Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on trans woman

No extremist, manhating feminist has ever painted an uglier picture of men than the average man just casually talking about his own gender. Like men will just openly admit their “boys chats” and other locker room talk is way worse than the stuff that gets abusers and rapists convicted. They mock the concept of a man who’s remotely nice to a woman (these days it’s simp, before that it was whipped). They laugh at how unrealistic romance movies are because a man would never do any of those things for a woman in the real world. They’ll go into detail about their rape kinks if you let them. Most men are completely open about how awful they are, and they feel safe doing it because for some reason, most women won’t believe them. It’s a terrible thing the way a man will go “I’m a genuinely evil person” and women will immediately rush to say “awww I’m sure that’s not true! I bet you’re sweet and misunderstood underneath it all! I bet you’re joking! Ok, maybe you and all the men you know are like that, but not all of them!”

Your female socialization and your kind heart has you searching for a humanity in men that they don’t even pretend to have. Listen to men when they tell you who they are.

Also, on the topic of drag queens - they prance around dressed as women, but the money they earn from it doesn’t actually benefit they women they imitate in any way. Look at the famous drag queens - who do they employ as assistants? Men. Who do they buy their costumes from? Men. Who do they hire as backing dancers? Men. Violet Chachki created a digital show over lockdown with credits a minute long and there wasn’t a single woman involved. He didn’t hire a female choreographer or a female camera person or even a female coffee-getter.

They’re men, they’re male oriented, and they have male class consciousness.

Women were never created from men's ribs, not ever. It is HE who emerges from HER womb. Framing the father as the life giver is a patriarchal lie, it's not true.

If the men with power were not predators, it would be impossible for a woman to sleep her way to the top.

I understand all theories and psychological ideas behind analysis of serial killers but I must point out that lots of women get abandoned or abused in childhood but very rarely grow up to brutalize, slaughter, torture other people

mother ♡ she’s so beautiful

carl sagan said in contact that one measure of a relationship's intimacy is in how many of each person's sub-personas can see and commune with each other. and that hit. do you wanna see if our inner children want to play together 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺

i want female only sports, including chess. i also want female only book clubs and female only karaoke nights and female only whatever women want to enjoy without the threat of men breathing down their necks. it's not about physical or mental superiority and more about me just wanting one place where i don't have to deal with sexists and chauvinists, especially when im doing something i love.

why does every job want you to have a drivers license… cant you want me for my loving nature

i hate that women and girls just have to carry so much trauma as a group and are expected to not change that. not challenge that. just accept it. and we don’t even talk about it most of the time.

i know we joke a lot during misandry hours, but the fact of the matter is men aren't inhuman. they do have convictions and conscience. they do have love and compassion. they are capable of immense kindness, thoughtfulness and empathy. they are very often curious and intelligent.

the difference is they don't think of women as having any of those things hence don't extend the moral consideration they would extend toward "fellow human beings". they genuinely view women as animals. and how do they view animals? as primitive. infantile. not as evolved or cultivated. mostly mindless hence mostly incapable of suffering. they don't have as much mind and their "self" is weak, so there is no memory or centralized experience, no history to the individual woman.

the same way a man can have a dog and slaughter a screaming chicken is the same way he can be a loving husband to his wife and still rape an underage girl. it's how they've all lived for so long that it's not contradictory to their behavior.

so him being nice to "his women" isn't proof you're safe with him. him demonstrating any virtue to others still isn't proof you're safe with him. him being devout to a "kind loving god" is not proof you're safe with him. him humouring you on anything isn't proof you're safe with him. him being gnc is not proof you're safe with him.

his humanity does not mean he sees you as human as well. it is nowhere near a guarantee. please understand this.

Males know they're not superior.

if woman means sex to men and society, femaleness becomes pornography. it then becomes necessary for the good of the public that little girls be put in dresses, forced to cover their shoulders, heads or knees in a church or mosque. mothers banned from public breastfeeding. female features, like cellulite, periods, body hair, become offensive. affairs for privacy.

the fact that men see women as primarily sex first and not as people shows in every facet of society. that a woman cannot befriend, think, dress, behave or speak without it being interpreted as sexual. how we dress as women and girls is always about our sexual character and never ourselves or our self-expression. are we married, of mature mating age, innocent, feminine and sexually chaste, sluts, lesbians? this is what clothes on women are discussed as. women’s clothes and bodies aren’t allowed to be as neutral as men’s are. there simply isn’t all those politics surrounding maleness or men’s fashion.

our clothes are political because our bodies are political. our femaleness must be masked, regulated, categorized publicly, and unmasked privately. because men think of us pornographically, in their world, the world which we live in, femaleness can only mean porn, never humanity or simple womanhood. it is offensive, must remain private and only allowed to be about men’s sexual excitement.

i'm really struggling to get my head around the pushback against the cass review, like shouldn't you guys be happy that someone took the time to line all this stuff up for you? wouldn't you like to know well ahead of time that you might be signing up for a treatment that has major issues with the evidence supporting it? isn't it a net positive for the community that these issues are pointed out now and addressed, rather than sweeping them under the rug for thirty years?