you share one common enemy, you might be.

Another territory astroturfed, chewed up , spat out, by the global mic session that is Kellie Jay – content creator and overall merch pedlar – Keen Minshul

Oh Australia, what has she done to you…

Here’s the Daily Mail – a prominent tabloid voice of the Right in the U.K. – listing the actions which make her look far right. At this point, the damage she is doing can no longer be mitigated or gaslit away.

I know lots of women (and a cohort of men, impressed by “sassy little ladies”) think she’s great, but wake up and smell the coffee. Her constant contraversialism is making the GC movement look awful. 

Her key message may be right – and she couldn’t have done so much good if it wasn’t – or hoodwinked so many.

But the whole far right flirtation has just made her look ridiculous. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11883261/amp/How-transphobe-Kellie-Jay-Keen-aka-Posie-Parker-caused-controversy-Australian-tour.html

So I’ll say it again, nobody sensible holds her responsible for the actions of men. What she IS responsible for – however – is what she says and how she responds.

She will have to repeat – and with sincerity – her visa saving statement about nzis – for as long as she has remained stonily silent on the far right’s glomming over her , before most will see any reason whatsoever to offer the slightest credence to the often vitriolic denials of her followers , as regards her leanings.

And even the mainstream far right, such as Tucker Carlson and crew, don’t associate with nzis.  

My memory goes back to Jellie Kay, manoeuvring and dividing – before banners etc – before the never needed (as a predicted as castration is a medically accurate term, so didn’t donate – phew) “legal fund”. Before all of that.

I will not call her a Nzi apart from that being highly problematic in any event. And I will not use her terminology, such as calling others b1tches, or sad little lesb1an , or paedophile supporters. I will remind you – any of you who call yourselves feminist- that she openly despises feminism, and by extension you.

I will let her label herself.

I just pity the Oz feminists – particularly in Hobart – who are already having to regroup, after her astroturfing modus operandi has once again left a trail of destruction, as it did in Brighton , Edinburgh et al.

About them optics , the optics we are increasingly tarred with? Don’t say we didn’t…

And if you declare that you’d “work with the devil himself”, don’t be surprised when his minions turn up

Even though Depp has won the court of public opinion, #IBelieveHer

Since I’ve spoken – re Depp V Heard – women have come forward, disclosing things they’ve experienced at the hands of violent mn.
Strong, intelligent, women.
Strong intelligent women, reporting they cannot speak out, for fear of disbelieving gossips, whom – during this time – they have come to believe are the majority.

I have no skin in the game, no experience of domestic violence to report.
But I know – to a point I can place bets – that some out there do attribute my stance to being “damaged” “that way”.
Having ishoos.
It’s easier to attribute my motives to trauma and neurosis, than address why a woman wouldn’t join in malicious and prurient gossip.

I have never denied that women can abuse, all I’ve ever pointed out is three crucial things, which are, in no order of importance;

1- Abuse literally means the ab/use of a structural power, be that strength, riches, or rank.
The definition of abuse is that – for ab/use to occur, an im/balance of power must exist.
So mutual abuse cannot scientifically exist – think that’s Newtonian physics but I’ll stand happily corrected. 2- Why men can leave but women can’t. It’s nothing to do with trauma bonding.

2a – The most dangerous time in an abused woman’s life – other than when she is pregnant – is when she is in the process of leaving her tormentor, or after she has left.
This is not an opinion it’s a fact acknowledged by the MOJ, DPP, and countless other orgs.
There are no corresponding figures for men, as female tormentors – as equally egregious as they are – are simply not murdering mn.

2b – contrary to common belief (and taken from a mn’s abuse charity) mn DO report, and as frequently – and at a lower threshold – and nor are they as stigmatised by society.
While all victims often experience a sense of shame, mn aren’t shamed as much as women, because- whan mn experience abuse – it is seen by society as “worse”.
We have seen this also played out – in the court of public opinion – through the lens of Depp V Heard.

3 – That – so soon after #meetoo – public opinion has reverted to the tropes so often attempted by unethical defence lawyers, in rape trials (in no order of frequency)
[ I address this in brackets where relevant re this case]

3a – she isn’t acting how we believe a victim should
[newflash, special victims orgs will tell you nope]

3b – she goaded him
[dont fight with mn,ladies]

3c – she’s after his money
[divorce settlement rather refutes that]

3d – she’s mentle
[victims trend to come across as traumatised, like d*h]

3e – she’s mutually abusive
[scientifically impossible, see above]

3f – the “woman scorned”
[who’s suing who, five times now]

3g – women who don’t report contemporaneously, must be liars when they eventually do.
[Never mind she did report on one occasion, in order to get a restraining order]
[ See also, “failure to report harms real victims/reporting harms real victims”…..
….we see you, you mixed up kids]

3h – she’s defamed him.
[by not naming him, that was a British tabloid – the Sun- and a High Court Judge found against him]

3i – allegations destroy mn, so hers are, for that malicious intent
[yeh, women can’t resist being absolutely shredded by the mn they’ve destroyed, and their supporters]
[see also Eleanor DeFreitas, and Ched Evan’s – alleged/usual caveats – victim, who now lives under a new identity, protected by the police]

3j – she’s an actress
[so is acting]
[women are, yanno]
[mn aren’t, so – despite being an actor – Depp isn’t acting]

3k – nobody believes mn, so this is important
[everybody believes mn, which is why this is important]

Whoever prevails in court, Depp has won.
If we believe women, this will not alter that.
If we don’t, we now have an excuse, a totem to wheel out.
If we hide behind “real” victims, all we are revealing is that we don’t really believe real victims exist.

While I know mn can be abused, I also know this is being leapt on – as #mentoo, and in the name of equality – to erase the reality of victim and offender, in a colossal act of DARVO.

I believe women, when they come to me and say they’re now scared to speak out.
I believe women when they report. And this doesn’t mean I don’t believe men or can’t have an open mind. Stop that.

BUT

#ibelieveher

Trans men are no danger to men, quit making sh*t up.

Another thing I pondered – apart from how soon it would be before covidiots would link the Astra Zeneca vaccine to monkeypox – was how long would it be before men started making out they’re being harassed and abused – by trans men – just as much as women are abused and harassed by mn.

This week how long. For both.

Twitter thread of how trans men are just as toxic and abusive – and as dangerous – as actual men.

Now, I can – and will and always have – concede that any individual, if in possession or a structural power – can abuse that power. However, for trans men to abuse power, they’d have to be in such a position (teacher, boss, carer….yadayada) or be actually male. I need not say the rest, as to belief.

This leads me to the following conclusions. 

That men are yet again pain chasing, and this is just another version of women are just as bad as men” . The age old patriarchy DARVO, notably at play over the Heard case.

That it’s coming from quarters famous for calling women “fish” on one corner, and searching porn sites for “Ukrainian girl refugee”, on the other – yet NOT from the corner disdained equally by both others- is telling.

If trans men *were* men – and just as predatory – why are women largely unconcerned and unafraid? (We should be, but for reasons unconnected with assumed maleness, which I’ll come to.)

That – therefore –  there’s no truth in it (all the usual caveats repeated), but it’s a needful fiction. One purporting that trans men have male privilege.

Both corners need to believe that, the eternal victim AND the eternal seeker of male priv. It suits all three corners of the woman hate triangle , thusly – 

                                    Straight misogyny 

                         Gay misogyny    Female misogyny 

It also leads me to posit that the above triangle becomes a square when we add trans women , and address how – within that square – there’s nowhere near the concerted campaign to remove from men the language (and it’s meaning) of manhood.

Men are not being reduced to a sum of parts. We are not seeing “prostate people” or “small gamete provider” gaining hold – and the term “man” disappear – the way we are seeing the word “woman” vanish.

There’s no profit, in the misogyny square, in erasing manhood and it’s meaning.

– Misogynistic trans men need it because – without it – how can there be the privilege that comes with it, they so desperately crave?

– Misogynistic gay men need it because they need women to be as bad as men, or how to justify their misogyny?

– Misogynistic straight men need it, because they need women to be as bad as men, or how to justify their misogyny?

– Misogynistic women need it, or how can they justify the self hate that makes some believe they must be men?

– Misogynistic trans women need it for contrast. If men cease to be men – as we know it – how can their performative femininity make them women? Without that contrast, what are they ?

In short, the meaning and terminology of manhood isn’t being erased – the same way the same is of woman hood for the following reasons.

Patriarchy needs the switcheroo, even if requires men to suspend disbelief that women can be men.

Trans men need it, for priv of above.

Trans men desire part a in manhood, thus needing their actual womanhood erased.

Trans women desire to be *the* womanhood, thus needing our actual womanhood erased. 

Trans men are no danger to anyone, but women.